Frequently signifies deposition on oath; or affidavit. (See Reference to Oath.)

Definition source

Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.

Legal Subject: Oath

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Anstruther-Paterson v. Rutherfurd	1791	Election contest, Election, Oath, Aliment, Collusion, Feu duties	Documents available Full description in progress.
Appendix for Durham	1791	Perjury, Witness, Trial, Oath	The pursuers alleged that Alexander Durham perjured himself in a trial before the Circuit Court of Justiciary at Perth by falsely swearing that James Brown was present during Durham's examination. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Campbells v. Macneil	1798	Debt, Prescription, Execution, Bankruptcy, Oath, Citation	Colin Campbell and Duncan Campbell junior, as trustees on the sequestrated estate of Alexander M'Corquodale, pursued John Macneil of Gigha to alter an interlocutor of Lord Armadale regarding an account libelled against him. Macneil answered, pleading that the account was prescribed and the execution false. The parties thereafter debated the proper interpretation of Macneil's oath and the validity of the citation.
Davies, Jones, & Co. v. William Young	1786	Debt, Aliment, Oath, Interlocutor, Action, Bill of Exchange	William Young petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Monboddo, claiming expenses, and Davies, Jones, & Co. answered the petition. The merchants defended against Young's claim for expenses and asserted that he had commissioned and received the six hats in dispute.
Douglas v. Grierson	1793	Debt, Prescription, Oath, Interlocutor, Creditor, Aliment	William Douglas, factor for the Representatives of the Leith Soperie Company, pursued payment from Mrs. Hislop, the widow, for soap furnished in 1782. When the court sustained the defender’s plea of triennial prescription, Douglas petitioned to alter and remit the interlocutor, arguing that written commission and receipt from 1782 provided sufficient proof of debt to overcome the prescription bar, and sought reconsideration of the ruling. Mrs. Hislop subsequently reclaimed against the interlocutor sustaining the defense of prescription.
Duguid v. Hall, et al	1788	Debt, Interlocutor, Credit, Oath, Caution, Contract	James Duguid petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor and suspend the letters simpliciter issued against him, challenging the enforcement of a Magistrates’ decree. John Hall, John Tenant, and William Sprott answered, asserting that the Magistrates’ decree had been properly enforced and the petitioner’s claims were groundless.
Forbes v. Magistrates of Canongate	1791	Arrestment, Debt, Creditor, Jurisdiction, Cautioner, Oath	Archibald Forbes, creditor of Alexander Robertson, pursued the Magistrates of Canongate for unlawfully releasing Robertson from imprisonment for debt, alleging the liberation contravened the 1671 Act because the health certificate was unsworn and granted unrestricted liberty. The magistrates answered that they had not breached the act, maintaining that Robertson’s health had been sufficiently established by certificates on soul and conscience.
High v. Main	1788	Election contest, Election, Oath, Corporation, Adjudication, Voting rights	Thomas High and Robert Main contested the deaconship of the Kinghorn Weavers' Incorporation, Main having petitioned to alter the council's decision admitting High to the office in his place. The central question was whether town-servants under the magistrates held voting rights in such elections, with the complainers citing precedents from Inverkeithing, Cupar, Perth, and Haddington to support their position. James Donaldson and others raised parallel challenges to the election of the deacon of the bakers, and the parties submitted answers and petitions seeking alteration of the Court's interlocutors.
Hunter v. Monboddo's Interlocutor	1794	Debt, Arrestment, Creditor, Bill of Exchange, Caution, Oath	James Hunter petitioned the Court to alter the Sheriff's warrant for his incarceration issued on grounds of meditatio fugæ. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Inglis v. Lord Dreghorn's Interlocutor	1789	Aliment, Oath, Arrestment, Creditor, Advocation, Sequestration	John Inglis petitioned the Court to alter Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Jack and Others v. Murdoch, Fearns and Company	1795	Insurance, Bill of Exchange, Adjudication, Debt, Sequestration, Oath	Digitization and description in progress.
James Russel v. James Fairie	1791	Debt, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Statute of limitations, Oath	Documents uploaded. Full description in progress.
