[1489/1/57]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
†24 January
In the action and cause pursued by Henry Cheyne of Esslemont against William [Hay], earl of Erroll for the wrongful intromitting with the lands of Meikle Arnage since 3 November past, and for the wrongful withholding from the said Henry of the charters and evidence made by the said Henry Cheyne to the late William [Hay], earl of Erroll, father of the said William, and also to return and give over the said lands according to the tenor of his said late father's reversion made for that, and also to hear him adjudged to have forfeited the sum contained in the said reversion for his fraudulent absenting and withdrawing from the receipt of the same, he being lawfully required and warned to do so, and also against John Robertson, William Robertson, Alexander Robertson, Andrew Thomson and Alexander Bourne for the wrongful withholding from the said Henry of the mails and duties of the said lands of last Martinmas term [11 November], totalling 13 merks at least, all the said parties being present themselves and through their procurators, their rights, reasons and allegations seen, heard and understood at length, the lords auditors decree and deliver that the said William, earl of Erroll shall freely hand over and return to the said Henry all and each one of the said lands of Meikle Arnage, with the pertinents, with all rights, charters and possessions made to the said late William, his father, to be used and enjoyed by the said Henry and his heirs as freely as he did before the said evidence was made, and that he shall desist and cease from all intromitting with the said lands in the future. And despite the said William, earl of Erroll absenting himself from the receipt of the said sum contained in the said reversion, he being warned to do so, the lords nevertheless ordain the said Henry to content and pay the same to the said earl, and if he will not receive it, it is to be put into the sheriff's hands or those judges where the said land lies. And also they decree [and] deliver that the said John, William, Alexander, Andrew and Alexander shall content and pay the mails from the said lands for the said term to the said Henry Cheyne, and [they] appoint 5 May next, with continuation of days, for him to prove the value of the said mails and profits, and ordain him to have letters to summon his witnesses, and both parties are summoned according to the act, reserving to the said persons their action against the said William, earl of Erroll regarding the said mails.
[1489/1/58]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Regarding the action pursued by Master Walter Drummond, chancellor of Dunkeld, against John of Rhynd, younger, and Patrick Rhynd for the wrongful labouring and manuring of 7 merks worth of the lands of Gallowmor since last Martinmas [11 November] before 22 August 1488, the said John and Patrick compeared through their procurators and alleged that Laurence [Oliphant], lord Oliphant should warrant them, the lords auditors therefore appoint 5 May next, with continuation of days, for the said Laurence, lord Oliphant to prove that the said John and Patrick had tack of the said lands, both before and after the contract made between him and the said Master Walter, just as he took it upon him under claim of reimbursing and paying for the damage and injury of the said Master Walter, and ordain him to have letters to summon his witnesses, and both parties are summoned by themselves and their procurators according to the act, and [the lords] continue the summons made by the said Master Walter in the meantime.
[1489/1/59]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Regarding the summons made on the behalf of Euphamy Wallace, lady of Ochiltree, against Roger of Crawford of Drongan for the wrongful manuring and withholding from her of 3 merks worth of land of Tarelgin and the mails and fermes of the same, both the said parties being present themselves and their procurators, it was alleged on the behalf of the said Roger that the laird of Ochiltree and his heirs should warrant him the tack of the said lands for all the days of his life, according to the form of his letters of tack made for that, the lords auditors decree and deliver that the said Roger shall content and pay the said Euphamy the third of the Martinmas term's [11 November ] mail from the said lands, without prejudice of his warrant, and ordain that letters be written to the sheriff to distrenzie the said Roger of his lands and goods for the third of the said mails, insofar that she can prove their value before the sheriff, and that he receive the proof before him, and warn the parties of that, and that the said Roger is to have letters to call his warrant.
[1489/1/60]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
The lords auditors decree and deliver that John Colville of Ballindarach† shall content and pay Euphamy Wallace, lady of Ochiltree, the third of the mails of the 4 merk land called the Plyde, and ordain that letters be written to the sheriff of the shire to make her be paid for her said terce, insofar as she can prove it is [of] value, and that he receive the said proof before him and set a day for that and warn the party of that, and the said John was lawfully summoned to this action, often called but did not compear.
[1489/1/61]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
The action and cause pursued by Malcolm Fleming against William Fleming of the Bord for his non-entry to a tack of 4 merks worth of land and a half of the lands of Smithstone, as is contained in the summons, is continued by the lords auditors until 5 May next, with continuation of days, in the same form and effect as it is now, without prejudice of party, and ordain the depositions of the witnesses now taken to be closed and more witnesses are to be summoned, and both parties are summoned according to the act.
[1489/1/62]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Alexander Hamilton in the Grange compeared before the lords auditors and protested that because Margaret, the spouse of the late Alexander Cockburn, caused him to be summoned to her suit but would not compear to pursue him, that therefore, etc.
