[1385/6/1]¹

Judicial proceeding

In the general council of our lord King Robert [II] held at Edinburgh in the month of June A.D 1385 and in the fifteenth year of the same king's reign, the lord [John Stewart], earl of Carrick, eldest son and lieutenant of our same lord king, being present and presiding. Since Sir Alan Stewart had been summoned by the king's letters that he should compear in this council with his evidences by which he claims that he holds the barony of Ochiltree with the pertinents in the sheriffdom of Ayr, which barony Sir Robert de Colville petitioned to be restored to him by virtue of the king's grant to him and his compeers [when] received to the faith and peace of the king by the late William, earl of Douglas, having a commission from the king for this, [Sir Alan was] instructed to show, with his aforesaid evidences and his rights for his interest, if he wished, why the said petition ought not to be [proceeded with] as was contained in the act of the preceding council. The aforementioned earl of Carrick, having called the parties into his presence on Saturday 17 June, asked from the sheriff if he had summoned the said Sir Alan to compear, etc. He responded that it was so, and that he had made the summons in the way contained in the letter of summons sent to him from the king's chapel, a copy of which he brought forward and displayed. When this had been read and heard, and the petition of the aforementioned Sir Robert having been repeated, it was answered and objected on the part of Sir John Stewart, son and attorney of this Sir Alan, that he was not held to answer then to this, for this reason, that his father had been summoned to compear in that place on the preceding Monday, namely the aforesaid 12 June, as was clear by the said letter of summons, which day he had compeared and afterwards, that day having passed, and not being called that day, he sent his evidences back to his parts, and he did not bring them with him to that place. Which things having been heard, and the parties removed elsewhere, the lord earl of Carrick, advised in council, recalled those parties, having considered the cause of the defect of the said day to which they had not been called and certain other difficulties concerning the common advantage moving him to this decision, extended the day and assigned another to both parties, namely Monday 7 August next to come as a peremptory day at Edinburgh, to which peremptory day the king has to cause the said Sir Alan to be summoned again by his letters, that then, with a continuation of days, he compear with his evidences and rights, instructed to say for his interest, if he wishes, why the said petition ought not to be adjudicated to take place, as above, in all ways, conditions and in the manner which the aforementioned day to which he was previously summoned ought to have been held, according to those things which are contained in the act written in the same council held previously at Edinburgh. Which assignment [of a new day] having been prepared, they departed from the council, with the proviso that there should be a new summons as is said, a protest also having been made on behalf of the said Sir Robert that if he should happen to die in the interim, his heir ought to be altogether in the same condition at the assigned day as he himself ought to be if he had been alive, and also that the lord earl of Carrick should then proceed finally to make a final execution on that day as the peremptory day, as he ought to have proceeded on the said previously assigned day, according to the tenor of the said act.