of the number and ages of the debtor's family and the price of provisions. In former editions of the Digest several authorities were reported containing rules for adjustment. But this, in a great measure, is superseded by the Act 33 and 34 Vict. c. 63 (1870), which is in the following terms:

Whereas great evils have arisen through the arrestment of wages of labourers, manufacturers, artificers, and other workpeople, and also by the provisions relating to such arrestment in the Act 1 Vict. c. 41, and it is desirable to remedy these evils: 1. That, from and after the 1st Jan. 1871, the wages of all labourers, farm servants, manufacturers, artificers, and workpeople shall cease to be liable to arrestment for debts contracted subsequent to the passing of this Act, save as hereinafter excepted.

2. If the amount of wages earned exceeds 20s. per week, any surplus above that amount shall still be liable to arrestment as before the passing of this Act; but the expense or cost of any such arrestment shall not be chargeable against the debtor, unless in virtue of such arrestment the arresting creditor shall recover a sum larger than the amount of such expense or cost.

3. No arrestment of wages shall hereafter attach more than the amount of any surplus above 20s. per week, unless it shall be stated on the face of the arrestment, or indorsed thereon, that the debt in respect of which it is used was incurred prior to the passing of this Act; and such statement may be made by a memorandum on the arrestment subscribed by the officer executing the same.

4. This Act shall in no way affect arrestments in virtue of decrees for alimentary allowances or payments, or for rates and taxes imposed by law; but every arrestment used after the 1st Jan. 1871 for such alimentary allowances or payments, or for rates and taxes imposed by law, shall set forth the nature of the debt for which it has been used, otherwise the same shall not be effectual.

5 This Act may be cited as 'The Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland) Act.'

Decided Points: ARRESTMENTS.

1. A process of reduction, without any conclusion for payment of money, was found incapable to sustain an arrestment on the dependence.-1712, Ross, Morrison's Dictionary 690.

2. The arrears of an officer's half-pay was found arrestable in the hands of the paymaster, who was held factor, not for the individual, but for the whole body of officers.-1715, Brodie, Mor. 709.

3. Minister's stipend found arrestable.-1736, Hale, minister of Linton, Mor. 6711. Same found 13th Dec. 1815, Smith, 19 F. C. 51; and see 11th March 1831, Brown, 9 S. 578. So with professors' salaries.-9th June 1801, Laidlaw, 12 F. C. 531. Annuity to schoolmaster's widow found arrestable.-24th Jan. 1829, Irvine, 7 S. 317. Salary of the rector of an academy found arrestable.-16th May 1833, Murray, 11 S. 599. Same as to the salary of an officer of the Court of Session.-11th July 1827, Miller, 5 Shaw 829.

4. Alimentary funds are arrestable only by alimentary creditors, if not excessive.-1761, Seton, Mor. 772; 10th June 1852, Lewis, 24 Jur. 514; 29th May 1855, Smith, 27 Jur. 403.

5. Bills with blank indorsations deposited cannot be arrested in the hands of the depositors, but a process of exhibition (and interdict) is the proper remedy.— 1729, Jameson, Mor. 711.

6. A bill was indorsed in trust for behoof of the common debtor. An arrestment in the trustee's hands before the bill was paid, was found preferable to one after he had got payment, in respect that the trustee was in right of the money, and liable to account.-1740, Gordon's Creditors, Mor. 715. See 4th Feb. 1830, Cameron, 8 S. 440; 15th Jan. 1830, Mitchell, 8 S. 319.

7. An arrestment in the hands of joint adventurers or copartners found to

have secured the interest of one of their number, though at the time the subjects were abroad, but subsequently realized by the company.-1742, Rae, Mor. 716. Same found, and in addition the interest of a deceased partner.-1745, Neilson, Mor. 723. It was also held competent to arrest the contract-price during the progress of work.-18th Dec. 1847, Marshall, 10 D. 328. But an arrestment in the hands of a consignee before the effects came into his hands, was found bad.-1759, Stalker, Mor. 745.

