| Anderson v. Richardson |
1786
|
Defamation, Libel, Aliment, Proof, Interlocutor, Prescription |
John Anderson, Professor of Natural Philosophy, as pursuer, alleged that William Richardson, Professor of Humanity, as defender, uttered defamatory invectives against him in a public classroom at the College of Glasgow. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird |
1790
|
Adjudication, Arrestment, Aliment, Inhibition, Insurance, Defamation |
Thomas Cochran, weaver in Leith, filed answers to the petition of Margaret Clark, spouse of James Greig, sailor in Leith, responding to allegations of riot and damage. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Ballantyne v. Malcolm |
1793
|
Debt, Aliment, Succession, Defamation, Interlocutor, Fraud |
Alexander Malcolm, defender, petitioned against an interlocutor issued by Lord Monboddo in the action raised by Ballantyne, pursuer. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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. |
| Bowden and Gibson v. Esten and Bennett |
1794
|
Contract, Parole Evidence, Debt, Arbitration, Defamation, Aliment |
Bowden and Gibson, as pursuers, maintained that the pursuer was entitled to his salary for eighteen nights under his engagement with Mrs. Esten, despite Esten and Bennett's refusal to allow him to perform as agreed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Burt v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor |
1789
|
Succession, Aliment, Debt, Creditor, Sequestration, Defamation |
Robert Burt petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor that the Court had pronounced against the Lord Justice Clerk. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Cadell v. Johnstone |
1798
|
Defamation, Arrestment, Libel, Proof, Aliment, Interlocutor |
John Cadell of Cockenzie pursued John Johnstone, printer in Edinburgh. Johnstone petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and Cadell filed answers opposing the petition. The defender subsequently submitted evidence in support of his libel claim against Cadell, detailing alleged violence and misconduct during Tranent militia enforcement. |
| Cadell v. Morthland and Johnstone |
1799
|
Witness, Defamation, Evidence, Perjury, Proof, Interlocutor |
John Cadell pursued John Morthland, Advocate, and John Johnstone, Printer in Edinburgh, for damages and libel arising from a false newspaper account that attributed inflammatory statements to him regarding militia officials at Tranent in 1797. During the course of the litigation, Morthland and Johnstone petitioned the court alleging judicial misconduct by Cadell as pursuer, including intimidation of witnesses and obstruction of proof, which Cadell denied while countering that the defenders had engaged in witness tampering and dilatory conduct. The cause also involved Morthland’s explanation of bills of exchange relating to property of the Scots Chronicle, and Cadell subsequently sought reimbursement for legal, printing, and clerical expenses incurred in the damages action. |
| Cowan v. Mac Candlish |
1770
|
Paternity, Suit, Aliment, Proof, Defamation, Interlocutor |
Mary Cowan had alleged before the sheriff of Kirkcudbright that MacCandlish had fathered her son in 1765. She obtained an order compelling him to pay child support. MacCandlish claimed that her case was unproven, and that the sheriff had acted improperly in taking depositions from two witnesses when neither MacCandlish nor his procurator were present. |
| Crichton v. Mackay |
1788
|
Defamation, Aliment, Mala Fides, Creditor, Marriage, Succession |
Alexander Crichton petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor. Defender Mary Mackay answered, responding to allegations of infamy and misconduct that Crichton had made against her. |
| Graham et al v. Macfarlane |
1766
|
Education, Presbytery, Aliment, Defamation, Mala Fides, Sequestration |
This case involved the efforts of heritors in the parish of Port of Mentieth (Port) to deprive the parish schoolmaster, James Macfarlane, of his office. The heritors claimed that Mcfarlane neglected his schoolmaster duties while operating a side business as a merchandiser, beat the school children under this tutelage, along with other accusations. The Pursuers first complained of Macfarlane to the Sheriff of Perth in 1752, but Macfarlane was allowed to continue. Starting in 1763 and again in 1764, forty heritors and heads of families in Port exhibited a complaint against Macfarlane to the presbytery stating that Macfarlane was unfit to be a school teacher due to neglect of duty while he operated his merchandising business and abusive treatment of students. The Presbytery found Macfarlane unfit to serve as schoolmaster in Port. Macfarlane appealed to the synod of Perth and then to the Court of Session. Macfarlane argued that since the salaries of schoolmasters in parish schools were so low, it was common occurrence for schoolmasters to serve as merchandisers for the goods in demand in their parishes. He acknowledged that he had attended fairs in Stirling and Gartmore to sell lint-seed and trade other goods, but he argued that he was only gone for two days and that it was the custom of the parish to close school on these days because many children were absent to to assist with the bear seed. He outlined his measures of discipline as schoolmaster and claimed that they were not severe as the Pursuers had claimed. Case documents provide details of the day-to-day happenings in the Port school house and Macfarlane's interactions with students. |
| Hill v. Abercromby |
1793
|
Defamation, Advocation, Counsel, Interlocutor, Liferent, Jurisdiction |
Robert Hill, tailor in Potterrow, pursued Charles Abercromby, writer in Edinburgh, asking the Court to remit a protestation taken out by Abercromby after the summons was called and appearance entered, and to inflict censure for malpractice. Hill presented replies to Abercromby’s answers, disputing the respondent’s conduct in filing the protestation at that procedural stage. |
| Jardine v. Creech, &c |
1775
|
Libel, Defamation, Creditor, Damages, Adjudication, Aliment |
