If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?

Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.

Thank you very much for your support!


BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Archibald Stirling of Keir, v John Christie. [1762] Mor 9403 (4 December 1762)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1762/Mor2209403-020.html
Cite as: [1762] Mor 9403

[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1762] Mor 9403      

Subject_1 OATH of PARTY.
Subject_2 SECT. I.

In what Cases admitted.

Archibald Stirling of Keir,
v.
John Christie

Date: 4 December 1762
Case No. No 20.

Not relevant to prove a fact by oath of party, where penalties are concluded for.


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

Mr Stirling of Keir brought an action before the Justices of Peace, against John Christie, one of his tenants, for cutting some young trees on his farm, founded on the statutes of the years 1685, cap. 9. and 1698, cap. 16. and the statute of the 1st Geo. I. session 2. cap. 18. He proved that six trees, above ten years old, were cut by Christie, or those in his family, and ten by persons unknown. The Justices decerned for L. 20 Scots for each of the sixteen trees, the penalty contained in the two first of those statutes.

Christie suspended; And, inter alia, pleaded, That he ought not to be liable in any penalty for the last ten trees, in respect it was not proved they were cut by him, or his order, or by persons in his family. Mr Stirling offered to refer to his oath, that they were cut by his order. Christie objected, That facts affecting a person's fame, and inferring a crime and penalties against him, cannot be referred to oath of party; for which the authorities of Stair, B. 4. T. 44; Bankton, B. 4. T. 32; and Erskine, B. 4. T. 2. § 9, were quoted.

“The Lord Ordinary found the allegation not relevant to be proved by the suspender's oath, in respect the charger is insisting for penalties.”

“The Lordds adhered.”

For Charger, Walter Stewart. For Suspender, J, Dalrymple, Burnett.

N. B. In this case it was debated, but not decided, Whether the tenant is liable for wood cut on his farm, unless he shall prove that the wood was cut by a third party?

Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 22. Fac. Col. No 99. p. 221.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1762/Mor2209403-020.html