BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, 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 >> Sir James Rocheid v The Town of Edinburgh. [1686] 3 Brn 578 (22 January 1686)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1686/Brn030578-0877.html

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1686] 3 Brn 578      

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL
Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION.
Date: 22 January 1686

Sir James Rocheid
v.
The Town of Edinburgh


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

Sir James Rocheid produced, to the Town-Council of Edinburgh, the petition he had given in to his Majesty, showing he was illegally dispossessed of his place as clerk of Edinburgh; and that, when he craved entrance at the Town-Council door, to propone his defences, he was kept out, as mentioned 17th December 1684; with the King's deliverance thereon, remitting him to the Town-Council of Edinburgh to repone him, if they find, after hearing all parties, that he was illegally deprived; and declaring that, in this case, and in all time coming, the Magistrates and Town-Council shall be sole judges to their clerks; and discharging the Session or Privy-Council to meddle therewith. This was to hinder advocations or suspension of their proceedings. On this, the Town-Council suspend their two clerks, and ordain all to debate before them who have best right; and, in the mean time, Alexander Gay, depute, is appointed to officiate.

On the 29th of January, the Town-Council went through the particular grounds of Sir James Rocheid's deprivation; and such of them as they judged relevant were admitted to Mr John Richardson's probation: but he knowing they intended him no fair play, he neither made appearance nor opposition: so it was found, that Sir James was deprived without probation of a fault; and, on this sort of probation of his innocence, on the 5th of February they reponed him, and consequently James Hamilton, to their office of clerk; but they resolved to make it only durante beneplacito.

The removal of appellation was scrupled at; seeing Sir James himself had provoked to judgment, by raising a reduction before the Lords. But he may pass from it.

Yet an inferior court cannot reduce and annul their own decreet passed upon probation; which belongs to the Session only.

Vol. I. Page 397.

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/1686/Brn030578-0877.html