Laws of dating a minor Free sex chat site in sydney
PROCURATOR-FISCAL of the LYON-COURT against MURRAY of TOUCHADAM.
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.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.In reasoning, the Lords made a distinction betwixt a right to wear arms and matriculation. His power to new armorial bearings is merely discretionary and ministerial, and with that this Court cannot interfere. Contact us 24/7 to schedule a FREE consultation with a criminal defense lawyer.We may be able to get your charges reduced or even dismissed altogether.
in the first, immemorial possession would presume a grant even from the Sovereign himself to wear them; and many families in Scotland had right to arms before the Act 1592 ; so did not derive right to wear them from the Lyon in virtue of that Act of Parliament. George Moir, in 1787, executed an entail of the estate of Leckie, with strict irritant and resolutive clauses. But if the Lord Lyon should grant to one person arms which another is entitled to bear, and should refuse to give redress, there could be no doubt of the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an action at the instance of the party to have his right declared, as this would involve a question of property, which a right to bear particular ensigns armorial undoubtedly is.