| Crawford, et al v. Wilson, et al |
1794
|
Justices of Peace, Interdict, Statute, Common Law, Arrestment, Suspension |
|
| Cunningham and Simpson v. Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith |
1795
|
Debt, Arrestment, Statute, Common Law, Contract, Jurisdiction |
Cunningham and Simpson petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor of Lord Dreghorn, Ordinary on the bills, which had refused a bill of suspension in the matter of apprentices Dowie, Stewart, and Drysdale. They subsequently sought suspension of the judgment and interdict against Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith, and their officers, regarding the levying and carrying away of apprentices Dowie and Stewart. |
| Fraser, et al v. Sprott |
1796
|
Common Law, Gambling, Interdict, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Creditor |
Patrick Frazer, Walter Berry, and Henry Farquharson pursued a process to remit a Magistrates' interdict against their private lottery, arguing that such lotteries were not prohibited by statute or common law. The respondent Sprott opposed the remit, contending that private lotteries constituted unlawful gaming and were injurious to public order and fair trade. The dispute centered on whether private lotteries were legally permissible or prohibited as harmful to the public. |
| Tailors of Glasgow v. Hugh M'Kechnie and Others |
1777
|
Corporation, Burgh Royal, Poor, Common Law, Right of Employment, Female Occupation, Soldier |
Finlay Ferguson, George Ferguson, and James Wallis all served in the British Army, and they all had daughters who married journeymen tailors. After their marriage, the three men: Hugh Mackechnie, Christopher Taes, and Peter Clydesdale, set up as master tailors in Glasgow. Not being members of the Incorporation of Tailors, they based their right to practice tailoring upon the statute 3d Geo. III. c. 8., which declared that soldiers, their wives, and children, were entitled to "set up, and exercise such trades, as they are apt and able for, in any town or place, within the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, without any let, suit, or molestation, of any person or persons whatsoever.” The Incorporation of Tailors brought a complaint against these men in 1776. The Magistrates of Glasgow ruled that they must pay 5 s. sterling, cease from working as master-tailors under penalty of 100 merks Scots, and be imprisoned in the tolbooth until they should make payment and grant bond. Arguing that this incarceration was "violent and illegal," the defenders obtained letters of suspension and liberation. The case came before Lord Stonefield, who ruled against them. They next petitioned the Court for review. The Court adhered to Lord Stonefield's interlocutor, and decided that the statute in question "does not entitle the daughter of a soldier to confer that privilege upon her husband." |
