John Angus applied to become a notary-public. He advanced through the application process until it was time for the court to approve his appointment, at which time a group of writers challenged his fitness for the office. They alleged that he had become bankrupt several times, was of a suspicious character, had come late to the profession, and lacked the requisite knowledge. The writers argued that this combination of factors was sufficient to defeat Angus’s application, even though no one factor was fatal. Angus argued that there was no evidence of dishonesty in his business dealings, and that his qualifications had been properly certified. He also argued that it was inappropriate for the court to conduct a sum-total analysis of the objections. Numerous legal professionals participated in this case and are named in the case documents.
People involved
- Robert Macaulay — Objector
- John Angus — Respondent
- Sir Ilay Campbell, Lord Succoth, 1st Baronet of Succoth — Advocate for Objector
- Henry Erskine — Advocate for Respondent
- John Johnston — Named in case documents
- Matthew Gilmour — Named in case documents
- John Scales — Named in case documents
- John Monro — Named in case documents
- Jean Seymour — Named in case documents
- Robert Jamieson, W.S. — Named in case documents
- Robert Boswell, W.S. — Named in case documents
- John Campbell, Lord Stonefield — Named in case documents
- Francis Garden, Lord Gardenstone — Named in case documents
Places
John Angus applied to become a notary-public. He advanced through the application process until it was time for the court to approve his appointment, at which time a group of writers challenged his fitness for the office. They alleged that he had become bankrupt several times, was of a suspicious character, had come late to the profession, and lacked the requisite knowledge. The writers argued that this combination of factors was sufficient to defeat Angus’s application, even though no one factor was fatal. Angus argued that there was no evidence of dishonesty in his business dealings, and that his qualifications had been properly certified. He also argued that it was inappropriate for the court to conduct a sum-total analysis of the objections.
Numerous legal professionals participated in this case and are named in the case documents.