8. Arrestment in the hands of voluntary trustees of the debtor held inept.— 1752, Campbell, Mor. 742. See 11th Feb. 1826, Thomson, 4 S. 450.

9. An insolvent, at a meeting of creditors, authorized a party to sell his effects for behoof of his creditors. A creditor not acceding arrested in such party's hands. The arrestment was held bad.-1756, Souper, Mor. 744. Same found1759, Stalker, Mor. 745. See 11th Feb. 1826, Thomson, 4 S. 450; 16th July 1851, Todd, 12 D. 1172; 2d Dec. 1858, Campbell, 21 D. 63.

10. An arrestment in the hands of a factor not a commissioner found bad.Muirhead, Mor. 732; 1709, Donaldson, Mor. 735; 7th Dec. 1824, Syme, 3 S. 372. 11. Arrestment in the hands of a minor and not of his curators was held good. -1738, Binning, Mor. 736. (But this decision has been doubted.)

12. Arrestment in the hands of the treasurer of an incorporation found valid. -1739, Keir, Mor. 738. So also in the hands of the treasurer of a bank.-1742, Carmichael, Mor. 740.

13. Arrestment of grain at the mill of an incorporation belonging to one of its members, laid in the hands of the office-bearers and servants of the incorporation, found invalid.-1760, Cunningham, Mor. 747.

14. An arrestment in the hands of a person who had been entrusted with the key of the common debtor's house, and an inventory of the furniture, also in the hands of a person to whom part of the furniture had been subsequently entrusted, was found equally competent as to the effects in the latter's hands, and preferred according to the order of dates.-1760, Appine's Creditors, Mor. 749; 26th Nov. 1850, Brown, 13 D. 149.

15. Arrestment of a partner's interest in a bank was found only competently made, as with a corporation, either by citing them as a body when met, or delivering to the managers separately a copy of the arrestment.-1762, Dalrymple, Mor.

752.

16. An arrestment found good in the hands of a trustee to whom an insolvent conveyed heritable property to sell for behoof of his creditors.-1780, Grierson, Mor. 759. Same effect-1796, Douglas, Mor. 16213; 27th Nov. 1828, Lothian, 7 S. 72; 14th Nov. 1827, Kyle, 6 S. 40.

17. An arrestment in the hands of the debtors of the ancestor of the common debtor before confirmation was found inept-1711, Menzies, Mor. 770; and same found where the creditors of the ancestor arrested.-1633, Rutherford, Mor. 774. But found good after confirmation, the arrestment being in the hands of a debtor to the executry by a creditor of the defunct.-31st May 1848, Renton; aff. 22 Jur. 624.

18. An arrestment by a creditor of one of the next of kin of an intestate defunct, though unconfirmed, held good under the vesting statute, 4 Geo. IV. c. 98; and the debtors paying to the executors confirmed, were held liable to the arrester. -3d March 1837, Frith, 15 S. 729.

19. A person selling a tenant's effects, as commissioner of Court, under a landlord's sequestration and a mandate from the tenant, and receiving part of the proceeds in cash and part in bills, an arrestment in his hands by creditors of the tenant was found competent as well before as after payment of the bills.-27th Nov. 1828, Tulloch, 7 S. 72; 14th Nov. 1827, Kyle's Trustees, 6 S. 40.

20. An auctioneer was employed to sell furniture, the proceeds to be received by the owner or his clerk. An arrestment in the hands of the auctioneer was held inept to attach the price of furniture sold and undelivered.-29th June 1837, Adam, 15 S. 1225. See 26th Nov. 1850, Brown, 13 D. 149.

21. Arrestment in the hands of two out of six trustees, though one of the two was cashier, found inept.-22d Jan. 1830, Black, 7 S. 367.

22. Arrestment in the hands of a consignee by creditors of the consigner,

though bills were granted to him for the price of the effects consigned and sold, was held inept.-12th May 1837, Johnston, 15 S. 904.

