The family of Burnett of Leys, with collateral - Electric Scotland

DEESIDE BURNETTS: XV. SIR THOMAS. 83
after all seemed satisfactorily settled by an arrangement in pursuance of
which Knox was served tutor-at-law, coming under certain stipulations
with regard to accounts, a fresh complaint was made the next year that
the stipulations in question had not been adhered to, and that the
tutor-at-law had, through misrepresentation, procured from the Privy
Council an unnecessary restriction of the children's aliment from 5000
marks to 2500. It was further alleged that Knox and Sir Thomas
had accused the Earl of having "embezzled and carried away goods
and moveables from Arbuthnot in lock-fast trunks," and that "when
the Earle in obedience to a charge given him to go north for
seeing the writs and evidents of the estate inventared, he the said Sir
Thomas, did, after the Earle's arrival, shift the matter for eleven dayes
time with so many ridiculous pretences and affected scruples, and with
more banter and laughter than did become," that, the tutor having at
length inventoried the whole estate, he took possession, of the writs of
the personal estate without inventory or seal. The petition contained a
further assertion that Knox was "notoriously insolvent," and that Sir
Thomas " is said to have given the fee of his estate to his son." Leys
and Knox in their reply wondered " how any one can have the confidence
in the Earl's absence to give a representation to the Parliament in the
Earl's name stuffed with so many calumnious and unjust reflections."
They denied the breach of agreement, pointed out the causes which
necessitated the modification of the aliment, explained the so-called
personal insinuations against the Earl to be no more than an assertion
by the tutor of his right to have an inventory of the plenishing which
had been carried away, and suggested that the proper forum for deciding
any questions between them and the Earl was not Parliament, but the
Court of Session. Parliament accordingly referred the dispute to the
common course of law. The legal proceedings that followed are briefly
reported by Lord Fountainhall, to the effect that the acts of the tutor-at-
law, and of Leys as his adviser and cautioner, were approved, and that
the carrying off of the lock-fast boxes with Lady Arbuthnot's wearing
apparel had not been represented by either of them in any such light as
could be the foundation of an action of damages for defamation at the
Earl's instance.
Sir Thomas' habitual intercourse with the Court and higher nobility
of Scotland had naturally accustomed him to the comforts and luxuries