| 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. |
| Maxwell v. Blair and Others |
1774
|
Gambling, Bill of Exchange, Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Succession |
Major William Maxwell of Dalswinton, pursuer, sued the trustees of the late Hugh Blair for payment on a bill that Blair had granted to Maxwell. The defenders refused to pay, claiming that the bill was granted in connection with an illegal wager on a horse race. Maxwell argued that the wager was not illegal. |
| William Sprott v. Patrick Frazer |
1796
|
Gambling, Common Law, Interdict, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Statute |
William Sprott, Solicitor-at-Law and Procurator-Fiscal for the City of Edinburgh, answered a bill of advocation in which Patrick Frazer, Walter Berry, and Henry Farquharson sought to have the Magistrates' interlocutor and interdict against their lotteries remitted on the ground that private lotteries were lawful. Sprott contested this argument, maintaining that private lotteries were illegal and defending the magisterial prohibition. The case thus raised the question of the lawfulness of private lotteries, with the defenders seeking to overturn the interdict and the pursuer supporting the magistrates' authority to enforce it. |
