The jurisdiction of the Court of Session does not extend to sums to be accounted for in another court.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Certain tradesmen having been employed in the years 1731 and 1732 by the Earl of Lauderdale and Mr Bruce, then General and Master of the Mint, to make pretty considerable repairs, a process was brought against the Lord Belhaven and Archibald Bothwell their successors, for payment of the accounts, as those in whose hands the public money was impressed for defraying the charges of the Mint, and which charges were alleged to be a burden, affecting not only the monies impressed for that year, in which such charges occurred, but also for subsequent years.
Some years ago the Lords had repelled the objection then made by Lord Belhaven to the competency of the Court, and sustained action; after which the cause went on, and the pursuers were allowed a proof of the articles of their accounts before answer: But application being now made for Archibald Bothwell, who had not before appeared, the Lords'sustained the objection to the competency, and found that the act of sederunt concerning, reclaiming bills did not take place in questions touching the jurisdiction of the Court; and therefore dismissed the action, leaving the pursuers to seek their remedy as accords.'
N. B.—The remedy with respect to the present officers of the Mint, was thought to be no other than an application to the Treasury, that being the Court to which only they were to account. That the employers qua such were liable there was no doubt.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 341. Kilkerran, (Jurisdiction.) No 3. p. 316.
