6 relative dating laws
The statutory basis for the jurisdiction of the Lyon King of Arms consists mainly of three Acts of the Scottish Parliament, of 1587, 15. (He grants them now to some who were: in possession of them of old.). Pleaded at discussing for the Lyon:the advocation is incompetent; his jurisdiction, as to arms, is privative and independent.(The Act of the British Parliament of 1867 mainly reorganized the Court and set the salaries of the Scottish officers of arms). But the gentlemen answer, that Lords at the beginning, having been only Barons, and in regard of the considerable interest they hid in their respective shires, being commissionate from the small barons and freeholders to represent them in Parliament, they, because of that credit, got first the denomination of Lords, without any patent or creation; and, upon the matter, were nothing but Barons: and so what is due to them is also due to the other, they originally not differing from the rest by any essential or superior step of dignity. REPLIED, Whatever was their rise, the other Barons have clearly acknowledged a distinction now; in so far as they have renounced their privilege of coming to Parliaments by the 113 act in 1587; and the distinction being made, and their privileges renounced, by the small Barons in the Parliament 1427. See also Morison's Dictionary, 7656; Decisions of the Court of Session. But Lord Hailes, 30th November 1774, "Repelled the declinature, and sustained the jurisdiction of the Court of Session: Found the advocation competent in respect that the question at issue was a civil cause; neither is there any statute pointed out by the pursuer whereby the radical or consuetudinary jurisdiction of the Court of Session in matters of this sort, stands abolished;" and, 26th July 1775, the Lords adhered.In undisturbed rock layers, the oldest layer is at the bottom and the youngest layer is at the top.
The Lyon's reason is, because, by an express letter of his Majesty's, none underl the dignity of a Lord must use supporters. Mr Murray presented bill of advocation, which was past.
ABOUT the same time, in June, 1673, I heard of a process some Barons and Gentlemen had intended against my Lord Lyon, to hear and see it found and declared that he had done wrong in refusing to give them forth their coats of arms with supporters, whereof they and their predecessors had been in possession past all memory, and never quarrelled till now; and, therefore, that he might be decerned to immatriculate them so in his register, and give them forth an extract; conform, as is provided by the late act of Parliament in 1672. A summons before the Lyon Court having been brought at the instance of Procurator-Fiscal against Murray of Touchadam, concluding for payment of the statutory penalty for wearing arms though not matriculated, and for confiscation of the moveables upon which they were engraved; the Lyon Court gave decreet in terms of the libel.
the state of the register of the Lyon-office, as set forth by the Procurator-fiscal himself, finds, That the said register affords not sufficient evidence as to what armorial bearings have been matriculated by the Lyon, and what not:1mo, Because the register is so framed that any chasms therein cannot ex facie be discerned ; 2do, Because it is admitted that the armorial bearings of certain persons matriculated did not appear. That the act 1672 neither made the jurisdiction of the Lyon Court privative, nor took away the power of reviewing all the proceedings of the Lord Lyon; 3.
therein till of late: that the present Lord Lyon has become more attentive to the duties of his office than his predecessors ; and, therefore, finds, That it is not proved whether the armorial bearings of. That, at all events, this Court undoubtedly had jurisdiction in all competitions of arms, as they in reality raised questions of patrimonial interest. The question taken to report is merely in regard to the jurisdiction of this Court, in determining which it is necessary to consider the nature of the Lord Lyon's powers.
20th December 1776, the Lords refused a reclaiming petition without answers, and adhered. The Laird of Dundas complained to the Lyon, That Dundas of Fingask had got from the Lyon's predecessor, in the year 1744, a grant of an armorial bearing, to which he and his predecessor had right many ages before. In 1791 he executed a deed, where, after making some alterations, but none on this clause, "he approves of the foresaid deed of entail, in all the other articles and clauses thereof." At the time, however, when he executed this last deed, the rental of the estate exceeded £. had thereby revoked the above-cited clause; and that, therefore, the pursuer should be at liberty to keep up and augment the rent of the entailed estate, as freely as if it had not been inserted. There is no conclusion in favour of his right to these arms; so that, were he to obtain decree in terms of his libel, he could take nothing under it.
