1794
InhibitionAdjudicationAlimentPossessionEvidencePropertyNathaniel Gow pursued James Russel, an upholsterer, to abate a nuisance allegedly created by Russel's workshop operations in the upper floor, which Gow's family claimed caused excessive noise and ceiling damage contrary to Edinburgh's police rules. Gow argued that the workshop use violated the police regulations and warranted removal, while Russel maintained that the occasional noise inherent to an upholsterer's trade did not constitute a nuisance justifying such relief.AI-generated
Documents in this case (3)
- Nathaniel Gow v. James Ruffel — Proof, 9 Apr 1793April 9, 1793 Information of Mrs Jean Veitch, asserting that the petitioner's family suffers excessive noise and ceiling damage from Mr Ruffel's operations above.
- Nathaniel Gow v. James Russel — Memorial, 18 Jun 1794June 18, 1794 Memorial of Nathaniel Gow, Musician, arguing that James Russel's use of the upper floor as a workshop constitutes a nuisance contrary to the police rules of Edinburgh
- James Russel v. Nathaniel Gow — Memorial, 9 Oct 1794October 9, 1794 Memorial of James Ruffel, arguing that an upholsterer's occasional noise does not constitute a nuisance warranting removal
People & places in this case
People involved
- James Skinner — Party
- William Bruce, of Symbister — Party
- John Morthland, of Rindmuir — Advocate for Party
- Sir William Rae, of St. Catherine Bart. — Advocate for Party
- John Milne — Named in case documents
- John Baillie — Named in case documents
Places
- Edinburgh (principal)