[1489/1/63]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
John of Pitbladdo of that Ilk compeared before the lords and protested that because Peter of Pitbladdo, his brother, caused him to be summoned but would not compear to pursue him, that therefore etc.
[1489/1/64]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
In the action [and] cause pursued by Thomas Cockburn against Alexander Dalmahoy of that Ilk, as heir of the late Alexander Dalmahoy, for the wrongful withholding from him of the sum of 20 merks of the usual money of Scotland owed to him by the said late Alexander for victuals bought and received from him according to the form of his obligation, both the said parties being present in person, because it was alleged by the said Alexander that the said sum was paid and [he] took [it] upon him[self] to prove the same, the lords auditors therefore appoint 5 May next, with continuation of days, for him to prove his said allegation lawfully and ordain him to have letters to summon his witnesses, and both parties are summoned according to the act.
[1489/1/65]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
The lords auditors decree and deliver that John [Montgomery] of Montgomery and Michael MacClure shall content and pay Janet Hamilton, lady of Gadgirth the sum of 20 merks for the damage and injury sustained by her through the wrongful occupation and manuring of the lands of Barbeth, and for the costs and expenses sustained by her in the pursuit of the said action, as was sufficiently proven before the lords, and ordain that letters be written to distrenzie the said John and Michael of their lands and goods for this, and for 40s for the expenses of the witnesses who testified in this action.
[1489/1/66]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
In the action and cause pursued by Euphamy Erskine, the spouse of the late Michael Cochrane, and Peter Cochrane, her son, against Ochiltree Knox, George Wallace, John Maxwell, William Maxwell, Thomas Knox, James Peacock, John Knox, Alexander Mowat, Robert Langmure, James Crawford, Alan Park, John Ralstoun and Thomas Crawford for their error and wrong decision in the serving of a brieve of inquest from our sovereign lord's chapel, purchased by Thomas Cochrane through the death of the late James Cochrane, his father, as was alleged, because they found and decided that the said late James died last vested as of fee in the lands of Langbank, Hillhead, Quarrelton, and the Cordiners tack, lying in the upper part of Eastern Cochrane within the barony of Renfrew, and because they found the said Thomas [was the] nearest and lawful heir of the said James, his father, of the said lands with the pertinents, and because they found that the said lands were in the hands of the said Peter as superior of the same, through the death of the said late James, albeit that they are alleged to be in the hands of the said Euphamy through joint infeftment, all the said parties being present themselves and through their procurators, their rights, reasons and allegations seen, heard and understood at length, the lords auditors decree and deliver that the said persons have wrongly decided regarding the serving of the said brieve, and therefore [they] determine that the retour, sasine and all that followed from that [to be] of no value, force or effect in the future, and if it pleases the party to take new brieves they should be given to them.
[1489/1/67]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
After noon
The lords auditors decree and deliver that Alan [Cathcart], lord Cathcart shall content and pay Margaret Boyd, the spouse of the late David Cathcart, son of the said Alan, and now the spouse of John of Crawford, the sum of £20 annually for the past 7 and a half years owed to her by him for the thirds of the lands and goods which may return to her through the death of her said spouse according to the form of his obligation under his seal and signature shown and produced before the lords, and ordain that our sovereign lord's letters be directed to distrenzie him of his lands and goods for that, and the said Alan was lawfully summoned for this action, often called but did not compear.
[1489/1/68]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
The lords auditors decree and deliver that James Leslie in Knokalloquhy shall content and pay John Inglis of Colquhalzie the sum of 11 merks and 40s for the mails of the third part of the lands of Petle for past terms, and for the damage, costs and injuries sustained by the said John through that and in the pursuit of the said action, as was sufficiently proven before the lords, and ordain that our sovereign lord's letters be directed to distrenzie the said James of his lands and goods for this, and the said James was lawfully summoned for this action, often called but did not compear.
[1489/1/69]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
After noon
Regarding the action pursued by [Andrew Cavers], abbot, and the convent of Lindores against John Haldane of Gleneagles in order to warrant to them the tack and lease of all and every one of his lands of the west part of Dysart called Mitchelston, the Blair, his manor house with crofts, the annual rents pertaining to them with the pertinents, the said John being lawfully summoned, often called but not compearing, the said allegations seen, heard and understood, the lords auditors decree and deliver that the said John and his heirs shall warrant the said lands with their pertinents free of his mother's terces and all other terces and charges according to the form of the indentures made between them for that, and for the terms contained in the same. And as for the sums of money claimed from the said John and the person contained in the summons for the warrandice of the said lands, the lords ordain that they be newly summoned and that the required letters be directed in due form for this.
[1489/1/70]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
John Oliphant, burgess of Glasgow, compeared before the lords auditors and protested that because John Baxter had had a certain day past appointed for him to [show] proof in the action previously moved between them, but would not compear for that, that therefore he has forfeited his proof in the said matter.