Rules of accounting. - Right to salary. - Malversation.
The Children of Baillie Smith v. The Earl of Winton
1715. Case No. No 15.
Found as above.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In this action, as mentioned 1st and 3d December 1714, No 67. p. 526. the Lords having by their interlocutor of the 18th January 1715.
‘Found, That the short prescription could take no place, with respect to the salary of the two years not accounted for; did now also repel the prescription, as to what salaries were due preceding the late Earl's decease. And found that these salaries may be allowed by way of discharge in the accounts to be made preceding the said decease.’
There being also three periods of time condescended on, wherein Baillie Smith did manage, viz. 1mo, From the decease of the late Earl of Winton, in anno 1704, till the death of his second son Mr Christopher, (under whom the Baillie did manage) in anno 1705, being about ten months. 2do, From the decease of Mr Christopher, till Baillie Smith obtained a factory from the Lords of Session in anno 1706. 3tio, From the time of the present Earl's arrival in November 1707, till the Baillie's death in July 1710.
As to the first of these periods, having been proven, that the Baillie assisted Mr Christopher in the management of the estate for the space aforesaid, the Lords allowed him for his said assistance and service, and for his pains and expenses 200 merks per annum. But, as to the second and third periods, they found no salary due to the Baillie, and therefore assoilzied the Earl from that part of the libel. See Prescription.
Act. Falconer.Alt. Horn.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 288. Bruce, No 60. p. 74.
