Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	crown_n	earl_n	king_n	1,809	5	3.6591	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52358	Some doubts & questions, in the law, especially of Scotland as also, some decisions of the lords of Council and Sessions / collected & observed by Sir John Nisbet of Dirleton ... ; to which is added, an index, for finding the principal matters in the said decisions.	Nisbet, John, Sir, 1609?-1687.; Scotland. Court of Session.	1698 (1698)	Wing N1170; ESTC R16027	472,476	492

other papers now produced by the Duke for clearing his interest That the claim of that Honourable Familie was only of the Office of Admiralitie of the Kingdom without any mention of the Isles and much less of Orknay and Zetland in so far as his Majesties Fathers letter 16 June 1628 of which the extract is produced doth bear That he had been pleased to sign a signature In favours of the Duke of Lennox of the Heretable Office of Admiralitie of this his Kingdom And in the Act of Parliament produced of the date 28 June 1633 Mention is made that the deceased James Duke Lennox stood Infeft as Heir to the said Lodovick Duke of Lennox in the Office of Admiralitie of this Kingdom without the least mention of Orknay and Zetland It appears by the Writs produced for the Duke That until the Earl of Mortouns Grand-Father obtained a gift and Right of Orknay and Zetland from his Majesties Father The Duke of Lennox's Right as to the admiralitie of Orknay and Zetland was ever questioned and controverted by his Majesties Officers In so far that upon the last of March 1628 The King did set a Tack of the Earldome of Orknay and Zetland To Archibal● Lord Naper Containing a Right likwayes of the Admiralitie within the Bounds of Orknay and Zetland And the Earl of Linlithgow having appeared in behalf of the Deceased James Duke Lennox The said Lord Naper Declaired that he should be ruled as to the said Right of Admirality according as his Majestie should declare his will thereanent whereas if the Dukes Right had been clear and unquestionable neither a Tack would have been set of the Admiralitie of Orknay and Zetland neither woul● there have been any Reference made to his Majestie But upon the Ear● of Linlithgowes appearing and representation of the Dukes Right th● Clause of the said Tack as to the Admiralitie of Orknay and Zetland would have been Delet As to Possession the Earles of Mortoun have been in Possession of the Admiralitie of Orknay upon a Gift and Right from his Majesty ever since th● Earle of Mortouns Grand-Father obtained the Right of Orknay There is produced for the Duke The double of a Gift granted to the Earl of Linlithgow of the Admiralitie of the whole Kingdom of Scotland and Isles thereof and of the Lieutenendrie Justiciarie and General of the Sea with consent of the Deceast James Duke of Lennox and of his Curatorsf the said Earl being a Confident Person and Relation of the said Noble Familie And without prejudice of the Dukes Right But it is to be Considered that the said Paper is only a Double and not Authentick And the said Right is only Granted dureing the Minoritie of the said Duke of Lennox and is given upon a Supposition and Narrative of the Dukes Right Whereas no Right has been or for any thing that can be seen can be showen That the Dukes of Lennox have Right expresely of the Admirality of the Isles and of the offices of Lieutenendrie and Justiciarie As to the Priviledges and Casualities belonging to the Admiralitie of Orknay and Zetland it is represented that the Priviledges and Casualities of the Admiralitie are not specified nor defyned in any Charter or Record for any thing that does appear the Charter foresaid granted to Lodovick Duke of Lennox in Anno. 1603 bearing only as said is Cum Privilegijs commoditatibus eisdem Spectantibus And the Charter granted to Adam Hepburn Earl of Bothwell in the Year 1511 which is the most ancient Record of Admiralitie that we have seen bearing only the said Office of Admiral Totius Regni to be given to the said Adam Cum omnibus Libertatibus proficuis eschetis ejusdem without mention of the Isles of Orknay or Zetland or specifieing the Liberties and Casualities belonging to the Admirality It Appears by an Act of Parliament Intituled concerning certain abuses of the Admirals proceedings being 156. Act of King James 6th his 12. Parliament that upon pretence of an Infeftment granted to Francis Earl of Bothwell of the Admiralitie of Scotland containing greater Specialities and diverse Clauses which were not in the former Infeftments of Admirality The People being oppressed did Complain and by the said Act it is