[1484/10/22]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
19 October
The lords auditors decree and deliver that Humphrey Colquhoun of the Luss, as heir of the late Sir John of Colquhoun, his father, shall satisfy and pay Elizabeth, countess of Murray the sum of £5 10s, because he admitted in the presence of the lords that he has recovered the sum of £11 from John Oliphant of the Dron through an obligation made to the said late Sir John. And regarding the half of the sum of 55 merks claimed by the said Elizabeth from the said Humphrey through another obligation made to the said late Sir John by the said John Oliphant as she alleged made to the said late Sir John and alleged by the said Humphrey that the said obligation is made to himself and not to his father but as his own debt, the lords appoint 14 January next, with continuation of days, for the said Elizabeth to prove that the said obligation of 55 merks was made to the said late Sir John as her own debt and not to the said Humphrey, and ordain that letters be given to summon the witnesses, and both parties are summoned according to the act.
[1484/10/23]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
In the action and cause pursued by Sir John Cook, chaplain, of the Newark of Finlaystone against Alexander [Cunningham], lord Kilmaurs, for the wrongful detention and withholding from the said Sir John of the sum of £5 5s for the past three terms pertaining to the said Sir John through the said chaplaincy, and also for the wrongful detention and withholding from the said Sir John of the profit of the fishing from the summer tide from Finlaystone's yair with men, boat and net, just as has been used at the said yair, both the said parties being present themselves and through their procurators, their rights, reasons and allegations heard and understood, the lords auditors decree and deliver that the said Alexander, lord Kilmaurs shall satisfy and pay the said Sir John Cook the said sum of £5 5s owed to him from the said chaplaincy for the aforesaid terms, and ordain that letters be written to distrenzie him of his lands and goods for that. And further, the lords appoint 14 January next, with continuation of days, for the said Sir John to prove the value of the said fishing and that the said Lord Kilmaurs occupied the same, and how long and as much as is proven that day that the said lord shall pay the same to the said Sir John, and ordain that letters be written to summon witnesses, and both parties are summoned according to the act.
[1484/10/24]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Regarding the sum of £80 claimed by [Michael Harrower], abbot, and convent of Inchcolm from George [Leslie], earl of Rothes, for the teinds of their church of Leslie for certain past terms through an obligation, because the procurators of the said earl of Rothes allege the said sum to be paid already, and offer him to prove the same paid as is said, the lords appoint 10 November next, with continuation of days, for the said earl of Rothes to prove the said sum [was] already paid to the said abbot and convent, and failing that proof [on] the said day he shall satisfy and pay the said sum, and that letters be given to summon the witnesses and the parties are summoned according to the act.
[1484/10/25]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
James Ogill compeared before the lords auditors and protested that because he was summoned to the suit of David Lauder of Papple for the 28 May regarding the mill dam of Papple and [he] would not compear to pursue him, that therefore etc.
[1484/10/26]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Fergus Ferguson compeared before the lords auditors and protested that because he was summoned to the suit of Effric MacDowall and [he] would not compear to pursue him, that therefore etc.
[1481/10/27]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Regarding the action and cause pursued by Henry Scheves of Gilquhus against Walter Heriot concerning the wrongful occupation of the lands of Kemback, claimed by the said Henry to pertain to him through tack from the most reverend father in God William [Scheves], archbishop of St Andrews, and also claimed by the said Walter to pertain to him also through tack from the said most reverend father before the tack made to the said Henry, the lords appoint 28 October current, with continuation of days, for the said Walter to prove lawfully that he had tack of the said lands before the tack made to the said Henry of the said lands, and failing his proof that he shall withdraw from and clear the said lands to be used and enjoyed by the said Henry according to the form of his letters of his said lease shown and produced before the lords.