James Sellars v. Ninian Anderson	1778	Emotion, Oath, Injury, Security (Physical and Mental)	At the beginning of 1777 James Sellars, Robert Sellars, and Marion Sellars brought action against Ninian Anderson for having brought a "causeless" action of lawburrows (a warrant for extracting legal security to keep the peace) against them. They charged Anderson with malicious and vexatious intent in bringing this action, while the defender replied that he could prove the grounds upon which he had brought it, although he was not required by law to do so. The case came before Lord Covington, who ruled that because the defender had originally offered proof, he was required to provide it. Anderson petitioned the Court to alter Covington's interlocutor, arguing that Scots law was clear that a person taking out lawburrows was only required to swear that he dreaded harm from the recipients of the action. He further argued that the pursuers could not make a claim to damages, as repercussions would only follow if they were to commit unlawful harm. The pursuers answered that the lawburrows against them had indeed caused harm, for their forced march from Meikle Govan to the Glasgow town-house to provide caution had led to public humiliation. The Court altered Covington's interlocutor, finding that the defender was not required to justify the grounds of his application for lawburrows. Upon receiving a reclaiming petition from the pursuers, the Court adhered. Lord Barskimming remarked, "We will not cut a man out of his just right because he hastily offered to prove before an Ordinary what he was not obliged to prove."
Kincaid v. Lord Justic Clerk's Interlocutor	1808	Sequestration, Bill of Exchange, Diligence, Oath, Cautioner, Fraud	Kincaid sought suspension of a charge brought against him upon a bill, alleging that the drawer had already paid the debt and that the charger and drawer had fraudulently attempted to extort double payment. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
McFarlane v. Meadowbank's Interlocutor	1796	Debt, Creditor, Aliment, Bill of Exchange, Assignation, Oath	The suspender McFarlane petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Meadowbank, which had found the charger entitled to expenses and appointed an account thereof to be given in. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
Philips v. Buchanan	1797	Debt, Oath, Interlocutor, Partnership, Aliment, Suspension	Pursuer John Phillips petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor reversing a ruling by Lord Armadale in his case against defender Buchanan. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Pringle v. Hamilton	1793	Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Debt, Oath, Action, Assignation	Pringle pursued Hamilton for payment of a bill of exchange drawn by David Cathcart in 1762, while Hamilton defended on the grounds that the instrument had not been duly negotiated and that the debt was prescribed. Pringle argued that Hamilton remained liable notwithstanding the alleged defect in negotiation and that the defense of prescription was inapplicable, but Cathcart answered that the debt had been discharged by payment made by his father. Hamilton subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor.
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.
Thomas Laurie, Collector of the Poor's Rates for the City of Glasgow v. Robert Dreghorn	1795	Tax, Aliment, Succession, Trade, Bankruptcy, Oath	Robert Dreghorn of Ruch-hill petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor concerning the poor's rates for the City of Glasgow. Thomas Laurie, Collector of the Poor's Rates, answered for himself and on behalf of the Magistrates and Town-Council, responding to Dreghorn's arguments.
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.
Young v. Scotts	1777	Illness, Convalescence, Oath, Female Succession, Flesh Market	A month before his death, Jedburgh merchant John Young settled his heritage upon the daughters of his older sister, although his customary heir was Andrew Young, the eldest son of his younger brother. Andrew Young then sold his right to this heritage to his sister, Agnes, who raised an action of reduction of Young's disposition on the head of deathbed, because he had died within sixty days of its execution. The defenders asserted to Lord Covington that Young had recovered his health just before his death, and produced two witnesses who swore that they had encountered Young at the Flesh Market after he had executed the disposition. Covington pronounced that Young had indeed recovered. The pursuers then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor. They asserted that numerous countervailing testimonies cast doubt on whether Young had really visited the Flesh Market in the weeks before his death. On July 3rd, 1777, the Court adhered to Lord Covington's interlocutor. The pursuers submitted another petition, emphasizing that the oaths of the two witnesses to Young's alleged convalescence were unreliable: "Robson is in low circumstances, and considerably in debt to the defender in this reduction; and Laidlaw is in a manner subsisted upon charity." Marginalia on the second petition indicates that the Court may indeed have altered their decision on August 6th, however reports of this case mention no such revision.