This term, in the law of Scotland, is used in different significations; it is applied to the form of the complaint, or the ground of the charge on which either a civil or criminal prosecution takes place. It is also applied to scandal reduced into writing. Scandal reduced into writing, and published or circulated, is, of all others, the most public and permanent, and ought, therefore, to be punished with greater severity than where the scandal is merely spoken: the animus injuriandi is likewise more clearly evinced. This offence may be the foundation of a criminal prosecution, or of a civil action for reparation, or of a combination of both actions.

Definition source

Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Libel.” Public domain.

Legal Subject: Libel

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Alexander v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor	1787	Prescription, Interlocutor, Libel, Debt, Parole Evidence, Oath of Party	Pursuer James Alexander petitioned the Court of Session to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Anderson v. Richardson	1786	Defamation, Libel, Aliment, Proof, Interlocutor, Prescription	John Anderson, Professor of Natural Philosophy, as pursuer, alleged that William Richardson, Professor of Humanity, as defender, uttered defamatory invectives against him in a public classroom at the College of Glasgow. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cadell v. Johnstone	1798	Defamation, Arrestment, Libel, Proof, Aliment, Interlocutor	John Cadell of Cockenzie pursued John Johnstone, printer in Edinburgh. Johnstone petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and Cadell filed answers opposing the petition. The defender subsequently submitted evidence in support of his libel claim against Cadell, detailing alleged violence and misconduct during Tranent militia enforcement.
Campbell v. Stuart	1794	Sasine, Libel, Teinds, Reversion, Prescription, Arrestment	Andrew Stuart petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Frederick Campbell that assoilzied Campbell from the counter-action raised by Stuart. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
George Taylor v. Mrs. Taylor, or Binnie	1831	Aliment, Divorce, Adultery, Libel, Proof, Agent	George Taylor, as pursuer in a divorce action against Mrs. Taylor, or Binnie, reclaimed against Lord Newton's interlocutors and requested that the Court recall them. The Court resolved to obtain the opinions of the judges on whether proof of remissio was prejudicial and should precede proof of the adultery. The consulted judges returned answers to the questions posed by the Lords of the First Division regarding the plea of remissio in the divorce action.
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.
Hamilton v. Scott	1797	Jurisdiction, Aliment, Interlocutor, Arrestment, Debt, Libel	The Reverend John Scott petitioned against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Methven. Thomas Hamilton, Treasurer for the Poor of Avondale, answered the petition, asserting that the justices of the peace had jurisdiction and that the decree was regular.
His Majesty's Advocate v. Muir	1797	Libel, Verdict, homicide, Arrestment, Aliment, Trial	Thomas Muir, soldier in the 65th Regiment of Foot and defender, argued that he could not be convicted of culpable homicide if indicted only for murder. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Jardine v. Creech, &c	1775	Libel	In 1774, the Edinburgh Magazine and Review published a paragraph criticizing an essay sent to the editors for possible publication. Although the Review did not print the missive, the editors noted that the essay was written in opposition to a ball held in the town of Whitburn, and that it exhibited “alternate strokes of superstition and blasphemy.” The Review further stated that the essay was signed by one J---D--NE in Bathgate, who was a school-master, and that it had been approved by a popular clergyman. In response, Bathgate schoolmaster Walter Jardine raised a libel action against the Review’s printer, William Smellie, and publishers William Creech and Charles Elliot. Jardine alleged that based on the information printed in the Review, the essay would be widely attributed to him; however, he denied being the writer. The defenders argued that the paragraph did not refer to Jardine, and that it merely contained matters of opinion.
Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow v. Anderston Brewing Company	1785	Interest, Debt, Libel, Interlocutor, Succession, Arrestment	The Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow pursued Murdoch, Warroch & Co., brewers at Anderston, for duties on ale and beer sold in the city, while the defenders claimed exemption on the ground that they operated outside the city boundaries and had previously agreed to pay only 10d per barrel rather than the 13d claimed. The magistrates petitioned to amend their libel to include interest on the duties, which the brewers opposed as improperly raised at so late a stage. Both parties subsequently lodged reclaiming petitions against the Court's interlocutors, the brewers maintaining their denial of liability for the full duty.
Penrose-Cumming v. Lawson	1785	Freeholder, Perjury, Oath, Libel	This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament, alleged that his opponent, James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was John Lawson, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Lawson argued that his oath was not false, because he was, in fact, entitled to vote. Lawson further argued that whether or not he was lawfully entitled to vote, he had reasonably believed that his oath was true.
Penrose-Cumming v. Rev. Leslie	1785	Libel, Oath, Perjury, Freeholder	This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament and a freeholder in Moray, alleged that James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was Rev. William Leslie, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Leslie’s qualification to vote rested on a wadset (similar to a mortgage) of a superiority over part of the lands of Kinneddar. During the proceeding against him, Leslie raised a number of arguments against the charges. These included that Penrose-Cumming lacked the kind of specific injury that would give him title to pursue the case, that Penrose-Cumming had failed to allege sufficiently detailed facts, and that Leslie's rights were not, in fact, fictitious.
Procurator-Fiscal of the County of Edinburgh v. Wilson	1787	Mala Fides, Interlocutor, Oath, Libel, Arrestment, Lease	David Wilson, gardener at Roslin, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing his bill of advocation against the Procurator-Fiscal of Edinburgh’s complaint charging him with hunting without a licence. William Scott, as Procurator-Fiscal, answered the petition, defending the interlocutor and responding to Wilson’s allegation that the reference to his oath was incompetent.
Scotlands v. Thompson	1776	Defamation, Aliment, Mala Fides, Libel, Damages, Election contest	The defender, the Reverend James Thomson, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The pursuers, Scotlands, opposed the petition in a memorial arguing that Thomson's accusations were malicious, politically motivated, and subversive of public order.
Sutherland v. Caledonian Society of Edinburgh	1797	Jurisdiction, Arbitration, Interlocutor, Libel, Statute, Expenses	John Sutherland, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to remit the interlocutor of Lord Glenlee dismissing his action against the Caledonian Society of Edinburgh, the defender, for wrongful expulsion and denial of burial money. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Wilson, et al v. Clerks of Session	1789	Agent, Process, Succession, Aliment, Sequestration, Libel	Janet Wilson, widow of James Maiklem, and Maiklems pursued the Clerks of Session for indemnification for the loss of a process and the costs of reinstating the action. The Clerks answered, denying any fault and asserting that the process had been duly transmitted and returned.
Young v. Hernderland's Interlocutor	1793	Aliment, Mala Fides, Libel, Oath, Proof, Creditor	Pursuer John Young, tenant in Upper Nisbet, petitioned the Court to remit Lord Henderland's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.