And again, 25th June 1778, the Lords, on report of Lord Hailes, found that the Lyon can exact no higher fees for Mr Murray of Touchadam's arms than ten merks, being the fees exigible by the statute 1672 from a baron; and found the Lyon liable in the expense of process prior to the last remit, and of the whole extract of the decreet. The matter was brought before the Lords by an advocation at the instance of Fingask. In support of this conclusion he Pleaded: As the clause in question has been so far infringed by the entailer himself that it cannot be complied with in terminis, it must be wholly at an end. Popular actions are unknown in our law, and no one can bring an action to take from another what he himself has no right to.Murray of Touchadam have been actually matriculated in the Lyon register or not : that William Murray was not in mala fide to continue the use of the armorial bearings which his predecessors enjoyed ; and that there is no sufficient warrant for the penal conclusions of the original summons: and upon the whole assoilyies the said William Murray, and decerns; reserving always to the Procurator-fiscal to charge the said William Murray to matriculate his armorial bearings in the registers of the Lyon Court, in terms of the statute 1672, and to pay the fees exigible from a baron, and no more, as the statute bears: and also reserving to the officers of Court to exact whatever further sum may be judged reasonable, in case the said William Murray shall incline to be furnished, not only with a. On the other hand, it was maintained for the defender, That the act 1672, by declaring that the Lyon record should "be respected ass the true and unrepealable rule of all arms and bearings in Scotland," conferred a privative jurisdiction in such matters on the Lord Lyon; and that even if this Court had jurisdiction in competition of arms, the pursuer did not set forth his right to those matriculated by the defender. These relate to two separate and distinct matters,one regarding messengers, and the other, which we have to do with here, relating to armorial bearings.blazoning, in terms of the art, but also with a painting in water colours and other ornaments, these being things which the Lord Lyon is not bound by law to provide without a suitable remuneration." The Lords, on advising a reclaiming petition and answers, 4th December 1776, adhered to the interlocutor of the Ordinary, and refused the petition, except as to the fees exigible on matriculations; as to which, remitted to the Ordinary to hear parties further, and to do as he should see cause. The power of granting ensigns armorial is part of the royal prerogative, but every thing belonging to that power has been given by sundry statutes to the Lord Lyon's grant.As to the arms to be given Mr Murray, when he applies for them it was time enough to answer this when he did so; and as to the illuminations, they are used for the better direction of painters, or carvers, many of whom are not sufficiently instructed in the science of heraldry without illuminations.Upon advising the cause, the Lord Ordinary pronounced this interlocutor: 13th February 1776, "Finds, that it is admitted by the procurator-fiscal that William Murray, the raiser of the advocation, is the representative of the ancient family of Murray of Touchadam: Finds it proved, from the seals produced in process, that the Murrays of Touchadam, the predecessors of the said William Murray. Macdonell of Glengarry brought an action in the Court of Lyon, asking for annulment ("reduction") of a matriculation of arms to Macdonald of Clanranald.They thought the plea, so far as concerned the matriculation-fees, not improper; as the statute was so ancient, and the practice for at least twenty years against it, though not uniform. Dundas disputed the competency; but this plea was soon abandoned, and on the merits the Lords, 22d January 1762 pronounced this interlocutor: " Finds, That George Dundas of Dundas, heir-male of James Dundas of that ilk, who was forfeited in the year 1449, but afterwards rehabilitate, has the sole right to use and bear the coat of arms belonging to Dundas of that ilk, as matriculated in the register, authenticated by the subscription of Sir James Balfour then Lord Lyon ; and find, That the coat of arms obtained in the 1744, by Thomas Dundas, defender, from the late Lord Lyon,, was obtained by obreption, and that he has no right to use the same; and therefore ordain the said coat of arms to be recalled and expunged from the Lord Lyon's books, reserving to the said Thomas Dundas to apply for a new coat of arms, as accords: Find the defender Thomas Dundas of Fingask, and Thomas Dundas of Quanal, liable to the pursuer in the expense of the complaint before the Lord Lyon's court, and in the expense of this process of advocation," &c. It does not prohibit the entailer from maintaining the rental as he found it ; and it would not be the prohibition in the entail, but a new and a different one, which would restrain the heir in possession from increasing it still farther, at the expiration of the current leases. Moir, revoking certain clauses of his entail, and approving of all the others, at a period when he had raised his rental to above £.1000, precludes any presumption that he meant to recal the condition in question. I.) as analogous to the present; and as suggesting, the condition in question should be so modified by the Court as to make it consistent with the law of the land. I also doubt whether this Court has any original jurisdiction in matters of this kind, and whether it was not necessary for the pursuer to have applied to the Lord Lyon for redress, and on that being refused, to bring the judgment under review of this Court. There are in this case separate defences as to the competency and as to the title, and the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor is before answer as to the title.Tags: Adult Dating, affair dating, sex dating