23. Where effects were deposited by one party, and arrested specially as the property of another, the arrestee was found entitled to hold possession until judicial authority to deliver was obtained.-13th Jan. 1847, Craig, 9 D. 409. See 7th Dec. 1847, Rennie, 10 D. 223.

24. Arrestment found incompetent of effects in the hands of a clerk for debts of the employer, nor had the clerk the right of retention.-1799, Burns, Hume's Decisions. Arrestment found inept of a horse standing in a smithy to be shod, not being properly in the possession or custody of the smith, but for a transient job only in the way of his trade.'-20th Feb. 1821, Neilson, Hume's Decisions.

Note.-The same rule seems applicable to farmers' horses and gigs put up for a day in a stable, or effects in the hands of a carrier.

25. An arrestment must be laid in the hands of the proper party, and in his precise character.-11th Feb. 1826, Thomson, 4 S. 450; 20th May 1831, Henderson's Trustees, 9 S. 618.

26. Arrestments attach current rents, aliments, and interests, though the term of payment has not come, but only the current term, and not the year's produce -1624, Brown; 1628, Halkerton, Mor. 765; 1795, Livingstone, Mor. 769; 1802, Wright, Mor. 15919; and the legal terms are the rule, though varied by agreement.-15th Jan. 1813, Handyside, F. C.

27. A reserved annuity, payable quarterly and in advance, was found attachable by arrestment of the current term, though nothing was due at the time of arrestment.-1705, Hamilton, Mor. 768.

28. Arrestment does not fall by the death of the arrestee, if the subject be still in medio-1738, Earl of Aberdeen, Mor. 774; and forthcoming may be instituted against the arrestee's representatives.-1681, Riddel, Mor. 783.

29. A first arrestment preferred to a second laid on next day, where the decrees of forthcoming were on the same day.-1666, Cunningham, Mor. 809. A first arrestment preferred to a second with the first decree of forthcoming, because the second had got his more expeditiously in the Sheriff Court; whereas the first had proceeded in the Court of Session, and thus there was no undue delay on his part. -1667, Montgomery, Mor. 809. The first arrestment with the last decree of forthcoming was preferred to the second arrestment with the first decree, because the common debtor had opposed the first.-1680, Robertson, Mor. 814. The last arrestment with the first decree preferred; 'the Court considered the arrestment as an inchoate and incomplete diligence, so that if the posterior arrester got the first decree, they prefer him.'-1685, Lauder, Mor. 814. An arrestment was two days before another, and the decreets of forthcoming were got on the same day. The second arrester got delivery of the effects, and then poinded them, but the first arrester was nevertheless preferred.-1697, Wightman, Mor. 815. A debtor in a forthcoming having made payment, was obliged to pay a second time to a first arrester, who had not obtained his decree of forthcoming until after payment.1724, Nairn, Mor. 820. The debtor ought to have called the first arrester in a multiplepoinding.

30. Two arrestments on the same day, and no hour mentioned in the execution, were preferred pari passu, or equally according to the amount of their debts; and a proof to show that in point of fact the one was some hours before the other, was refused.-1705, Sutie, Mor. 816. An arrestment between the hours of four and six preferred to one between the hours of six and nine.-1779, Goldie, Mor. 824. An arrestment between the hours of six and seven preferred to one between seven and eight.-1772, Cameron, Mor. 821. But both preferred pari passu under same circumstances, where both were laid on by the same messenger and before the same witnesses.-1774, Wright, Mor. 823.

31. Found that where the arrestee allowed decree of forthcoming to go out in absence, he could not, in a suspension, plead compensation against the common debtor-17th Jan. 1809, Cunningham; same effect-17th Jan. 1809, Stevenson and Co., F. C.

32. It was found that an order on the arrestee to produce the arrested effects

in order to be sold, was equivalent to a decree of forthcoming, so as to prevent a subsequent poinding by another creditor.-1735, Muirhead, Mor. 687.

