| Mackenzie v. Interlocutor |
1802
|
Defamation, Interlocutors |
The pursuers, Alexander Mackenzie and his spouse Anna Monro, questioned a decree pronounced by the Commissary-depute of Sutherland in a process of defamation and damages, brought by Reverend Mr. Walter Ross, Minister of Clyne against pursuers, and others. Pursuers asked to review the interlocutors: to vindicate the judgment against them in the Reverend Mr. Walter Ross’ defamation process, to be isolated of every charge presented by such Reverend and to find the true conviction to the case. |
| Porteous v. Isat and Others |
12 Dec 1781
|
Defamation, Ministers |
This was a case about defamation. It stemmed from an ecclesiastical proceeding in which parishioners of Gorbals accused their minister, William Anderson, of adultery. The ecclesiastical case advanced to the General Assembly, where Rev. William Porteous gave a speech defending Anderson and attacking the complainants. A version of the speech was subsequently printed in certain Edinburgh and Glasgow newspapers, with Porteous’s assistance. The complainants published a rebuttal in a Glasgow newspaper, accusing Porteous of calumny and abuse, and threatening to expose his own “curious tete-a-tetes.” Porteous sued the complainants for defamation. However, the complainants argued that they were merely responding to Porteous’s provocation. |
| Robert Hamilton Provost of Kinghorn, Pursuer v. James Rutherford, John Aitken, David Sibbald and Walter Rymer, in Kinghorn, Defenders |
10 Aug 1771
|
Defamation, expenses of process |
The pursuer, the Provost of Kinghorn, one of the royal boroughs situated upon the Firth of Forth, brought an action of damages for defamation against the defenders. They accused Mr. Hamilton of having sold the burgh's interest and having been bribed at the last general election. The pursuer limited his demand to the expenses of the process and the following judgment was pronounced, "Repel the defences; find the attack made by the defenders, upon the character of the pursuer, was malevolent and injurious; and therefore find them, conjunctly and severally, liable in expenses of process, of which ordain an account to be given in; but not in damages, in respect the pursuer has passed from any.” |
| Scotlands v. Thomson |
8 Aug 1776
|
Defamation |
John, Robert, and David Scotland sought damages from James Thomson, minister of Dunfermline, after Thomson preached two sermons accusing them of lying and corruption in connection with the Dunfermline election. Thomson claimed that it was his duty to censure wrongful behavior, and that the second sermon was justified by a provocative letter to the editor written by Robert Scotland. |
| Stein v. Marshall |
24 Jan 1804
|
Proof, Bankruptcy, Defamation |
After he obtained a discharge from his creditors, the pursuer brought an action against James Marshall, alleging that he had defamed the pursuer’s character. The defendant sustained that the pursuer was fraudulently bankrupt and thus, he affirmed that the pursuer's creditors were defrauded. The pursuer's petition was refused, because he based his claim on a private conversation between the defendant and Robert Jaimeson, one of his creditors. The Court held that conversation was not relevant to prove the claim of the pursuer. |
| Stein v. Marshall |
1804
|
Proof, Bankruptcy, Defamation |
After he obtained a discharge from his creditors, the pursuer brought an action against James Marshall, alleging that he had defamed the pursuer’s character. The defendant sustained that the pursuer was fraudulently bankrupt and thus, he affirmed that the pursuer's creditors were defrauded. The pursuer's petition was refused, because he based his claim on a private conversation between the defendant and Robert Jaimeson, one of his creditors. The Court held that conversation was not relevant to prove the claim of the pursuer. [This case appears twice in the SCOS database. See ID #4141 for additional documents.] |
| Stewart v. Carrick |
1774
|
Defamation |
Pursuer William Stewart sued defender Robert Carrick for libel. The dispute concerned allegations that Stewart had committed fraud while competing for flax premiums offered by the Board of Trustees for Improving Fisheries and Manufactures in Scotland. After Carrick wrote about the alleged fraud to Stewart’s employer, Robert Patterson, Stewart brought a defamation suit in the Commissary Court of Glasgow. In his defense, Carrick argued that he had no malicious intent, that the facts in the letters were well-founded, and that Stewart had failed to show any damages resulting from the letters.
|
