| Cadell v. Morthland and Johnstone |
1799
|
Witness, Defamation, Evidence, Perjury, Proof, Interlocutor |
John Cadell pursued John Morthland, Advocate, and John Johnstone, Printer in Edinburgh, for damages and libel arising from a false newspaper account that attributed inflammatory statements to him regarding militia officials at Tranent in 1797. During the course of the litigation, Morthland and Johnstone petitioned the court alleging judicial misconduct by Cadell as pursuer, including intimidation of witnesses and obstruction of proof, which Cadell denied while countering that the defenders had engaged in witness tampering and dilatory conduct. The cause also involved Morthland’s explanation of bills of exchange relating to property of the Scots Chronicle, and Cadell subsequently sought reimbursement for legal, printing, and clerical expenses incurred in the damages action. |
| Craig and Hyslop v. Spence, et al |
1793
|
Insurance, Ships, Jurisdiction, Bill of Exchange, Evidence, Jettison |
James Craig and William Hyslop pursued John Spence and other Edinburgh underwriters for a partial loss on a cargo of wheat, petitioning the Court to address an interlocutor that had found the underwriters liable. The defenders answered, denying that the vessel had stranded and contending that the damage did not constitute general average. Hislop subsequently petitioned the Court regarding the policy’s exclusion of average loss for perishable goods and the applicability of the stranding exception to the loss. |
| Davidson v. Officers of State |
1793
|
Rent, Teinds, Evidence |
The Officers of State objected to deductions claimed by Duncan Davidson of Tulloch, disputing the inclusion of non-monetary casualities in rent deductions. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Duckett v. Williams |
1832
|
Fraud, Insurance, Aliment, Thirlage, Policy coverage, Evidence |
|
| Gow v. Russel |
1794
|
Inhibition, Adjudication, Aliment, Possession, Evidence, Property |
Nathaniel Gow pursued James Russel, an upholsterer, to abate a nuisance allegedly created by Russel's workshop operations in the upper floor, which Gow's family claimed caused excessive noise and ceiling damage contrary to Edinburgh's police rules. Gow argued that the workshop use violated the police regulations and warranted removal, while Russel maintained that the occasional noise inherent to an upholsterer's trade did not constitute a nuisance justifying such relief. |
| Graham and Rowland v. Dundas and Richardson |
1792
|
Libel, Theft, Verdict, pannels, Proof, Evidence |
Robert Graham and James Rowland, as pursuers, filed an information against Dundas and Richardson arguing that the jury's verdict against them was unintelligible and therefore could not support a sentence of condemnation. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Kempt v. Liddell |
1771
|
Debt, Evidence |
In the early 1750s, pursuer James Kempt and defender David Liddel entered into a co-partnership for distilling spirits in Leith. In 1752 Kempt sued Liddel for outstanding debts arising from the partnership. One piece of evidence in the litigation was a cash-book mostly written by Liddel. The suit was dormant until revived in 1766. By this time the original cash-book written by Liddel was missing. In its place Kempt supplied a cash-book written by him (Kempt) or another person. Liddel maintained that this newer cash-book did not contain the original records of the co-partnership and therefore cannot be used against him in the litigation. |
| Morison v. Inner-House Interlocutor |
1787
|
Aliment, Witness, Marriage, Succession, Interlocutor, Evidence |
Thomas Morison, a mariner in Charlestown, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor pronounced in a multiple poinding process initiated by naval officers and trustees. Mrs. Bethune Morison and others had reclaimed against Lord Moncreiff's interlocutor in that proceeding, and Thomas Morison sought alteration of the interlocutor the Inner House had issued upon their reclaiming note. |
| Sword v. Auld |
1794
|
Aliment, Debt, Arrestment, Theft, Creditor, Evidence |
Sword pursued William Auld, a carrier, for the loss of two boxes of muslins stolen from his carts in Glasgow in May 1789, claiming damages of L. 102:10:9 Sterling. Auld, who was no longer domiciled in Scotland, argued that a carrier was not liable for goods stolen while under his charge and that the pursuer’s proof of value was unsupported. After the Court suspended the decree against Auld, Sword petitioned for reconsideration of that interlocutor, and Auld replied that the goods had been safely delivered to Glasgow where the risk passed to Duncan, who agreed to take charge. |
| Tod v. McLintock |
1780
|
Debt, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Aliment, Evidence, Arrestment |
Robert M'Lintock, defender, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor finding him liable to Tod. He subsequently petitioned to overturn the specific finding that he was liable for £20 11s. 11d. plus interest. |
