Legal Subject: Witness

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Alexander Dick Junior v. William Richardson 1838 Prescription, Interlocutor, Agent, Witness, Debt, Process Alexander Dick Junior sought suspension of a Glasgow magistrates' decree enforcing payment of £26:15:2 against him, alleging procedural and evidentiary flaws in the underlying action and disputing the law account charges, including a contested item dated April 1830. The litigation proceeded with challenges regarding procedural irregularities in proof, culminating in the Court's rejection of pleas of prescription and incompetence of bill, upholding the account as valid and awarding expenses against Dick as suspender. Dick subsequently petitioned to suspend William Richardson concerning disputed authorship and possession of legal documents arising from prior Richardson & Porter cases.
Appendix for Durham 1791 Perjury, Witness, Trial, Oath The pursuers alleged that Alexander Durham perjured himself in a trial before the Circuit Court of Justiciary at Perth by falsely swearing that James Brown was present during Durham's examination. 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.
Bellinger v. Monboddo's Interlocutor 1793 Debt, Aliment, Succession, Proof, Statute, Witness Reclaiming petition brought by William Bellinger challenging the interlocutor from the process of advocation and the judgment of the lower court finding for pursuer, Alexander Smith under the statute 9 of Queen Anne. The statute at cap. 14 sec. 2 states that "if any person shall, at any time or sitting, by playing at cards, dice or other games, lose in the whole, the value of 10 £, and shall pay or deliver the same, or any part thereof, the person losing, shall be at liberty, within three months, to sue for the money and goods lost, or any part thereof, from the winner, with costs, by action of debt founded on this act, in any of her Majesty's courts of record." The judgment orders payment to Smith by Bellinger of the sum lost by Mr. Smith to Mr. Bellinger in a dice game on December 24, 1789. Bellinger appeals on three points: 1. Does the act of 9th of Queen Anne apply to Scotland, as there are various Scottish statutes which conflict; 2. What does the statute mean by "one sitting," as the gambling happened over several hours; and 3. Was pursuer's oath in supplement properly admitted?
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.
Forrester v. Wright 1785 Witness, Debt, Rent, Arrestment, Possession, Interlocutor This case was about the admissibility of a witness’s testimony in a dispute between Thomas Forrester of Inchlees, the landlord of some property in Kilsyth, and Daniel Wright, a tenant on the property. An important fact in the dispute was the date of a letter handwritten by William Bow of Cairnoch; the letter stated that in granting a new lease on the property, Thomas Forrester would prefer Wright over other prospective tenants. Forrester sought to have Bow testify as to the date of the letter, but Wright objected on the ground that Bow had given partial counsel to Forrester in the matter. After the Lord Ordinary excluded Bow’s testimony, Forrester petitioned the Lords of Session to alter the interlocutor.
Forsyth v. Abercromby 1793 Suspension, Arrestment, Sequestration, Jurisdiction, Interlocutor, Witness Sir George Abercromby, James Urquhart, and George Forbes, as pursuers, petitioned the Court to remit an interlocutor of the Sheriff of Banffshire regarding the unlawful conduct of Alexander Gordon and Gavin Steuart. Robert Forsyth, as defender, answered the petition, responding to allegations that he had used improper language in his representation.
Frank and his Tutor v. Frank, et al. 1793 Witness, Succession, Reduction, Aliment, Deed, Forgery Frank and his Tutor sought to reduce a disposition granted by the deceased Charles Frank in February 1791 in favor of the defenders. The defenders argued that the instrumentary witnesses to the deed were incompetent to depose whether they saw the party subscribe, while the pursuers challenged the competency of Janet Smith, a witness for the defenders, on the ground that her annuity depended upon the validity of the deed, and petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor refusing to admit her. The pursuers subsequently presented a formal petition for reduction and annulment of the disposition.
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.
Greig v. Johnston 1782 Aliment, Proof, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Tack, Witness Helen Greig sued Archibald Johnston for maintenance of a child alleged to be his. Johnston argued that Greig had already discharged her maintenance claim as part of a settlement agreement. Greig denied having discharged the claim, and challenged the evidence offered by Johnson.
Hay Marshall v. Anderson 1797 Divorce, Witness, Interlocutor Thomas Hay Marshall (pursuer) brought an action of divorce against Rose Anderson (defender), his Wife. for adultery.
Horn v. Reid 1787 Deed, Teinds, Witness, Disposition, Debt, Liferent Mrs Alison Horn pursued John Reid, a cooper in Whitby, to reduce deeds executed in May 1779, alleging that they had been improperly framed and delivered without her knowledge or consent. Reid defended the validity of a deed subscribed by Horn, contending that it could not be reduced upon the sole testimony of Kilgour that he had not witnessed the subscription at the time of execution.
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.
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.
Janet Calder v. John Wood 1798 Citation, Interlocutor, Aliment, Arrestment, Mala Fides, Witness John Wood, defender, sought review of interlocutors rejecting his advocation bill in an action brought by Janet Calder, contending that the citation had been defective because it was left at a lodging house he no longer occupied. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Jean Farquharson v. Alexander Anderson 1800 Interlocutor, Aliment, Witness, Creditor, Mala Fides, Succession After having a child outside of marriage, Jean Farquharson brought an action against Alexander Anderson for declarator of marriage or, in the alternative, damages for seduction. Anderson denied fathering Farquharson’s child. To prove their cases, the parties proffered many depositions of local residents who had witnessed events material to the case. Alleging that Anderson had engaged in a scheme of witness tampering, Farquharson objected to the admissibility of several such depositions. Case materials include reprinted depositions, excerpts from depositions, and references to many individuals in the local community.
