Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 PROOF.
Subject_2 DIVISION I.

Allegeances how relevant to be proved.
Subject_3 SECT. V.

Intromission, how relevant to be proved.

Murray
v.
Knoble

Date: 27 July 1605
Case No. No 159.

A hoard of money being sued for by the King's donatar although it exceeded L. 100, yet it was admitted to probation in fuvorem fisci.

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

James Murray, son to his Majesty's master-wright, having by gift of his Majesty, a huird, alleged found in the — pursued, one Knoble whom he alleged to have received the same from him that found it, to deliver it to him, as having right by his gift. It was alleged, That summons containing the sum of L. 400 could not be proved, but by writ or oath of party. It was replied, in favorem fisci, it might be admitted to be proved by witnesses, because the fact being hid and obscure, and consisting in facto, could not be proved by writ; and seeing this question arose not upon any bargain or condition made by the pursuer, but upon a fair dealing betwixt the finder of the huird, and the defender; the pursuer could not be compelled to refer the matter to the defender's oath, but might prove it by witnesses. The Lords found, That the summons might be proved by witnesses, in favour of the fisque.

Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 225. Haddington, MS. No 954.