|Forrester v. Wright
||This case was about the admissibility of a witness’s testimony in a dispute between Thomas Forrester of Inchlees, the landlord of some property in Kilsyth, and Daniel Wright, a tenant on the property. An important fact in the dispute was the date of a letter handwritten by William Bow of Cairnoch; the letter stated that in granting a new lease on the property, Thomas Forrester would prefer Wright over other prospective tenants. Forrester sought to have Bow testify as to the date of the letter, but Wright objected on the ground that Bow had given partial counsel to Forrester in the matter. After the Lord Ordinary excluded Bow’s testimony, Forrester petitioned the Lords of Session to alter the interlocutor.
|George Trail v. Thomas Lyell
||Petitioner George Trail exhibited a libel charging Thomas Lyell, minister at Lady, with fornication, attempted rape, attempted assassination, and other crimes. Trail, who was both the minister of Dunnet and a heritor in Lady, sought to have Lyell deposed from his ministry. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland initiated a process regarding the libel, but many witnesses refused to appear on the ground that ecclesiastical courts could not compel their testimony. Trail therefore petitioned the Court of Session for letters of diligence (i.e., warrants) to force the witnesses to testify.
|Hay Marshall v. Anderson
||26 Jun 1798
||Divorce, Witness, Interlocutor
||Thomas Hay Marshall (pursuer) brought an action of divorce against Rose Anderson (defender), his Wife. for adultery.
|Houston v. Hunter and Edmund
||Bill (Financial Instrument), Witness
||This case was about liability for a bill, and the manner in which that liability could be proved. For reasons that were disputed, defenders Thomas Hunter and James Edmund became drawers on a bill that was accepted by pursuer John Houston. The bill was then discounted at a bank to raise money for one James Osburn. At the same time, a back-bill from Osburn and his business partner was placed in the hands of Edmund. Houston alleged that he, Hunter, and Edumund had agreed to take on joint liability for the bill he accepted; Hunter and Edmund denied this. Additionally, Hunter and Edmund challenged the propriety of examining Osburn as a witness, on the ground that he was too closely connected with Houston.