John Adair v. Robina and Jean Adairs 1786 Succession, Exhibition Ad Deliberandum, Witness, Debt, Sasine, Bonds John Adair, merchant in Dublin, petitioned the Court to overturn Lord Swinton's interlocutor dismissing his action for exhibition ad deliberandum against Robina and Jean Adairs. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
John Gray v. John M'Aulay 1791 Election, Election contest, Penalty, Statute, Witness, Mala Fides John Gray, writer in Dumbarton, pursued John M'Aulay, town clerk of Dumbarton, to enforce statutory penalties for allegedly making a commission to George Ferguson contrary to the Act of 16 George II c. 11. M'Aulay denied issuing any commission, maintaining that the document was merely an extract of minutes, while Gray contended that the clerk's affixing of the burgh seal to the extract of election rendered it a legal commission. Following an Inner-House interlocutor that dismissed his complaint, Gray reclaimed against that decision.
John Pendrich v. Andrew Pendrich 1794 Aliment, Succession, Marriage, Witness, Adjudication, Interlocutor John Pendrich, son of the deceased John Pendrich, baker at Rosewell, and represented by his tutor ad litem, pursued Andrew and Marion Pendrich to prove a clandestine marriage of his father. He sought admission of the Haigs as witnesses ob penuriam testium, while the defenders answered that these witnesses were inadmissible due to their familial ties and involvement in the alleged scheme. John presented a bill of advocation asking the Court to remit to the Commissaries with instruction to recall two prior interlocutors, which Andrew and Marion opposed in their answer.
Maitland and Babington v. Maitland 1798 Cautioner, Witness, Debt, Succession, Aliment, Creditor Mrs Janet Maitland and her husband Dr William Babington pursued against John Bushby Maitland in a dispute concerning the proof of a bond subscription and the competency of Thomas Bushby as a witness. The pursuers objected to Bushby's admission on grounds of consanguinity and patrimonial interest, which the defender answered and the pursuers replied to. The litigation arose following a petition to renew a commission for proving that the subscription to the bond was not that of Captain Maitland.
McNish v. Scougal and Ogilvy 1787 Witness, Deed, Reduction, Cautioner, Improbation, Act of Parliament John M'Nish pursued the reduction of a bond of caution he had granted to Messrs Scougal and Ogilvy, merchants in Leith, contending that the deed was void for lack of witnesses to his subscription and because he had not acknowledged his signature at the time of execution. Scougal and Ogilvy argued that the bond remained valid despite M'Nish's denial and the absence of attesting witnesses. The parties filed opposing informations regarding the formal validity of the instrument.
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.
Mrs Margaret Dick v. George Heriot 1791 Aliment, Succession, Debt, Marriage, Creditor, Witness Mrs Margaret Dick Maitland-Makgill and James Heriot pursued reduction of George Heriot's service as heir to the estate of Ramornie, challenging his legitimacy as the son of the deceased Ensign George Heriot and his consequent right to the entail. George Heriot defended his claim by petitioning to lead proof of his parents' marriage through witnesses in Ireland and producing evidence of habit and repute, while the pursuers countered with testimony from Dublin and Edinburgh asserting his illegitimacy. The litigation proceeded through repeated petitions and answers regarding the sufficiency of marital proof, culminating in the court sustaining the reduction of George Heriot's service and declining to alter its interlocutors against him despite his submissions of additional evidence.
Nisbet v. Edgar 1794 Witness, Aliment, Succession, Creditor, Marriage, Onus Probandi Nisbet petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor allowing Mrs Hamilton of Pencaithland to be examined as a witness in the action to bastardize him. Edgar responded, arguing that Mrs Hamilton of Belhaven was admissible as a witness notwithstanding her daughter's patrimonial interest in the cause.
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.
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.
Thomson v. Paterson 1781 Debt, Witness, Execution, Inhibition, Reduction, Creditor Thomson challenged the validity of an inhibition execution by Paterson, arguing that the execution's failure to state that witnesses were present at the time of execution rendered it void. Adam Ogilvie subsequently presented information advancing similar arguments that the respondent's inhibition execution lacked legal validity due to the absence of witness attestation to their presence. The dispute turned on whether this procedural defect invalidated the inhibition.
Tod v. Thomson 1792 Arrestment, Creditor, Debt, Assignment, Assignation, Witness Alexander Thomson, defender in the action raised by Tod, petitioned the Court on 2 March 1792 to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor against him. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Trustees of Lady Douglas v. Hutchison 1782 Succession, Trust, Possession, Deed, Witness, Suspension The Trustees of Lady Douglas, as pursuers, submitted a memorial against Hutchison arguing that a deed from William Douglas to his wife Isobel Douglas was valid despite partial obliteration of the testing clause and precept of seisin. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Waugh v. Trustees for Ruecastle's Creditors 1789 Agent, Trust, Process, Proof, Witness, Arrestment Thomas Waugh, writer in Jedburgh, petitioned against a Lord Alva interlocutor, objecting to the admissibility of Andrew Reid as a witness. The Trustees for Ruecastle's Creditors, together with Richard Tod, merchant in Leith, and other creditors of Walter Ruecastle and John Scott, answered the petition, defending Reid's qualification to testify.
Yorkston, et al. v. Grieve 1794 Deed, Witness, Testament, Succession, Assignation, Executor Yorkston and his co-petitioners pursued Grieve concerning the validity of a testamentary deed executed by the illiterate Jean Ferguson. They argued that the instrument was valid despite the notary’s docquet failing to record that it was read over to the testatrix, whereas Grieve maintained that because Ferguson could neither read nor write, the deed required to be read to her before she authorized the notary’s signature, and was void for want of that formality.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 277)