[1496/6/56]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
28 June, the lords auditors sat, [William Elphinstone], bishop of Aberdeen, [Robert Ker], abbot of Kelso, [William Borthwick], lord Borthwick, [William Knollis, lord] St John, Ogilvy,† Master Walter Drummond, [William Wawane], official of Lothian, Master James Henderson, James Scrimgeour and Master Richard Lawson
Regarding the complaint made by Sir David Henderson, chaplain of St Paul's Work near Edinburgh, and beadsmen of the same, against John Oliphant of Kellie for the wrongful detention and withholding from them of the sum of 40 merks of the usual money of the realm owed to them for the Whitsunday [May/June] and Martinmas [11 November] terms past, both the said parties being present in person, their reasons and allegations heard, seen and understood, the lords decree and deliver that the said John, as the one who agreed to the same in the presence of the lords, shall content and pay the said chaplain and beadsmen the said sum of 40 merks of the aforesaid money within the next 20 days after the date of this act, and ordain them to have letters to compel and distrenzie him of his lands and goods for that; and as for the expenses made by the said chaplain and beadsmen in the raising of diverse letters for the said John Oliphant in the lack of the said sum of 40 merks, the lords auditors appoint 17 October next, with continuation of days, for the said chaplain and beadsmen to prove sufficiently the value of the said expenses of the said letters that they have made, and ordain them to have letters to summon their witnesses again on the said day.
[1496/6/57]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Regarding the complaint made by William [Sinclair], earl of Caithness and William Sutherland of the Quarrelwood against Christian of Sutherland and William Oliphant, her spouse, touching the raising of the king's letters under his signet petitioned by them to deliver the houses and strongholds of Auldwick and Berriedale to the said Christian and William under the pain of personal imprisonment, as is contained at greater length in the said complaint, the said parties being present in person, their reasons and allegations being heard, seen and understood, the lords auditors decree and deliver that the king's letters [are] to be raised against the said persons who are in the said houses and those withholding them be put into execution according to the form and tenor of the said letter; and because it was denied by the said earl of Caithness and William Sutherland that they held the said houses of Auldwick and Berriedale or were behind the placement of the said persons in them, therefore the said lords auditors appoint 30 June current, with continuation of days, for Christian and William, her spouse, to prove sufficiently that the said earl and William had the said houses and strongholds and were behind the placement of the said persons in the same, and ordain the said Christian and William, her spouse, to have letters to summon their witnesses, and the parties are summoned according to the act, and [the lords] suspend the process past on the said earl and William previously in this matter in the meantime.
[1496/6/58]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Regarding the action and cause pursued by William [Ruthven], lord Ruthven and William Ruthven, his son, against Hector Bruce of Cultmalundie for the wrongful detention and withholding from them of the sum of £100 of the usual money of the realm owed to them by the said Hector for his interest and sasine given to him for the lands of Cultmalundie according to the form of a decreet arbitral, and to hear him decided and adjudged to content and pay the said William and William the sum of £500 of the said money, just as he is bound [to do] in an agreement made between him and them for that, because he failed in the payment of the said £100 by the terms contained in the said agreement and deliverance given between the said parties for that, as is contained at greater length in the summons, [it] is continued by the lords auditors until 19 October next, with continuation of days, in the same form and effect as it is now without prejudice of party; and because it was alleged by the said Hector that he had paid the said sum of £100 according to the form of the decreet arbitral shown and produced before the lords, that therefore the said lords auditors appoint the said 19 October next, with continuation of days, for the said Hector to prove sufficiently the payment of the said sum of £100 to the said William, lord Ruthven and William, his son, according to the form of the said decreet, and ordain him to have letters to summon his witnesses, and the parties are summoned according to the act.
[1496/6/59]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Regarding the action and cause pursued by William [Ruthven], lord Ruthven and William Ruthven, his son, against Hector Bruce for the wrongful withholding from them of the value of his marriage, along with the double value of it, totalling 400 merks of the usual money of the realm, because he has contracted marriage without the advice, licence or consent of the said William or William, his overlords, they [having] offered him an agreeable marriage without disparaging [him], as is alleged, and to hear him decided [by the lords] to content and pay the said sum of 400 merks to the said William and William for the aforesaid reason, as is contained at greater length in the summons, all the said parties being present in person, the said William and William produced a copy of a retour of the serving of the said Hector, and because it was alleged by the said Hector that the said copy of the said retour was not authentic, therefore the lords continue the summons raised for this to 19 October next, with continuation of days, and ordain that letters be written to the director and the clerks of the chancellery charging them to deliver a copy of the said retour authentically to the said William, lord Ruthven and William, his son, and all the parties are summoned according to the act.