33. Arrestment found the competent mode of attaching furniture let with a house.-1784, Davidson, Mor. 761.

34. A party consigning money to get a suspension passed, found not thereafter entitled to arrest it on the dependence of an action of damages. -10th Feb. 1830, Cuthil, 8 S. 487. Same found, with reference to money consigned with the jailor to procure liberation.-12th May 1831, Ellis, 9 S. 585. But arrestment of consigned money where the object of consignation is not thereby defeated, is valid.— 21st Feb. 1775, Cross, Hailes 615; 16th July 1844, Pollock, 6 D. 1297.

35. By Act of Sederunt, 9th Nov. 1590, it is declared that arrestments are incompetent of sums of money consigned at the command of the Court in the hands of the clerk for suspensions. But in the case of Lockwood, 1738, money voluntarily consigned by a purchaser of adjudications was found arrestable; and a similar decision was given by a majority of the whole Court, as to money consigned by a tenant to purge an irritancy.-12th July 1844, Scott, 6 D. 1297.

36. It is competent for the arrestee to state objections to the validity of the original decree-16th Nov. 1826, Smyth; and the regularity of the arrestment, but not to the justice of the debt.-23d May 1822, Wight, 1 S. 462; 21st May 1842, Matthew, 4 D. 1242; 20th July 1849, Houston, 11 D. 1490.

37. Arrestment against a debtor, left at the counting-house of a company of which he was a partner, held to be inept.-21st Feb. 1822, Sharpe and Co., 1 S. 374. 38. A bill voluntarily granted by a debtor to enable creditors to poind certain effects arrested, was found incapable of defeating the arrestment.-30th June 1841, M'Donald, 3 D. 1128.

39. Railway calls past due were found arrestable in the hands of the shareholders, as against the company.-20th July and 13th Nov. 1849, Hill, 10 D. 78. 40. A creditor claiming in a sequestration must put a sworn value on an arrestment.-17th Dec. 1853, Gibson, 16 D. 233.

41. An arrestment on the dependence covers the interest and expenses, but not expenses of the forthcoming.-2d Feb. 1825, M'Donald, 4 S. 27; 7th June 1825, May, 4 S. 76.

42. An arrestment may be removed by a letter.-9th Dec. 1813, Ewing and Co., F. C.; 16th May 1829, Ewing, 7 S. 618; 15th June 1830, Thomson, 8 S. 921.

43. A verdict of £150 of damages was given for using an arrestment on a summons never executed.-19th July 1837, Clarke, 15 S. 1305. Malice must be proved. 20th Feb. 1853, Fleming, 15 D. 486.

44. An arrestment found preferable to an English creditor deed not intimated; the question is one of remedy, to be determined by the lex fori.-20th June 1855, Donaldson, 17 D. 1073.

45. Malice and want of probable cause must be averred and proved in an action of damages founded on an arrestment of a ship, on the dependence of an action from which the defender was assoilzied.-20th Dec. 1862,, Wolthekar, 35 Jur. 156.

ARRIAGE and CARRIAGE were services performed by tenants, indefinite in amount, and which were prohibited by the Jurisdiction Act, 20 Geo. II. c. 50, s. 21 and 22 (1746), so that none are now exigible, with the exception of mill services, and such as are expressly stipulated in the leases of tenants.

ARSENIC.-See Poison.

ARSON is the English term for wilful and malicious setting on fire the different things which are enumerated in 24 and 25 Vict. c. 97, ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, and 42. This offence is not triable at Quarter Sessions.

ART AND PART.-See Accessory.

