| Jardine v. Creech, &c |
22 Jun 1776
|
Libel |
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. |
| Penrose-Cumming v. Lawson |
1785
|
Freeholder, Perjury, Oath, Libel |
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 |
1787
|
Libel, Title to Pursue, Oath, Perjury, Freeholder |
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. |