Statute that the Admiral and his Successors should exerce no Jurisdiction nor exact no Dutie nor Casualitie But that which was in use to be exercised and taken by the Admiral for the tyme before the Death of King James 5th And therefore it is humblie conceived that whosoever shall be found to have Right to the Admiralitie of Orknay and Zetland It is fit that the Priviledges and Casualites of the same be so defyned and cleared that the Fishing Trade and Trafficque be not interrupted nor disturbed And that his Maiesty be not prejudged of his Rents of Orknay It is humblie represented to his Majesties Consideration The Records being for the most part lost which might have cleared his Majesties Interest and the Right of Admiralitie being Granted to the Dukes of Lennox in manner foresaid and neither the Dukes Right nor the Right of Admiralitie granted to the preceeding Admirals being special as to the Isles of Orknay and Zetland and the said Isles of Orknay being the Kings Propertie and feued only to the Earles of Orknay and now Annexed to the Crown and the said Isles being so remote and of so vast an extent and formerlie possessed by the King of Denmark and upon Transactions with the said King which are not very ancient being reunited to this Kingdom Whether or not the Right of Admiralitie granted to the Dukes of Lennox ought to be extended to the said Isles of Orknay and Zetland FINIS THE DECISIONS OF THE LORDS OF COUNCIL and SESSION IN Most Cases of Importance Debated and brought before them from December 1665 to June 1677. OBSERVED By Sir JOHN NISBET of Dirleton Advocate to King CHARLES II. To which is Added An INDEX For finding the principal Matters in the said Decisions As also A List of the Pursuers and Defenders Names EDINBVRGH Printed by GEORGE MOSMAN and are to be Sold at his Shop in the Parliament-Closs Anno Dom. M.DC.XCVIII DECISIONS OF THE LORDS OF COUNCIL and SESSION In some Weighty and Important Affairs before them Beginning the 7. of December 1665 and ending the 29. of June 1677. Decision 1st Veatch contra Duncan 7. December 1665. THE Clause cum molendinis multuris importeth freedom from astriction though it be only in the Tenendas Me referente D. 2. Burnet contra Leys 12. Decemb. 1665. THe said Mr Robert Burnet Son to Alexander Burnet of Leys being provided by his Grand-Father Sir Thomas Burnet of Leys his Father having deceased before To the Sum of 10000. Merks to be payed after his age of 25. Years with Annualrent after that time conform to a bond pursued his Nephew Leys for the Annualrent of that Sum at least for an Aliment until he should attain to that age Upon that ground That he could

not Habile Witnesses And by the Custom except in casu puerperii to prove the Birth of Children to give the Husband the benefite of Courtesie and by the Canon Law Decretal De verborum significatione Cap. 10. And on the other part it is urged by the Civil Law they may be Witnesses except in Testaments and by the Canon Law they may be Witnesses in causa Matrimoniali and by our custom in Criminibus occultis domesticis and in atrocioribus as Murder Treason and Falsehood And in Answer It is urged that where the Civil Law is altered by the Canon that is to be followed and that Women cannot prove Marriage and ought not to prove the Dissolution and in causa Matrimonii Witnesses should be above all exception Cap. 1. de Consanguinitate And if any of the Canonists were of another Opinion it was because the effect of Divorce was separatio mensae Thori non vinculi and in Treason and such Crimes much is indulged ad vindictam publicam but not ad vindictam privatam when such pursuites are only for private interest And it is not presumed that the Kings Advocat will corrupt Witnesses and in whatever case either by the Canon Law or ours Women are admitted It is only ubi constat de corpore delicti which is not in Adultery where there is not a Child and in whatever case even when the publick is concerned VVomen are never admitted but to adminiculate And Quando concurrit unus testis habilis supplet inhabilitatem alterius And there being Fourty or Fifty Processes of Adultery within this Hundred Years VVomen VVitnesses were never received and they are not admitted in causa scandali before the Commissars to prove injuria verborum much less in Crimine Adulterii Obligements to employ Sums of Money for Provision of VVives IF a Person be obliged by Contract of Marriage to employ a Sum of Money to himself and his Wife the longest liver in Liferent and to his Heirs Quaeritur If the said obligement be not performed what course the Relict may take to affect thereupon his Estate having no Heirs Creditors