Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Page: 805↓

The Duke of Athole brought a summons against the Lord Advocate and the minister of the parish of Caputh to have it found and declared “That the report of the Sub-commissioners appointed for valuing the stock and teind of the lands within the presbytery of Dunkeld, dated on or about the 29th day of July 1635, in so far as concerns the valuation of the rent, stock, and teind of the lands of Drumbowie, in the said parish of Caputh, then pertaining to Thomas Wallandie of Drumbowie, and now to the pursuer, was of the following tenor:—‘Finds ye lands of Drubowi perteing to Thomas Wallandie of Drumbowi, to be worth of rent, stok, and teind zeirlie (by the comoditie of the myln yroff), of victual tua pairt meill and thrid pairt beir, x bolls allegit haldin decimis inclusis: ‘As also that the decree to be pronounced in the process to follow hereon shall be as valid and effectual a document of the valuation of the rent, stock, and teind of the foresaid lands of Drumbowie in all cases and causes whatsoever, improbation as well as others, as the said sub-valuation if entire would be.” It appeared that in the said sub-valuation, which was extant in the teind-office, a tear of the paper ran through and obliterated the figure immediately preceding the word “bolls” in the passage above quoted. The adminicles relied on by the pursuer for proving the tenor of the lost figure were entries in various documents forming numbersof process in an augmentation and locality of the parish of Caputh raised in 1792, which contained the figure 10 as the number of bolls of the lands of Drumbowie. The Court having remitted to the Clerk of Teinds to examine the adminicles founded on, and to report, the Clerk reported, that “With respect to the valuation of the lands of Drumbowie, belonging to the pursuer, it appears to the reporter that the figure used before the word bolls was [a mark], representing ten. It can still be seen, although partially obscured, partly by the writing having become indistinct, and partly from a tear running through the figure. The other words relating to Drumbowie set forth in the summons are all quite distinct.”

The pursuer then moved the Court for decree in terms of the conclusions of the summons, upon the above report, without remitting the case to further proof. He cited the following authorities— Fogo v. Colquhoun, Dec. 6, 1867, 6 Macph. 105; Lord Lynedoch v. Liston, June 24, 1841, 3 D. 1078; Dow v. Dow, June 30, 1848, 10 D. 1465; Cunningham v. Mouat's Trustees, July 17, 1851, 13 D. 1376; Ronald, July 3, 1830, 8 S. 1008.

At advising—