[1661/1/377]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Anent the supplication given in to the lord commissioner's grace and estates of parliament by Mungo Murray, pursuivant, showing that the supplicant, being in the last expedition in the north in his majesty's service, and being towards the head of Loch Earn, one called Donald Miller, a trooper in [John Murray], earl of Atholl's regiment, having conveyed himself away and having capitulated to the English at Falkland, conducted a party of them to the same place where the supplicant was lying, who was forced to flee away and swim a water for his life, which party took away the supplicant's horses, arms, saddle-bag and clothes amounting to the value of one hundred pieces or thereby; therefore, craving that the said Donald Miller, defender, might be decreed to make restitution to the supplicant of what he so treacherously took from him, and that such further punishment might be inflicted upon him as the commissioner's grace and estates of parliament should think fit, as the said supplication at more length bears. The supplicant compearing via Mr John Cunningham, advocate, his procurator, and the said defender being lawfully summoned to this action, often called and not compearing, the said estates of parliament, having heard, seen and considered the said supplication and they therewith, and with the deposition of several reputable witnesses taken in the said matter, being well and ripely advised, his majesty, with advice and consent of his said estates of parliament, decrees and ordains the said Donald Miller, defender, to make payment to the said supplicant of the sum of £100 sterling for the cause aforesaid, because the lords and other commissioners appointed for trade and bills, to whom the said matter was referred, upon consideration of the said supplication, empowered Sir John Urquhart of Cromarty and Sir [Archibald] Murray of Blackbarony, two of their number, to take and receive the oaths and depositions of several witnesses upon the points of the libel above-written, and having advised the depositions of the said witnesses taken in the said matter and seriously considered the whole circumstances of the cause, found that the said Donald Miller, defender, was conductor of and guide to the said English party who took away the supplicant's horses and other furniture libelled, and therefore conceived that the defender ought to be decreed to make payment to the supplicant of the sum of £100 sterling. Which report, being this day considered by the said estates of parliament, they approved the same and gave their decreet in manner above-written, and ordains letters etc.
[1661/1/378]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Anent the complaint given in to our sovereign lord and estates of parliament by Sir William Baillie of Lamington, knight, against Henry Whalley, judge advocate to the usurpers, making mention that in the year 1650 the said complainer and his tenants, having taken up arms in defence of his majesty and his ancient kingdom, there was some of the English rebels killed within the parish of Haddington where the petitioner has some interest, for which there was a fine of £360 sterling imposed upon the said complainer and his lands of Hoprig and Penston by the said Henry Whalley, and appointed to be paid to him within a few days, otherwise the said complainer's lands to be burnt and destroyed, and the complainer at that time, being altogether unable to make payment of the said fine of £360 sterling, the said lands were spoiled, wasted and through this rendered unprofitable to him for the space of three years, and the said Henry Whalley, perceiving the prejudice the said complainer sustained thereby and the impossibility of the raising such money at that time, did make a proposition of lending the said complainer the sum of £500 sterling whereby he might be capacitated to satisfy the said fine, and the said Henry Whalley demanded thereof the settlement of £100 sterling per annum upon his wife during her lifetime out of the said complainer's estate, whereunto the complainer was constrained to condescend for preventing the ruin of his lands and tenants, and that albeit the said £500 sterling was employed in satisfaction of the said fine and the parties of horses employed about it, yet the complainer was obliged to make the said settlement of £100 sterling per annum upon the said Henry's wife during her lifetime, conforming whereunto the said complainer has been constrained to pay £600 sterling, and is liable for payment of the said £100 sterling per annum for the future unless remedy is provided; and therefore, craving warrant for citing of the said Henry to have compeared and to have heard and seen the complainer declared free of payment of the foresaid fine of £360 sterling, and also to have heard the foresaid settlement of £100 sterling per annum declared to have been, from the beginning, to be now and in all time coming void and null as if the same had never been made, and anent the charge thereupon given to the said Henry Whalley to have compeared before the lords of articles to have heard and seen decreet given and pronounced against him in the said matter in manner underwritten, as the said complaint and citation at more length bears. And the said Sir William Baillie of Lamington, knight, complainer, compearing personally who, for instructing of the said complaint, produced a copy of the said heritable bond granted by the said Sir William to the said Henry bearing that he did advance and pay to the said Sir William all and whole the sum of £500 sterling, wherefore the said Sir William bound and obliged him to infeft and seise by charter and sasine, burdensome title in due and competent form, to the said Henry Whalley and his heirs in all and whole a yearly annualrent of £100 sterling to be uplifted during the natural lifetime of Rebecca Whalley, spouse to the said Henry, at two terms in the year by equal portions, furth of all and whole the said laird of Lamington, his lands of Hoprig and Penston, with manor place lying within the parish of Haddington or furth of any part of the same lands, as the said heritable bond of the date the [---] day of [---] 1652, containing holdings, warrandice and several other clauses therein in itself more fully purports; and likewise, produced for instructing payment of the said sum above-written and above-mentioned in the said bond, the several acquittances and discharges after-rehearsed, to wit a discharge granted by the said Henry Whalley to the said Sir William Baillie, knight, whereby he grants him to have received from the said complainer the sum of £50 sterling in full payment of the like sum due and payable to the said Henry, defender, at Candlemas [2 February] 1653 for a half year's duty of £100 payable to the said Henry Whalley during the lifetime of his wife, as the same of the date 23 February 1653 in itself fully purports. As likewise, another discharge granted by the said Henry to the said laird of Lamington whereby the said Henry, defender, grants him also to have received from him the sum of another £50 sterling, and that, conforming to a contract or bond past between the said