BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION.
Fairy v. Ker
Date: 13 February 1680
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a cause betwixt Fairy and Ker, the Lords declared they would hear this point, in their own presence, Whether one who robbed a horse in the late rebellion 1679, be secure by the act of indemnity from restitution, I think, if he were pursued as a thief criminally for his life, that Act would defend him; but it seems not reason, that, only being convened rei vindicatione either for restitution or ad damnum et interesse for the price, &c. that he should go free; for the king only pardoned vindicta et interesse publicum; but not interesse privatum, as was found in William Cockburn's case, supra. [Historical volume, 20th September 1679.]
Yet it was alleged, the king, in some cases after a war, (but I think this is only to be understood in a foreign, not in a civil war,) may remit, ob bonum publicum, private men's interests: 2do, Having pardoned the rebellion, he consequently forgives all the lesser crimes as accessory thereto; and stealing of horses was but a part of the rebellion, which had tractum temporis, and was only done in order thereto.
