| 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. |
| Craig and Hyslop v. Spence, et al |
1793
|
Insurance, Ships, Jurisdiction, Bill of Exchange, Evidence, Jettison |
James Craig and William Hyslop pursued John Spence and other Edinburgh underwriters for a partial loss on a cargo of wheat, petitioning the Court to address an interlocutor that had found the underwriters liable. The defenders answered, denying that the vessel had stranded and contending that the damage did not constitute general average. Hislop subsequently petitioned the Court regarding the policy’s exclusion of average loss for perishable goods and the applicability of the stranding exception to the loss. |
| Davidson v. Officers of State |
1793
|
Rent, Teinds, Evidence |
The Officers of State objected to deductions claimed by Duncan Davidson of Tulloch, disputing the inclusion of non-monetary casualities in rent deductions. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Duckett v. Williams |
1832
|
Fraud, Insurance, Aliment, Thirlage, Policy coverage, Evidence |
|
| Earl of Galloway v. Earl of Morton |
1757
|
Feu duties, Aliment, Tack, Succession, Teinds, Evidence |
As proprietors of land in Orkney, the pursuers owed defender James, Earl of Morton, annual feu duties that were generally paid in products such as grain, oil, and butter. These duties were measured in the weight units customarily used in Orkney and Shetland, including the Mark, the Lispund, the Meil, and the Last. The pursuers alleged that these units had increased from their original standards and should be adjusted to match their values in Norway, where they originated. Case documents include diagrams of weighing instruments, numerous depositions, and references to many individuals (including some not listed below). |
| Gow v. Russel |
1794
|
Inhibition, Adjudication, Aliment, Possession, Evidence, Property |
Nathaniel 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. |
| Graham and Rowland v. Dundas and Richardson |
1792
|
Libel, Theft, Verdict, pannels, Proof, Evidence |
Robert Graham and James Rowland, as pursuers, filed an information against Dundas and Richardson arguing that the jury's verdict against them was unintelligible and therefore could not support a sentence of condemnation. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| 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.
|
| Kempt v. Liddell |
1771
|
Debt, Evidence, Copartnership, Interlocutor, Oath, Creditor |
In the early 1750s, pursuer James Kempt and defender David Liddel entered into a co-partnership for distilling spirits in Leith. In 1752 Kempt sued Liddel for outstanding debts arising from the partnership. One piece of evidence in the litigation was a cash-book mostly written by Liddel. The suit was dormant until revived in 1766. By this time the original cash-book written by Liddel was missing. In its place Kempt supplied a cash-book written by him (Kempt) or another person. Liddel maintained that this newer cash-book did not contain the original records of the co-partnership and therefore cannot be used against him in the litigation. |
| Morison v. Inner-House Interlocutor |
1787
|
Aliment, Witness, Marriage, Succession, Interlocutor, Evidence |
Thomas Morison, a mariner in Charlestown, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor pronounced in a multiple poinding process initiated by naval officers and trustees. Mrs. Bethune Morison and others had reclaimed against Lord Moncreiff's interlocutor in that proceeding, and Thomas Morison sought alteration of the interlocutor the Inner House had issued upon their reclaiming note. |
| Nasmith v. the Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow |
1777
|
Arbitration, Contract, Reduction, Decreet-Arbitral, Arrestment, Evidence |
David Nasmith, a mason, entered into a contract with the city of Glasgow in which he agreed to construct a quay along the river Clyde. The city subsequently raised concerns about Nasmith’s work on the quay, and the parties entered into arbitration. The arbiters found that Nasmith had been overpaid for his work and directed him to refund a portion of his fee to the city. Nasmith challenged the arbiters’ decree in court. He initially argued that the arbiters were prejudiced against him because he had underbid Glasgow’s other masons to secure the contract in question. After that argument was rejected, the parties continued to dispute the proper method of measuring the work in question. |
| Sword v. Auld |
1794
|
Aliment, Debt, Arrestment, Theft, Creditor, Evidence |
Sword pursued William Auld, a carrier, for the loss of two boxes of muslins stolen from his carts in Glasgow in May 1789, claiming damages of L. 102:10:9 Sterling. Auld, who was no longer domiciled in Scotland, argued that a carrier was not liable for goods stolen while under his charge and that the pursuer’s proof of value was unsupported. After the Court suspended the decree against Auld, Sword petitioned for reconsideration of that interlocutor, and Auld replied that the goods had been safely delivered to Glasgow where the risk passed to Duncan, who agreed to take charge. |
| Thomas Wright v. John Ure |
1766
|
Deathbed, Succession, Witness, Proof, Deed, Evidence |
James Ure of Shirgarton, W.S., executed a settlement of his estate in favor of his nephew James. The settlement also named a series of substitutes, including any heirs-male born of John Wright of Easter Glinns and Christian Ure, Shirgarton’s sister. After Shirgarton died, his brother John challenged the settlement on the ground that it was executed on deathbed. With the settlement’s validity in question, John and young James came to an agreement that gave John a life rent and promoted Mary Ure, young James’s sister, in the line of succession. Mary eventually succeeded to her brother’s fee. After many years, however, Thomas Wright, the son of John Wright and Christian Ure, sought to void the titles held by John and Mary. In response, John renewed his action to void the alleged deathbed deed. Case documents discuss issues relating to the proof of certain facts, including Shirgarton’s health when the settlement was executed and alleged efforts to influence witnesses. |
| Tod v. McLintock |
1780
|
Debt, Prescription, Bill of Exchange, Aliment, Evidence, Arrestment |
Robert M'Lintock, defender, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor finding him liable to Tod. He subsequently petitioned to overturn the specific finding that he was liable for £20 11s. 11d. plus interest. |
| William and Henry Knox and Co Merchants in Dunbar v. William Law, Esq Sheriff-depute of Haddington, and Others |
1771
|
Teind, Evidence, Fiar, Reduction, Court of Session, Interest |
Pursuers William Knox and Henry Knox, merchants in Dunbar, supplied barley to brewers in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Knox and Knox alleged that defender William Law, the sheriff of the county of East Lothian, had set the fiar (fixed price) of barley too high. An Act of Sederunt in 1723 established the process by which a sheriff of a given county in Scotland would set friars. The Act required the sheriff to appoint a jury of at least eight landowners in the county, with knowledge of the good at issue, to set the price. According to the pursuers, the sheriff's responsibilities were purely ministerial, setting a price agreeable with the verdict of the jury. Knox and Knox alleged that Law did not comply with the 1723 Act when he set the fiar for barley. |