pursuer and defender which was for the term of Candlemas 1653, as the same discharge of the date 22 March 1653 purports; as also, another discharge granted by the said Henry Whalley whereby he granted him to have received from the said Sir William the sum of another £50 sterling, conforming to a contract or bond, and that for the term of Lammas [1 August] then last past 1653, dated 21 November 1653; and in like manner, another discharge granted by the said Henry to the said laird for the sum of another £50 in full payment of half a year's annualrent due to him the [---] day of [---] 1654, which was paid by John Thomson, designed in the discharge general auditor, as the same subscribed by the said Henry, 4 August 1654 purports. Item, another discharge granted by Anthony Rodswell,† merchant in Leith, whereby he grants him to have received from the said Sir William Baillie the sum of £9 10s sterling, as the same of the date 22 January 165[---] bears. Item, another discharge granted by the said Henry, pursuer,† for the sum of £50 sterling and that for the term of Candlemas 1655, as the same of the date the [---]† day of June 1655 fully purports. Item, another discharge granted by John Forrester, writer in Edinburgh, whereby he grants him to have received from the said laird of Lamington the sum of £15 sterling of the date the 23 June 1655 more fully purports. Item, another discharge granting the said Henry to have received from the said laird the sum of £28 sterling in part of payment of a further sum, as the same of the date 30 June 1656 fully relates. Item, another discharge granted by Captain Ludovic Maitland to the said laird, of the date 25 August 1656, and that conforming to a warrant granted by the said Henry Whalley for that effect, as the same of the date 23 August 1656, containing the sum of £10 sterling, more fully purports. Item, another discharge granted by Thomas Foulis, servant to the said Henry Whalley, as having power and commission from him to the effect underwritten, whereby he granted him to have received from the said laird of Lamington the sum of £50 sterling, and that in part of payment and to an account of that yearly duty or annualrent of £100 sterling payable by the said laird to the said Henry Whalley and Rebecca Whalley, his spouse, conforming to the said heritable bond made between them thereupon, which discharge is dated the [---] day of [---] 1657, in itself more fully purports. Item, another discharge granted by the said Henry Whalley, defender, whereby he grants him to have received from the said laird of Lamington, pursuer, the sum of £112 sterling, and that for a whole year's rent terminated at Lammas 1657, as the same of the date 12 December 1657 fully relates. Item, another acquittance whereby the said defender grants him to have received from the said pursuer the sum of £25 sterling in part of a quarter's annualrent due at Lammas 1658, as the same of the date 25 August 1658 more fully purports. Item, a receipt subscribed by William Craik,† whereby he grants him to have received from the said laird of Lamington the sum of £45 sterling, being in part of £125 sterling in arrears of the said agreement between the said Sir William, pursuer, and the said Henry Whalley, defender, due at Candlemas 1650; as also another discharge granted by the said defender to the said pursuer, whereby he granted him to have received the sum of £50 sterling, upon account whereof he discharges the said laird of Lamington, wanting a date. And the said Henry Whalley, defender, being lawfully summoned to this action, often called and not compearing, the said complaint with the foresaid writs produced for the part of the said complainer, with the report after-specified made by the lords of the articles, making mention of the deposition of the witnesses after-specified adduced by the said complainer, for proving a part of the said complaint in manner following, being heard, seen and considered by the estates of parliament, our sovereign lord, with advice and consent of his said estates, have absolved and absolves the said Sir William Baillie of Lamington, complainer, his heirs and executors, from any payment of the said sum of £360 sterling of fine imposed upon him in manner foresaid, and also from the said heritable bond and agreement made and granted with the said Henry Whalley, defender, for payment making to him of the said £100 sterling per annum during the lifetime of the said Rebecca Whalley, and that of all years and terms bygone resting owing unpaid and also yearly and termly in time coming during the said Rebecca, her lifetime, and declares the same heritable bond, with all that has followed or may follow thereupon, to be void and null in all time coming, and the said Sir William Baillie of Lamington, knight, and his foresaids free and quit of any payment of the sums of money above-specified in all time coming, because the lords of the articles, appointed by the parliament to the effect above-specified, having heard and considered the foresaid complaint and having granted warrant for citation of the said Henry to have compeared before them and defended in the said matter, the said defender, being lawfully summoned for that effect by a messenger of arms at the market cross of Edinburgh and pier and shore of Leith upon 60 days' warning, with certification to him if he failed, the said lords would proceed and do justice to the complainer in the said matter according to the law, and he having been lawfully summoned, as said is, failed to compear to the effect above-written, and therefore, the said lords, having of new again considered the said supplication, they found the same relevant and admitted it to the complainer's probation who, for proving of a part thereof anent the imposition and payment making by him of the said sum of £360 of fine, and having adduced diverse reputable witnesses whose depositions, being likewise advised by the said lords, they found that the same depositions proved sufficiently that the foresaid sum of £360 sterling was imposed upon the said complainer, and that he made payment thereof, and the said Sir William Baillie, complainer, having repeated the foresaid writs produced by him for proving the remainder of the said complaint; and also, the said lords of the articles, having of new again considered the foresaid supplication with the foresaid writs, they found that the said Sir William was obliged to pay to the said Henry Whalley the sum of £100 sterling per annum, during the lifetime of his wife, and that he has made payment of £620 sterling in part of payment of the said annuity, and that over and above the said sum of £360 sterling of fine. And the said lords of the articles having made report of their procedure in the said matter, which, with the absence of the said Henry Whalley being considered, our sovereign lord, with advice and consent foresaid, approved the same report, absolved and declared in manner above-mentioned, and ordains letters of horning upon a simple charge of fifteen days to be directed against the havers of the said heritable bond, agreement and all that has followed thereupon, for delivery thereof to the said complainer to be cancelled and destroyed.