ARTICLES IMPROBATORY AND APPROBATORY. Where a writing is objected to as being false or forged, the Court, in order to prevent, on the one hand, groundless objections, and, on the other, the putting in of false writings, may and ought to require two things: The party producing and founding on the writing, so soon as it is challenged, is ordered to appear and subscribe a minute approbatory, abiding by the writing as true and genuine, under the pains of falsehood; so, if it be afterwards found false, he is held as a party to the crime. On the other hand,

the party challenging is bound to authorize the challenge or improbation by a minute improbatory, and to consign a sum (not exceeding £5 in Sheriff Courts), to be forfeited to the other party if the challenge be found groundless. The statements in support of or adverse to the writing are contained either in the principal record, or separately, in articles improbatory and approbatory, prepared in the form of condescendences and answers. These checks are found, in practice, salutary in both ways.-Acts of Sederunt, 11th July 1828, s. 53, and 10th July 1839, & 91. By the Sheriff Court Act (1877), s. 11, all objections to writings founded on in the Sheriff Court may be maintained by way of exception, on caution or consignation being made, without the necessity of bringing a reduction.

ARTICLES OF ROUP is the writing which regulates sales by action or vendue. In sales of heritable property, the deed is formally extended on stamped paper, and the minutes of sale annexed with equal formality; and both may be registered, if a clause to that effect is contained in the deeds. With moveables, the terms of sale are generally read or explained, and may be proved by witnesses as having been announced. These are so common, that in some places of public sales they are exhibited in painted or printed placards on the wall. Where read at the commencement, all who bid must be held as having made themselves acquainted with the terms of sale, and it is not necessary to prove that they heard them read over. -21st May 1853, Laing, 25 Jur. 405. Apart from the special rules, there must be good faith on both sides. The exposer must not employ one (termed a white bonnet) to puff up or raise the price by fictitious offers; nor the offerers combine not to bid against each other.

ARTICLES, LORDS OF THE, was a committee of the Scotch Parliament, who had the preparation and approval of all matters to be laid before the Legislature.-1663, c. 1. Abolished at the Revolution by Act 1690, c. 3. The Committee on Overtures in General Assembly is founded on this ancient institution. ARTIFICERS. Į See Master and Servant.

ARTISAN.

ART-UNIONS are regulated by 9 and 10 Vict. c. 48 (1846), 29 Vict. c. 16 (1866). ASCENDANTS-Degrees of kindred, reckoning upwards; but a mother never succeeds to her child in heritage.

ASSAULT-The crime of attack on the person. Actual personal injury is not necessary. Aiming a blow, pointing a gun, riding at, or starting a horse by which the rider is thrown, throwing a stone, or even spitting at, amounts to the offence. In England, the actually striking or touching raises the offence from mere assault into battery. No verbal provocation can justify recourse to personal chastisement, though such may extenuate the offence and mitigate the punishment. It is not allowed to prove any kind of provocation given on a previous occasion, unless it can be connected with the time in question by the matter being then resumed. A person, by the law of nature, is entitled to defend himself and resist injury, but he must not carry his defence into attack and injury, and so become, in his turn, the assaulter. Where it appears that both parties are equally to blame, as being equally willing to fight, and do fight, the offence becomes one of breach of the peace. An assault may be prosecuted both criminally and civilly, the former by the party, with concurrence of the fiscal, or at the instance of the fiscal alone, and the other civilly, at the instance of the private party himself. The result in the one prosecution does not decide the other. The party may be acquitted criminally, and yet found liable civilly, and the opposite. The decision in the civil case cannot be put in as evidence in the criminal Court; but the judgment in the latter may be given as an article of evidence in the former, especially if the party pled guilty to the charge; but even such is not conclusive to exclude further evidence. In the civil suit of assault, the offence cannot be proved by the offender's oath, on reference; and when called on as a witness he may decline to give evidence against himself, unless in cases where the party has already been punished criminally at the instance of the fiscal, or where the assault is of so trivial description, that it appears certain that the punishment will resolve into a mere pecuniary fine, and not absolutely a sentence of imprisonment. The object of this rule is to avoid the hazard of perjury, in order to shun the imputation of a base crime, and the severity of a sentence of imprisonment. Two witnesses are necessary to prove the