| 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. |
| 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. |
| His Majesty's Advocate v. Murdison |
1773
|
Theft, Trial, Verdict |
Alexander Murdison was subject to a criminal indictment alleging that he and his herder, John Miller, stole certain sheep “or [were guilty] of receiving and having in their custody the aforesaid parcels of sheep.” Murdison was convicted, and subsequently challenged the verdict on three grounds. First, according to Murdison, the verdict did not specify whether the defendants were guilty of theft or of receiving stolen property. Second, no verdict was given on several of the specific charges in the indictment. Finally, the verdict was signed on a Sunday. |
| Murdoch v. Lord Rockville's Interlocutor |
1791
|
Reduction, Disposition, Insanity, Verdict, Interlocutor, Infeftment |
William Murdoch petitioned the Court to alter Lord Rockville's interlocutor, which required him to extract proceedings from Cupar in an action of reduction. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
