| 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. |
| 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. |
| Jardine v. De La Motte |
1786
|
Aliment, Divorce, Debt, Adultery, Defamation, Perjury |
Captain William Jardine of Applegirth pursued divorce from Barbarie de la Motte in 1786, with both parties adducing proof. Mrs. De La Motte subsequently sued Sir William Jardine, by then a baronet, for suborning witnesses to fabricate evidence of adultery in the earlier divorce proceedings. Sir William Jardine defended by arguing that the indictment was invalid, contending that the witnesses had not been improperly influenced and that the evidence against him was merely circumstantial. |
| Penrose-Cumming v. Lawson |
1785
|
Freeholder, Perjury, Oath, Libel, Aliment, Election contest |
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, Election contest, Disposition |
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. |
| Peter Ramsay and Others, Councillors and Burgesses of Pittenweem v. Andrew Martin and Others |
1765
|
Election contest, Aliment, Oath, Perjury, Mala Fides, Debt |
Petitioners sought to have a borough election nullified on the ground that it was conducted in a corrupt fashion by counsellors who were bribed by Robert Alexander, a candidate for the local parliament seat. |
| Robert Robb v. Gabriel Halladay |
1766
|
Jurisdiction, Witness, Perjury, Libel, Premises Liability, Common Law |
Robert Robb accused Gabriel Halladay of committing perjury during Court of Session proceedings regarding the Anstruther Wester elections. Halladay raised several technical objections to the libel (i.e., the indictment); Robb responded to these objections and argued that the case should move forward. The libel was dismissed. |
