| Houston Stewart Nicolson, Esq v. Mrs Stewart Nicolson |
6 Dec 1770
|
Adultery, Divorce |
Houston Sterwart-Nicolson was married to Mrs. Sterwart-Nicolson in 1764. Mr Nicolson having brought an action of divorce against his wife for adultery, supposedly with William Grahame a employee and servant of Sir William Maxwell of Springkell, brother-in-law of the pusuer. Mrs Nicolson made a declaration of her innocence, and she insisted that the pursuer misled the situation and created artful stories about his adultery. She, as the defender, objected to the charges and questioned the competence of the witness that her husband, Mr. Nicolson, presented because all of them were servants of Sir William Maxwell, pursuer's brother-in-law.
|
| Hay Marshall v. Anderson |
26 Jun 1798
|
Divorce, Witness, Interlocutor |
Thomas Hay Marshall (pursuer) brought an action of divorce against Rose Anderson (defender), his Wife. for adultery. |
| Lockhart v. Henderson |
7 Dec 1799
|
Divorce, Infidelity, Adultery |
Jean Lockhart sought a divorce from James Henderson on grounds of adultery. Henderson counterclaimed that Lockhart had committed adultery. In 1793, the couple reconciled from a previous split over accusations of infidelity. In the new case, Henderson allegedly resumed his adultery, whereas Lockhart denied any extramarital affairs. Lockhart accused Henderson of marrying for her money. The legal proceedings hinged on whether Henderson's claim that Lockhart continued her adulterous activity barred her divorce proceedings. |
| Gibsone v. Somerville |
1802
|
Contract of separation, Divorce, Debtors |
Mrs. Gibson (pursuer) was married to Dewar Masterson, and while they were together, due to Mr. Masterton's dissipation and extravagance, they assumed several debts. After three years of marriage, Mrs. Gibson brought an action of divorce against her husband. As a result, there was a contract of separation, which needed the consent of all Mr. Masterton's creditors. When Mr. Masterton died, Mrs. Gibson challenged the contract of separation because the terms on which the agreement was conceded were not only highly prejudiced against her interest, but also fraudulent, on the grounds that the deceased Mr. Masterton has been released from paying his creditors, but she has left without income. John Somerville and Samuel Macknight submitted answers to Gibson’s arguments, for themselves as creditors and for the other creditors of the deceased. |
