The Privileges of Burghs and Burgesses. - Monopolies.
Corporation of Wrights of Glasgow, v. James Crosse
Date: 8 March 1765 Case No. No 80.
A freeman may be employed to make coffins, for behoof of an undertaker who is not a freeman.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
James Crosse, a freeman wright of Glasgow, and some time deacon of the corporation, was employed by Daniel Miller, an unfreeman wright, to make two coffins at different times.
Miller had the direction of the funerals in both cases, and provided all the articles wanted. In the first instance, the wood of the coffin was got from Miller, and two of his servants assisted Crosse in making it, at his shop in the city of Glasgow. In the second, part of the wood was brought from Miller's, and the whole work performed by Crosse and his servant.
Upon a complaint, the magistrates condemned Crosse to a fine of 100 merks as guilty of a breach of the exclusive privileges of the corporation, by packing and peeling with unfreemen.
Crosse having suspended, it was pleaded for the chargers, That, as Miller was the person employed to furnish the coffins, and supplied the wood for that purpose, so the intervention of Crosse was no more than a colour to enable an unfreeman to work with impunity within the liberties.
Answered: Miller might have contracted with an unfreeman to make the coffin, and then brought it into the city ready made; so that, to find that he could not employ a freeman to make it, would be to the manifest hurt of the corporation.
Indeed, the furnishing of coffins cannot come under the exclusive privilege of the corporation of wrights. A wright can only make the wooden part; the cutting of the cloth belongs to the taylor craft; and the preparing of the nails, screws, and hammers, belongs to the craft of hammermen. A work which requires the intervention of so many different crafts, cannot be peculiar to any one corporation. And, accordingly, the profession of undertakers has been established, whose province it is to take the whole management of funerals, to employ the different craftsmen, and to provide every necessary article; but it cannot be said that undertakers are bound to enter with any particular craft.
The Lords ‘suspended the letters simpliciter.’
Nota. It was objected, in the beginning of the proceedings, that the corporation had not produced their seals of cause; but this objection was passed from, it being admitted that the corporation had been long established and acknowledged as such; so that, even without a seal of cause, their privilege would be supported by prescription.
For the Chargers, Lockhart, Cosmo Gordon.Alt. Montgomery, Sir Dav. Dalrymple, W. Stewart,Clerk, Pringle.
Fac. Col. No 7. p. 209.
