| Bell v. King |
1794
|
Witness, Aliment, Adultery, Divorce, Mala Fides, Defamation |
James Bell, Sheriff-Clerk of Berwickshire, pursued an action of divorce against his spouse Isobel King, alleging she had committed adultery with their lodger Thomas Purves. King denied the charge and sought to lead evidence from Purves himself and from her own mother and siblings, while Bell objected that Scots law rendered both the alleged adulterer and near relations incompetent witnesses for the defender. The litigation involved petitions to alter interlocutors, competing memorials on witness competency, and Bell’s answers to King’s bill of advocation regarding the separation and adultery allegations. |
| Donaldson v. Taylor |
1764
|
Divorce, Debt, Aliment, Succession, Marriage, Adultery |
Poor May Donaldson submitted a memorial against Taylor arguing that her mother Jean Lindsay was lawfully married to William Donaldson and that she was entitled to succession as a legitimate heir. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| George Taylor v. Mrs. Taylor, or Binnie |
1831
|
Aliment, Divorce, Adultery, Libel, Proof, Agent |
George Taylor, as pursuer in a divorce action against Mrs. Taylor, or Binnie, reclaimed against Lord Newton's interlocutors and requested that the Court recall them. The Court resolved to obtain the opinions of the judges on whether proof of remissio was prejudicial and should precede proof of the adultery. The consulted judges returned answers to the questions posed by the Lords of the First Division regarding the plea of remissio in the divorce action. |
| Houston Stewart Nicolson, Esq v. Mrs Stewart Nicolson |
1770
|
Adultery, Divorce, Aliment, Succession, Evidence, Witness |
Houston Sterwart-Nicolson was married to Mrs. Sterwart-Nicolson in 1764. Mr Nicolson having brought an action of divorce against his wife for adultery, supposedly with William Grahame a employee and servant of Sir William Maxwell of Springkell, brother-in-law of the pusuer. Mrs Nicolson made a declaration of her innocence, and she insisted that the pursuer misled the situation and created artful stories about his adultery. She, as the defender, objected to the charges and questioned the competence of the witness that her husband, Mr. Nicolson, presented because all of them were servants of Sir William Maxwell, pursuer's brother-in-law.
|
| Janet Robertson v. James Allan, Messenger in Perth |
1777
|
Paternity, Adultery, Oath in Supplement, Debt, Aliment, Succession |
On January 26th, 1775, Janet Robertson appeared in front of the kirk-session at Perth and accused James Allan of fathering her unborn child. Shortly after the birth of her daughter she brought action against Allan before the Magistrates of Perth for aliment. After a number of witnesses were called, most of whom testified in support of Robertson, the magistrates ruled that Allan was the father of her child. James Allan then appealed to the Court of Session, and Lord Auchinleck assoilzied (absolved) him, stating that due to lack of evidence and the supposed dishonest character of the pursuer, she was not entitled to her oath in supplement. Auchinleck based his judgment that Robertson "has no regard to truth, nor to honesty" upon the fact that she had originally accused John Allan, the nephew of the defender, of fathering her child. Upon petitioning the Court to alter Auchinleck's interlocutors, Robertson claimed that James Allan, who was married, had persuaded her to name John Allan, who was unmarried, as the father. A number of witnesses supported her claim that before giving birth she had met with the defender one night in the North Inch, where he had given her a 20-shilling note and half a guinea, "in order to induce her to give the child to his nephew, or to any body, except himself." The Court adhered to Auchinleck's interlocutor, determining that an oath in supplement may not be admitted in cases of adultery. |
| Jardine v. De La Motte |
1786
|
Aliment, Divorce, Debt, Adultery, Defamation, Perjury |
Captain William Jardine of Applegirth pursued divorce from Barbarie de la Motte in 1786, with both parties adducing proof. Mrs. De La Motte subsequently sued Sir William Jardine, by then a baronet, for suborning witnesses to fabricate evidence of adultery in the earlier divorce proceedings. Sir William Jardine defended by arguing that the indictment was invalid, contending that the witnesses had not been improperly influenced and that the evidence against him was merely circumstantial. |
| Lockhart v. Henderson |
1799
|
Divorce, Infidelity, Adultery, Aliment, Interlocutor, Libel |
Jean Lockhart sought a divorce from James Henderson on grounds of adultery. Henderson counterclaimed that Lockhart had committed adultery. In 1793, the couple reconciled from a previous split over accusations of infidelity. In the new case, Henderson allegedly resumed his adultery, whereas Lockhart denied any extramarital affairs. Lockhart accused Henderson of marrying for her money. The legal proceedings hinged on whether Henderson's claim that Lockhart continued her adulterous activity barred her divorce proceedings. |
| Michie v. Martin |
1768
|
Divorce, Aliment, Adultery, Interlocutor, Oath, Process |
Margaret Michie, spouse to George Martin, petitioned the Court of Session to alter its recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Porteous v. Isat and Others |
1781
|
Defamation, Ministers, Aliment, Adultery, Libel, Presbytery |
This was a case about defamation. It stemmed from an ecclesiastical proceeding in which parishioners of Gorbals accused their minister, William Anderson, of adultery. The ecclesiastical case advanced to the General Assembly, where Rev. William Porteous gave a speech defending Anderson and attacking the complainants. A version of the speech was subsequently printed in certain Edinburgh and Glasgow newspapers, with Porteous’s assistance. The complainants published a rebuttal in a Glasgow newspaper, accusing Porteous of calumny and abuse, and threatening to expose his own “curious tete-a-tetes.” Porteous sued the complainants for defamation. However, the complainants argued that they were merely responding to Porteous’s provocation. |
