1788–1789
Election contestElectionOathCorporationAdjudicationVoting rightsThomas 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.AI-generated
Documents in this case (6)
- High v. Main — Petitionand Complaint, 28 Nov 1788 [2]November 28, 1788 Petition of Robert Main, Deacon of the Corporation of Weavers in Kinghorn, asking the Court to alter the council's decision to admit Thomas High as deacon in his place
- High v. Main — Petitionand Complaint, 28 Nov 1788November 28, 1788 Petition of James Donaldson, baker, and others asking the Court to alter the election proceedings of the council of Kinghorn, which excluded Donaldson as deacon of the bakers
- John Lamb v. John Robertson, Alexander Malcolm, Robert Forrester, James Garland, Walter Dempster, James Rolland, and James Robertson — Answers, 29 Jan 1789January 29, 1789 Answers by John Robertson and others to the petition and complaint of John Lamb, asserting that they voted to admit him to council as deacon
- Robert Main v. Thomas High — Replies, 4 Jul 1789July 4, 1789: Robert Main, Deacon of Kinghorn Weavers’ Incorporation, replies to Thomas High’s claims, defending his election and rejecting objections as invalid.
- Main v. High — Notesofthe Decisions, 1 Aug 1789August 1, 1789: Complainers in MAIN argue town-servants under magistrates have voting rights in deacon elections, citing precedents from Inverkeithing, Cupar, Perth, and noting 1735 Haddington supports their position.
- High v. Main — Petition, 10 Aug 1789August 10, 1789 Petition of James Donaldson Baker, John Robertson, Alexander Malcolm, and others, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
People & places in this case
People involved
- Dr. Robert Lindsay — Party
- Robert Mitchell — Party
- William Morison — Party
- William Maxwell Morison — Party
- Andrew Hamilton, of Spittalhaugh — Party
- John Laing — Party
- John Hutton — Party
- William Baxter Sr. — Party
- William Elder — Party
- Andrew Paul — Party
- James Balmain, Esq. — Party
- John Black — Party
- Robert White, of Fenchurch Buildings — Party
- David Watson — Party
- Charles Hay, of Newton, Lord Newton — Advocate for Party
- Henry Erskine — Advocate for Party
- Sir James Fergusson, of Kilkerran, Lord Kilkerran — Lord Ordinary
- John Baillie — Named in case documents