[1496/6/60]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Regarding the action and cause pursued by William [Ruthven], lord Ruthven against Laurence [Oliphant], lord Oliphant for the wrongful harassment, worrying and disturbing of him and his servants in the peaceful using and enjoyment of his lands of Clathymore, Clathybeg, the Hilton of Gask and the Ross-muir, with their pertinents, lying in the barony of Gask, pertaining to the said William, lord Ruthven in fee and inheritance, as is alleged, and for the wrongful collection, detention and withholding from him of the mails from the said lands for the term of last Martinmas [11 November] past totalling £20 and more, preceding the date of the summons, dated 25 February the 6th year of our sovereign lord's reign, as is contained in the summons for this, the said parties being present in person, their rights and allegations being heard, seen and understood, it was alleged by the said Lord Ruthven that the said Laurence, lord Oliphant had broken [his contract] to him by refusing and by putting his son John Oliphant in fee of the aforesaid lands before the said term of Martinmas when he was requested to do it according to the form of certain indentures of marriage previously made between them, and also it was alleged by the said Laurence that he was always ready to do and fulfil the same and that it was not his responsibility, therefore the lords auditors appoint 19 October next, with continuation of days, for the said William, lord Ruthven to prove sufficiently that he asked the said Lord Oliphant to put his said son in the fee of the said lands before the said term of Martinmas and that he refused to do the same and that it was the said Laurence's responsibility that it was not fulfilled, and [the lords] continued the summons in the meantime until the said day in the same form and effect as it is now, without prejudice of party, and ordain him to have letters to summon their witnesses, and the parties are summoned according to the act.
[1496/6/61]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Regarding the action and cause pursued by William [Knollis], lord St John against Edward of Crichton of Kirkpatrick for the wrongful withholding from him of the sum of £17 of the usual money of the realm owed to him for past terms by the said Edward according to the tenor of his obligation, as is contained at greater length in the summons, both the said parties being present in person, it was alleged by the said Edward that he made the obligation to the said William, lord of St John as sheriff and officer to settle [the payment of] the justice, the treasurer and clerks for their expenses incurred during the time of the justice ayre of Dumfries, to have been collected by him from the extract of the same, and for that reason he made the said obligation to the said lord, and also showed the account made of the said extract where they were over spent through the forgiving and pardoning of sums by our sovereign lord; therefore the lords auditors decree and deliver that the said Edward shall content and pay the said William, lord of St John the sum of £17 16s 1d according to the form of his said obligation shown and produced before the said lords, and ordain him to have letters to compel and distrenzie his lands and goods for this; and because it is not agreeable to equity or justice that the said Edward should pay the justice's or lords' expenses from his own goods, therefore the said lords decree and deliver that the said Edward shall be paid the said sum of £17 16s 1d from the earliest and most available goods of the next justice ayre to be held at the burgh of Dumfries as the king's own debt, and that letters to the justice and treasurer who will be there at the time to make the said Edward be paid the said sum.
[1496/6/62]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Hugh Wallace, brother of the laird of Craigie, has become pledge and surety for William Wallace that William Campbell shall be unharmed and uninjured by him and all whom he may allow, without fraud or deceit, under the pain of £100.
[1496/6/63]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Regarding the action and proof appointed for Thomas Nairn [to prove] against James of Edmonstone and Ellen Murray, his spouse, concerning the entry of the said Thomas to the 8 acres of the Dam thicket, as is contained in an act and decreet given for that, the said parties being present in person, their rights, reasons and allegations being heard, seen and understood, it was alleged by the said Thomas that he had been in possession of the said 8 acres of land for the period of 35 years and that he was ready to prove the same with sufficient witnesses, and similarly it was alleged by the said James that witnesses in the possession of inheritance should not be admitted for that probation was not sufficient, therefore the lords auditors ordain that letters be written to the sheriff of Stirling and his deputies charging him that he call both these parties before him and assign them a day and find out who are the best and most worthy, least suspect, who best know the truth, to determine what possession Thomas Nairn had and used of the said 8 acres of land during the time of William of Murray, and how he used them then, and what possession and use he had during the said William of Murray's wife's time, [as she] had joint infeftment of them as is alleged, and how and what possession he had during the said James of Edmonstone's and the said Ellen of Murray, his spouse's, time after they were entered into the said lands, and whatever is found by them the said sheriff is to retour it and send it, closed under his seal, along with a part of the seals of the person who pass on the said inquisition, to the lords again by 17 October next, with continuation of days, until which day the lords continue the principal summons and the parties are summoned according to the act.
[1496/6/64]*[print] [email] [cite] [preceding] [following]
Regarding the complaint made by William [Sinclair], earl of Caithness, who had the house of Dunbeath in Caithness in keeping, and the king's letters were directed to him charging him that he should deliver the said house to James of Crichton, which he obeyed, as he alleged, and William of Keith of Inverugie showed our said sovereign lord's letters charging the said William, earl of Caithness to deliver the said house to him under the pain of outlawing him, and to have delivered to him certain goods which were in the said house at the time, as was alleged, both the said parties being present in person, the said William, earl of Caithness admitted that he took those goods after the time that he took the said house from the persons who withheld it [...],† therefore the lords auditors decree and deliver that the said William, earl of Caithness shall restore and return to the said William of Keith an old counting table, a feather bed without a bolster, a basin and a jug, a crossbow, a culverin, 2 [gun] chambers, a basinet, a breastplate, a gorget, a pewter plate, two collets† and a pair of splents,† according to the form of his confession and grant before the said lords; and as for the rest of the goods claimed by the said William of Keith from the said earl of Caithness, the said lords ordain that a summons be given to the said William of Keith, and in the meantime the lords suspend, void and nullify the process previously passed on the said earl.