In 1774, the Edinburgh Magazine and Review published a paragraph criticizing an essay sent to the editors for possible publication. Although the Review did not print the missive, the editors noted that the essay was written in opposition to a ball held in the town of Whitburn, and that it exhibited “alternate strokes of superstition and blasphemy.” The Review further stated that the essay was signed by one J---D--NE in Bathgate, who was a school-master, and that it had been approved by a popular clergyman. In response, Bathgate schoolmaster Walter Jardine raised a libel action against the Review’s printer, William Smellie, and publishers William Creech and Charles Elliot. Jardine alleged that based on the information printed in the Review, the essay would be widely attributed to him; however, he denied being the writer. The defenders argued that the paragraph did not refer to Jardine, and that it merely contained matters of opinion. |
| 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. |
| Mackenzie v. Interlocutor |
1802
|
Defamation, Interlocutors |
The pursuers, Alexander Mackenzie and his spouse Anna Monro, questioned a decree pronounced by the Commissary-depute of Sutherland in a process of defamation and damages, brought by Reverend Mr. Walter Ross, Minister of Clyne against pursuers, and others. Pursuers asked to review the interlocutors: to vindicate the judgment against them in the Reverend Mr. Walter Ross’ defamation process, to be isolated of every charge presented by such Reverend and to find the true conviction to the case. |
| Merry v. Macrae |
1791
|
Arrestment, Aliment, Defamation, Proof, Inhibition, Mala Fides |
James Merry pursued James Macrae for assault with a stick, claiming damages and a fine. Alexander Young, Writer to the Signet, subsequently lodged an information contending that Merry's claim was unfounded and urging that the interlocutor against Macrae not be enforced. |
| 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. |
| Robert Callander v. John Milligan |
1847
|
Arrestment, Debt, Defamation, Bankruptcy, Sale, Damages |
Robert Callander pursued John Milligan for damages for defamation and unlawful apprehension. Callander alleged that Milligan had instigated false accusations of cattle theft, causing Callander's detention by police at Carlisle and resulting in lost sales and reputational injury. Milligan denied liability, contending that Callander had stolen the cattle rather than purchased them through an assignee as claimed, while Callander maintained he had paid for the beasts before being wrongfully detained. |
| Robert Hamilton Provost of Kinghorn, Pursuer v. James Rutherford, John Aitken, David Sibbald and Walter Rymer, in Kinghorn, Defenders |
1771
|
Defamation, expenses of process, Aliment, Fine, Proof, Election |
The pursuer, the Provost of Kinghorn, one of the royal boroughs situated upon the Firth of Forth, brought an action of damages for defamation against the defenders. They accused Mr. Hamilton of having sold the burgh's interest and having been bribed at the last general election. The pursuer limited his demand to the expenses of the process and the following judgment was pronounced, "Repel the defences; find the attack made by the defenders, upon the character of the pursuer, was malevolent and injurious; and therefore find them, conjunctly and severally, liable in expenses of process, of which ordain an account to be given in; but not in damages, in respect the pursuer has passed from any.” |
| Robertson and Farquharson v. Cameron, et al |
1786
|
Arrestment, Aliment, Sequestration, Creditor, Defamation, Damages |
The defenders Daniel Cameron, Joseph Fyfe, James Boyd, and Thomas Miller filed an information arguing that the pursuers Robertson and Farquharson were unlawfully detained in prison after being apprehended for attempted robbery. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Scotlands v. Thompson |
1776
|
Defamation, Aliment, Mala Fides, Libel, Damages, Election contest |
The defender, the Reverend James Thomson, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The pursuers, Scotlands, opposed the petition in a memorial arguing that Thomson's accusations were malicious, politically motivated, and subversive of public order. |
| Scotlands v. Thomson |
1775
|
Defamation, Aliment, Election contest, Interlocutor, Creditor, Libel |
John, Robert, and David Scotland sought damages from James Thomson, minister of Dunfermline, after Thomson preached two sermons accusing them of lying and corruption in connection with the Dunfermline election. Thomson claimed that it was his duty to censure wrongful behavior, and that the second sermon was justified by a provocative letter to the editor written by Robert Scotland. |
| Stein v. Marshall |
1803
|
Proof, Bankruptcy, Defamation, Debt, Aliment, Interlocutor |
After he obtained a discharge from his creditors, the pursuer brought an action against James Marshall, alleging that he had defamed the pursuer’s character. The defendant sustained that the pursuer was fraudulently bankrupt and thus, he affirmed that the pursuer's creditors were defrauded. The pursuer's petition was refused, because he based his claim on a private conversation between the defendant and Robert Jaimeson, one of his creditors. The Court held that conversation was not relevant to prove the claim of the pursuer. |
| Stewart v. Carrick |
1774
|
Defamation, Debt, Aliment, Succession, Libel, Adjudication |
Pursuer William Stewart sued defender Robert Carrick for libel. The dispute concerned allegations that Stewart had committed fraud while competing for flax premiums offered by the Board of Trustees for Improving Fisheries and Manufactures in Scotland. After Carrick wrote about the alleged fraud to Stewart’s employer, Robert Patterson, Stewart brought a defamation suit in the Commissary Court of Glasgow. In his defense, Carrick argued that he had no malicious intent, that the facts in the letters were well-founded, and that Stewart had failed to show any damages resulting from the letters.
|
| [MERGED → 4141] Stein v. Marshall |
1804
|
Proof, Bankruptcy, Defamation |
After he obtained a discharge from his creditors, the pursuer brought an action against James Marshall, alleging that he had defamed the pursuer’s character. The defendant sustained that the pursuer was fraudulently bankrupt and thus, he affirmed that the pursuer's creditors were defrauded. The pursuer's petition was refused, because he based his claim on a private conversation between the defendant and Robert Jaimeson, one of his creditors. The Court held that conversation was not relevant to prove the claim of the pursuer. [This case appears twice in the SCOS database. See ID #4141 for additional documents.] |
