1790–1791
Robert Home-Gordon of Embo and his co-pursuers petitioned the Court to expunge Hugh Rose of Aitnoch from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland, alleging that Rose's qualification was nominal and fictitious. Rose answered the petition and subsequent condescendence, defending his wadset qualification and land possession against the pursuers' allegations of insufficient freehold status. The cause proceeded through replies and further answers regarding the validity of Rose's entitlement to remain on the freeholders' roll.AI-generated
Documents in this case (5)
- Robert Home-Gordon v. Hugh Rose — Petition and Complaint, 12 Nov 1790November 12, 1790 Petition of Robert Home Gordon, Esq; and others, asking the Court to find that Hugh Rose's qualification is nominal and fictitious, and to expunge his name from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland.
- Robert Home Gordon of Embo and George Mackay of Bighouse v. Hugh Rose of Aitnoch — Answers, 14 Jan 1791January 14, 1791 Answers by Hugh Rose of Aitnoch to the petition and complaint of Robert Home Gordon of Embo and George Mackay of Bighouse, responding to allegations of nominal and fictitious qualification.
- Robert Home-Gordon v. Hugh Rose — Replies, 27 Jan 1791January 27, 1791 Replies for Robert Home-Gordon, Esquire, of Embo, and others, to the Answers for Hugh Rose, Esquire, of Aitnoch
- Robert Home-Gordon of Embo v. Hugh Rose of Aitnoch — Condescendence, 8 Feb 1791February 8, 1791 Condescendence of Robert Home-Gordon, Esq. against Hugh Rose, Esq. T. Manson, Agent, referring to prior condescendence against Lieutenant M'Kenzie
- Robert Home-Gordon v. Hugh Rose — Answers, 18 Feb 1791February 18, 1791 Answers by Hugh Rose of Aitnoch to the condescendence of Robert Home-Gordon, responding to allegations concerning his wadset qualification and land possession.
