AI-transcribed

This term, in the law of Scotland, is used in different significations; it is applied to the form of the complaint, or the ground of the charge on which either a civil or criminal prosecution takes place. It is also applied to scandal reduced into writing. Scandal reduced into writing, and published or circulated, is, of all others, the most public and permanent, and ought, therefore, to be punished with greater severity than where the scandal is merely spoken: the animus injuriandi is likewise more clearly evinced. This offence may be the foundation of a criminal prosecution, or of a civil action for reparation, or of a combination of both actions.

Definition source
AI-transcribed
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Libel.” Public domain.

Legal Subject: Libel

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor 1787 Prescription, Interlocutor, Libel, Debt, Parole Evidence, Oath of Party Pursuer James Alexander petitioned the Court of Session to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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.
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.
Campbell v. Stuart 1794 Sasine, Libel, Teinds, Reversion, Prescription, Arrestment Andrew Stuart petitioned against an interlocutor of Lord Frederick Campbell that assoilzied Campbell from the counter-action raised by Stuart. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Duff v. Fyfe 1796 Freeholder, Aliment, Succession, Election contest, Oath, Libel Patrick Duff of Carnousie, with concourse of His Majesty's Advocate, charged Lieutenant James Fyfe with perjury, alleging that Fyfe had falsely sworn to possessing a nominal and fictitious freehold qualification for parliamentary voting. Fyfe defended by arguing that the estate in question—a liferent superiority—constituted a true and real estate in law, and therefore was not nominal or fictitious for the purposes of qualifying to vote.
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.
George Trail v. Thomas Lyell 1766 Ministers, Witness, Jurisdiction, Libel, Debt, Bankruptcy Petitioner George Trail exhibited a libel charging Thomas Lyell, minister at Lady, with fornication, attempted rape, attempted assassination, and other crimes. Trail, who was both the minister of Dunnet and a heritor in Lady, sought to have Lyell deposed from his ministry. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland initiated a process regarding the libel, but many witnesses refused to appear on the ground that ecclesiastical courts could not compel their testimony. Trail therefore petitioned the Court of Session for letters of diligence (i.e., warrants) to force the witnesses to testify.
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.
Hamilton v. Scott 1797 Jurisdiction, Aliment, Interlocutor, Arrestment, Debt, Libel The Reverend John Scott petitioned against an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Methven. Thomas Hamilton, Treasurer for the Poor of Avondale, answered the petition, asserting that the justices of the peace had jurisdiction and that the decree was regular.
His Majesty's Advocate v. Muir 1797 Libel, Verdict, homicide, Arrestment, Aliment, Trial Thomas Muir, soldier in the 65th Regiment of Foot and defender, argued that he could not be convicted of culpable homicide if indicted only for murder. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Houston v. Hunter and Edmund 1782 Bill (Financial Instrument), Witness, Bill of Exchange, Interlocutor, Libel, Debt This case was about liability for a bill, and the manner in which that liability could be proved. For reasons that were disputed, defenders Thomas Hunter and James Edmund became drawers on a bill that was accepted by pursuer John Houston. The bill was then discounted at a bank to raise money for one James Osburn. At the same time, a back-bill from Osburn and his business partner was placed in the hands of Edmund. Houston alleged that he, Hunter, and Edumund had agreed to take on joint liability for the bill he accepted; Hunter and Edmund denied this. Additionally, Hunter and Edmund challenged the propriety of examining Osburn as a witness, on the ground that he was too closely connected with Houston.
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.
King and Scot v. MacIntyre 1776 Intrinsic and Extrinsic, Qualified Oath, Advocation, Libel, Adjudication, Lease In 1774, John MacIntyre made a verbal agreement with David Scot and John King to rent a house belonging to them. A few days after this agreement, MacIntyre found the house inadequate for his needs and gave it back. Several months later Scot and King brought action against MacIntyre before the Magistrates of Glasgow for a half-year's rent. Because MacIntyre had acknowledged the facts of the set in his defense, the bailies found the libel against him relevant. MacIntyre brought an advocation before Lord Elliock, who ruled against him. He then petitioned the Court for review, arguing, first, that there had been no written obligation, merely a verbal one. Furthermore, he argued that his defense of the libel was intrinsic to his admission of the fact of the set, and the two could not be separated. The pursuers on the other hand, argued that MacIntyre's assertion of having given up the house was merely extrinsic to his acknowledgment of the libel. The Court assoilzied (absolved) the defender, and Scot and King brought a petition requesting an alteration of the Court's interlocutor. Handwritten marginalia notes that the Court likely adhered.
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.
Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow v. Anderston Brewing Company 1785 Interest, Debt, Libel, Interlocutor, Succession, Arrestment The Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow pursued Murdoch, Warroch & Co., brewers at Anderston, for duties on ale and beer sold in the city, while the defenders claimed exemption on the ground that they operated outside the city boundaries and had previously agreed to pay only 10d per barrel rather than the 13d claimed. The magistrates petitioned to amend their libel to include interest on the duties, which the brewers opposed as improperly raised at so late a stage. Both parties subsequently lodged reclaiming petitions against the Court's interlocutors, the brewers maintaining their denial of liability for the full duty.
McKinnon v. William Gillies, James Robertson, Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of the City of Edinburgh 1794 Debt, Aliment, Interlocutor, Advocation, Representation, Libel The Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Edinburgh petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor and assoilzie them from the action brought by McKinnon against them, William Gillies, and James Robertson. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Penrose-Cumming v. Lawson 1785 Freeholder, Perjury, Oath, Libel, Aliment, Election contest This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament, alleged that his opponent, James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was John Lawson, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Lawson argued that his oath was not false, because he was, in fact, entitled to vote. Lawson further argued that whether or not he was lawfully entitled to vote, he had reasonably believed that his oath was true.
Penrose-Cumming v. Rev. Leslie 1785 Libel, Oath, Perjury, Freeholder, Election contest, Disposition This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament and a freeholder in Moray, alleged that James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was Rev. William Leslie, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Leslie’s qualification to vote rested on a wadset (similar to a mortgage) of a superiority over part of the lands of Kinneddar. During the proceeding against him, Leslie raised a number of arguments against the charges. These included that Penrose-Cumming lacked the kind of specific injury that would give him title to pursue the case, that Penrose-Cumming had failed to allege sufficiently detailed facts, and that Leslie's rights were not, in fact, fictitious.
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.
Procurator-Fiscal of the County of Edinburgh v. Wilson 1787 Mala Fides, Interlocutor, Oath, Libel, Arrestment, Lease David Wilson, gardener at Roslin, petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing his bill of advocation against the Procurator-Fiscal of Edinburgh’s complaint charging him with hunting without a licence. William Scott, as Procurator-Fiscal, answered the petition, defending the interlocutor and responding to Wilson’s allegation that the reference to his oath was incompetent.
Robert Robb v. Gabriel Halladay 1766 Jurisdiction, Witness, Perjury, Libel, Premises Liability, Common Law Robert Robb accused Gabriel Halladay of committing perjury during Court of Session proceedings regarding the Anstruther Wester elections. Halladay raised several technical objections to the libel (i.e., the indictment); Robb responded to these objections and argued that the case should move forward. The libel was dismissed.
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.
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.
Sutherland v. Caledonian Society of Edinburgh 1797 Jurisdiction, Arbitration, Interlocutor, Libel, Statute, Expenses John Sutherland, as pursuer, petitioned the Court to remit the interlocutor of Lord Glenlee dismissing his action against the Caledonian Society of Edinburgh, the defender, for wrongful expulsion and denial of burial money. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
The Society of Solicitors before the Court of Session, &c v. The Keeper, Commissioners, and Society of Clerks to the Signet 1799 Interlocutor, Agent, Libel, Debt, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange In 1796, the Society of Clerks (Writers) to the Signet passed a regulation increasing their fees for various writs. The Society also enacted rules designed to exclude other practitioners from privileges claimed by the Clerks. The Society of Solicitors of the Court of Session, an incorporated group of agents, filed a complaint against the new regulations.
Wilson and Company v. Hamilton and Company 1772 Debt, Agent, Sell of goods, Arrestment, Interlocutor, Libel James Wilson and Company of Kilmarnock manufactured woolen carpets for sale in London. Since 1762, Malcolm Hamilton and Company had served as James Wilson & Company's London agent . The dispute related to a large quantity of James Wilson & Company's carpets left in a wharf cellar in London for five years. James Wilson & Company argued that because of Malcolm Hamiliton & Company's negligence it suffered some loss. The pursuer claimed that the carpets had been significantly damaged due to Malcolm Hamiliton & Company's neglect. The defender disputed these claims.
Wilson, et al v. Clerks of Session 1789 Agent, Process, Succession, Aliment, Sequestration, Libel Janet Wilson, widow of James Maiklem, and Maiklems pursued the Clerks of Session for indemnification for the loss of a process and the costs of reinstating the action. The Clerks answered, denying any fault and asserting that the process had been duly transmitted and returned.
Young v. Hernderland's Interlocutor 1793 Aliment, Mala Fides, Libel, Oath, Proof, Creditor Pursuer John Young, tenant in Upper Nisbet, petitioned the Court to remit Lord Henderland's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 399)