1792–1794
TaxDebtCorporationAlimentInterlocutorStatuteAlexander Gardner and David Downie, goldsmiths in Edinburgh, pursued the Corporation of Goldsmiths regarding the incorporation’s resolution to abolish the marking-money tax and its appropriation of marking money for private use. The Corporation defended its actions by citing the opulence of its funds and historical precedent for tax abrogation, while the pursuers contended that the assay office marking fees constituted wages rather than assessments and that the corporation bore no liability for such expense. The litigation proceeded through mutual petitions to alter interlocutors and answers exchanging these respective positions.AI-generated
Documents in this case (9)
- Gardiner — Petition, 24 Nov 1792November 24, 1792 Petition of Alexander Gardiner and David Downie, Goldsmiths in Edinburgh, asking the Court to alter the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary concerning the incorporation's appropriation of marking money f…
- Alexander Gardner and David Downie v. William Dempster, Peter Mathie, Robert Bowman, Francis Howden, David Marshall, Alexander Spence, Neil Paton, James Douglas, Robert Swan, Samuel Kerr, William Robertson, George Christie, Al… — Answers, 13 Dec 1792Respondents defend resolution abolishing marking-money tax, citing opulence of Incorporation’s funds and historical precedent for tax abrogation.
- Gardiner — Petition, 30 May 1793May 30, 1793 Reclaiming Petition of Alexander Gardner and David Downie, Goldsmiths in Edinburgh, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
- Goldsmiths — Answers, 5 Sep 1793September 5, 1793 Answers by the Goldsmiths of Edinburgh to the petition of Alex. Gardner, arguing that the corporation's 1791 resolution exempting marking-money is lawful and not a tax imposed by statute.
- Alexander Gardner and David Downie v. Peter Mathie and others — State, 5 Dec 1793Petitioners Gardner and Downie claim the incorporation’s funds are insufficient to cover debts and charity, opposing respondents’ plan to abolish marking money without offsetting assay-office costs.
- Gardner v. Corporation of Goldsmiths in Edinburgh — Petition, 19 Dec 1793December 19, 1793 Petition of the Corporation of Goldsmiths in Edinburgh, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
- Corporation of Goldsmiths in Edinburgh v. Alexander Gardner — Answers, 29 Jan 1794Alexander Gardner answers petition by Edinburgh Goldsmiths Corporation challenging fee for assay office marking, asserting fees are wages, not assessments, and corporation not liable for expense.
People & places in this case
People involved
- George Christie — Party
- Archibald Ochiltree — Party
- William Mackenzie, of Belmaduthie — Party
- Patrick Cunningham — Party
- William Law, Esq., of Elvingston — Party
- Archibald Ure — Party
- Robert Clark — Party
- John Simpson — Party
- John Clerk, Lord Eldin — Advocate for Party
- William Kerr — Advocate for Party
- Charles Hope, Lord Granton — Advocate for Party
- James Stewart Oliphant, of Rossie — Advocate for Party
- Alexander Murray Drummond, Ensign — Advocate for Party
- Robert Blair, of Avontoun, Lord Avontoun — Advocate for Party
- William Tait — Advocate for Party
Places
- Edinburgh (principal)
- London
- Newcastle
- Musselburgh
- Castlehill
