90 EarLY SHERIFF CourT Book or DUMFRIES. 
of each excuse; and in respect of each failure to appear. “a 
distress or poynd ”’ (‘‘ districcio ’’) was taken to be entered at 
each court until the fourth court. If the defender appeared 
at the fourth court and established the validity of his excuses, 
he escaped fine; but if he failed to appear in person or by 
proxy, he was liable to be fined for each default, to pay the 
complainer’s expenses,” and ‘‘ tine his principall action and 
his defence against the partie him followand.’’*” 
The only other point on which it seems necessary to say 
a word is the practice of warranty, which plays an important 
part in early court procedure. We find in our Sheriff Court 
Book that at a court held on 25th June, 1538, Andrew Howat 
(called David Howat in the subsequent entries) claimed a black 
horse in the possession of Wat Gurlaw, and that Gurlaw found 
Herbert Cunynghame as security that he would enter it—i.e., 
subject it to whatever the court might determine regarding it. 
At the next court held on 16th July, 1538, Gurlaw entered the 
horse and also his warrand, Robert Kirkpatrick, and Kirk- 
mitted as the only valid excuse (‘‘essonzie,’ ‘‘ essoign,’’ 
‘‘essonium ’’) in proceedings under a brieve of right within Burgh 
(Quon. Attach., c., 40; Fol. Acts, i., 655). Other excuses were 
sometimes accepted (see Regiam Maj., i., 7; Fol. Acts, i., 599; 
Balfour, op. cit., pp. 344 f., 349). Excuses had no place in pro- 
ceedings following on a brieve of mortancestry (Quon. Attach., ¢., 
35; Fol. Acts, i., 654); or in a brieve of distress for debt, because in 
that case it was directed in the brieve that, on proof by the creditor, 
the debt should be paid at once (Quon. Attach., ¢., 84; Fol. Acts, 1., 
653) ; or in recognosing novel disseisin (Reg. Mag., ii., 32; Fol. Acts, 
i., 631); or in an inquest or assize between two persons (Quon. 
Attach., c., 47; Fol. Acts, i., 657; Regiam Ma)j., -iv., ¢., al; 
Fol. Acts, i., 640). As to their admission in disputes between majors 
and minors, see Regiam Maj., iii., 26, 27; Fol. Acts, 1., 629. 
26 Muon. Attach., c., 3; Fol. Acts, i., 648. It is to be observed 
that in proceedings following on a brieve of right, e.g., where the 
subject of complaint was that the complainer’s lands were withheld 
from him, the course of the action differed somewhat from what is 
stated in the text. It was only after persistent default by the 
defender to appear in response to repeated summonses that the 
lands were finally adjudged to the complainer (see Regiam Mai., 
i., 5; Fol. Acts, i., 598; ep. Balfour, op. cit., p. 310). 
27 Skene’s Collection, ‘‘ The Forme and Maner of Baron. Cotrts,”’ 
cap. 24. ; 