being in competition of Diligence And if she may not pursue his Appearand Heir as lawfully charged making mention of the Obligement and that the Heir will not perform the same and that loco facti succedit interesse and therefore to hear and see him decerned to pay and make forthcoming to her the said Sum that it may be employed conform to the said Obligement and to hear and see it found and declared that the same Execution shall follow upon the Decreet by Adjudication or otherwayes as is competent to other Creditors If a Relict will be preferable to other Creditors A VVomans Jointure A Man getting a Tocher and giving a Joynture in order to his VVifes Aliment and she having a Joint Right with him If he become Bankrupt will it be altogether ineffectual dureing Life Ratio Dubitandi It is Alimentary and she is a most favourable Creditor and otherwayes it should be Societas Leonina VVoods WHen a Liferenter is Infeft cum Nemoribus Quaeritur Quid Juris VVhen the VVood falleth to be cut dureing the Liferent VVrack IF Ships or Barges belonging to this Kingdom do make Ship-wrack within the same Quaeritur VVhether the Representatives of the owners may claim the Goods and not the King Or any Infeft cum Wrack Ratio Dubitandi That by the Act of Parliament Ja. 6. Par. 9. Cap. 124. Ships belonging to these Nations where that Law has not place are to be in another case than the Ships belonging to the Nations where the Law anent Ship-wrack has place and it seems reasonable that the King 's own Subjects and their Ships should be in alse good case as the Ships of any Nation whatsoever and that their Ships and Goods should not be lost upon pretence of VVrack unlese there were a positive Law to that purpose and the foresaid Act implyes that it is Triste Lucrum and not to be owned but Lege Talionis Z. The case of the Admirality of Orknay and Zetland Represented in behalf of the King in Answer to the Duke of Lennox's Claime thereto BY a Charter under the Great Seal in anno 1603. His Majesties Grandfather did give and grant to Lodovick Duke of Lennox the Office of Admirality in these terms Totum integrum Officium Admiralitatis nostri Regni cum omnibus privilegiis honoribus Commoditatibus eidem spectantibus The said Charter is not only of the said Office But of the Dukedome of Lennox and of the Lands therinmentiond belonging to the same And as to the said Lands and Dukedome the said Charter is upon the Dukes Resignation the same having formerly pertained to him But as to the said Office of Admirality the same is not given upon the Dukes Resignation but is casten in in the Novodamus whereas the Clauses of Novo-damus do not usually contain as to the Subject Disponed more nor did formerly belong to the Resigner seing de novo dare renovare doth suppose a former and preexistent Right There are indeed Ratifications in Parliament of Lodovick Duke of Lennox his Right of the Office of the Admirality But it is to be considered that by ancient Laws and Acts of Parliament it is Statute that heretable Offices should not be given or Disponed in Fee or Heretage and if they should de facto be disponed they should be given with great deliberation and deliverance of the Parliament s appears by the Acts 43 and 44 King James 6th his 11th Parliament Ratifications do ordinarly pass in Parliament of course without voting the very last hour of the Parliament when it is to dissolve and how little weight should be laid upon the same it appears by the Ratification produced for his Grace the Duke of Lennox dated 23 of October 1612 which doth ratifie the Infeftment Granted to the said Lodovick Duke of Lennox of the Offices of Great Admiral of Scotland and of all the Isles and bounds thereof with the Offices of Lieutenendrie upon the seas and Collonellship and Justice General and Office of Judicatorie Criminal and Civil with all the Priviledges Dignities and Casualities of the same set down in the said Infeftment albeit no such Infeftment for any thing known is or can be produced and the foresaid Infeftment in the year 1603 Granted to the Duke of Lennox is only simple of the Office of Admiralitie Regni nostri without any mention of the Isles or of the Office of Lieutenendrie upon the Seas or Collonellship and Justice General and of the Office Judicatorie Criminal and Civil And the said Act of Parliament is blank as to the date of the Infeftment which is ratified whereas if there had been any such Infeftment of the Tenor and Extent foresaid it would have then been produced the tyme of the said ratification And if it had been then produced the ratification would have expressed the date of the same It Appears by certain