Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 PRIVILEGE.

Guildry of Dunfermline
v.
The Trades

1743, Nov. 24.
Case No. No. 5.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

We, 21st January, seemed all to agree that by law no craftsman can sell or retail any wares, even Scots, in burgh, without being guild-brother. 2dly, That the contract 1618 is effectual in Dunfermline, and they may retail Scots wares, but not foreign wares;—and we seemed to agree that a craftsman could not keep a shop for retailing wine to be drunk out of his house; but Arniston thought he might keep an ordinary, and sell either meat or drink, whether foreign or domestic, in his house. We appointed a hearing upon Wednesday.

The President seemed, when the cause was formerly in Court, to be the person that had greatest difficulty as to the opinion then given by Arniston, (to which I agreed) that the trades could keep taverns for retailing wine in their own houses; and now after the hearing, he declared he agreed to the opinion given; and therefore we suspended the charge, but agreed that they could not retail wine to be retailed out of their own houses 26th January.

Upon a reclaiming bill against the interlocutor of 26th January, averring that in Edinburgh the trades cannot retail wines, &c. without entering with the guildry, we allowed a proof before answers; and a proof was brought, that when one in Edinburgh sells wine, they compel him to enter guild-brother, but they allow him to continue the exercise of his craft,—notwithstanding whereof we adhered. Renit. President. 24th November.