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 £5, 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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
The Town of Edinburgh v The King's tradesmen. [1687] 3 Brn 610 (00 January 1684)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1687/Brn030610-0937.html Cite as:
[1687] 3 Brn 610
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION. 1684 and 1687.
The Town of Edinburgh v. The King's tradesmen
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
1684. March 20. —The case of the King's Tradesmen, viz. Mr Miln, his mason; Callander, his smith, &c. against the Magistrates of Edinburgh, was reported by Redford; and the Lords find the 153d Act Parl. 1592, and the 275th Act 1597, and the other Acts and exemptions given to these tradesmen, can only liberate them from taxes and burdens imposed by the town by their own authority, or for their own use; as, for bringing in the water to the town by pipes, making highways between Leith, Edinburgh, and the Abbey, mending the streets, &c.; but that they cannot thereupon plead immunity from the King's stents and taxations; the Acts of Parliament imposing these bearing no exception of their privilege; and it is hard to give them now, seeing, 1mo, These Acts were made when the King dwelt among us, and they were truly employed in his service; but now it is merely nominal, and they are titulars. 2do, They are the best and richest in their several trades; and it were unequal to free them, and lay their proportions upon the poorer. Vide more of this, 24th February 1687.
Vol. I. Page 283.
1687. February 4.—The case of John Hunter, the Town of Edinburgh's collector of their cess, against those called the King's Tradesmen, mentioned 20th March 1684, is again reported by Redford; and the Lords found the suspendeis' privileges did not extend to the impositions laid on for his Majesty's use; and therefore found the letters orderly proceeded against them; and assoilyied the Town from their declarator as to that point; but find and declare them free from bygones preceding Martinmas last ob probabilem fidem. A bill being given in against assoilyieing them from bygones, seeing the late Acts did not exempt them; the Lords adhered to their former interlocutor, in regard they thought the Town's proportion of the bygone cess was already made up without their parts.
Then a bill was given in reclaiming against exeming Deacon Callander, smith, that he could not be free of bygones, because, by a writ under his hand, he had condescended to pay them.
