It follows, from the exclusive right of property, that a proprietor is entitled to prohibit all trespass within his grounds, and to bring an action of damages against the trespasser. Such prosecutions may be brought before justices of the peace. Trespass, by travelling through wheat, is, by statute, made liable to the penalties of L.10 Scots for the first offence, L.20 Scots for the second, and forfeiture of moveables — which Mr Blair says may practically be interpreted as an arbitrary fine — for any subsequent offence, and the penalties go to the public.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Trespass.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Trespass |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loch v. Tweedie | 1798 | Arrestment, Aliment, Trespass, Poinding, Interlocutor, Penalty | John Loch pursued Alexander Tweedie regarding damages caused by Tweedie’s trespassing sheep, defending his poinding of the flocks and asserting statutory rights to distrain while disputing the defender’s allegations as to penalties and damages. Tweedie repeatedly petitioned the Court to alter interlocutors, first regarding Lord Craig’s order and later challenging subsequent decisions, while Loch reclaimed against an Inner House interlocutor and submitted defenses supported by witness testimony. Tweedie answered Loch’s reclaiming petition and continued to seek alteration of the Court’s interlocutors through November 1799. |
| The Procurator-Fiscal of the Town of Stirling v. John Gillies and Others | 1793 | Salmon Fishing, Jurisdiction, Act of Parliament, Tack, Trespass, Statute | |
| Wilson and Scott v. Alexander | 1779 | Damages, Property, Animal Welfare, Trespass, Boni Mores | In November 1777, Jean Alexander of Rosebank had some nux vomica (strychnine) put into her swine and poultry's meat. A few days later her neighbor James Wilson's dog died "after suffering the greatest agony." After Wilson discovered that his dog was likely poisoned by his neighbor, he confronted her and she responded with contempt, saying that the poison had been to stop her livestock's food being eaten by his dog. Wilson, filed a complaint with the Sheriff of Edinburgh, who found the complaint relevant. Alexander then brought the process by advocation to the Court, and Lord Westhall assoilzied (absolved) her, determining that she was entitled to lay poison in her property in order to protect it. Wilson then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor. His advocate, David Armstrong, argued that Alexander's actions had gone against the common good, and that Alexander should have trusted in the law to protect her from Wilson's dog. In response, Alexander said there was no proof that her poison had caused the dog's death, and that even if it had, "what she did she was entitled to do in virtue of her right of property, and in defence of that property." She also disputed the basis of Wilson's claim to damages - that his dog was valuable to him as, among other things, a protection from thieves. Finally, in an illuminating turn of events, Alexander responded to a rumor that she had also poisoned the Duke of Buccleuch's dog. Rather, the defender insisted, Buccleuch's dog had been killed by a mob at Loanhead. |
