[]

Related Cases

Case Date Legal Subjects Abstract
James Hill v. Thomas Hopkirk and John Macall 13 Jan 1780 Fine In 1752 and 1769, Thomas Hopkirk and John MacCall, respectively, paid a £20 fine to avoid serving on the Glasgow Town Council. In 1778, both men having retired to the country, they were successively elected Dean of Guild and also declined the position. The Town Council demanded that they each pay a £40 fine to the Merchants House as a penalty, so the two men presented suspensions of charge to Lord Gardenstone. They argued that the Town Council was not a court of law and did not have the authority to seize the private property of a burgher. Furthermore, they argued that even if the Town Council had the legal authority to impose fines, both men had been liberated by the fines they had already paid. The Lord Ordinary ruled in their favor, and James Hill, collector of the Merchants House, represented against this interlocutor. He argued that such fines were customary in several Scottish burghs, and that their previous fine did not liberate the suspenders from serving as Dean of Guild. In response, Hopkirk and MacCall argued that it was unjust that two men, both over the age of sixty, should be required “to take up the load of a laborious employment, at an age, when the humane regulations of every civilized community, permit the willing subjects to lay down the burden of public office altogether.” The Court found that the men were not liable for an additional fine, having already been liberated from serving on the Council.
John Kelly v. John Smith 27 Jun 1780 Statute John Kelly, huntsman to Major Blair of Blair, brought a complaint against John Smith for hunting without the proper qualification. Smith argued that he satisfied the only statutory qualification that was currently in effect. The dispute raised a question of first impression as to the correct interpretation of certain statutes.
Robert Macaulay and Others v. John Angus 13 Feb 1783 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.
Alexander Fergusson, and Others v. The Magistrates of Glasgow 29 Jun 1786 The pursuers, who were also suspenders in a related action, challenged the authority of the magistrates of Glasgow to impose a duty on potatoes.
Alexander Duncan, and Others v. The Magistrates of Aberdeen 21 Jul 1786 The pursuers challenged a regulation passed by the magistrates of Aberdeen, which raised the dues required to become a burgess.
Andrew Wauchope and Others v. The Magistrates of Canongate 28 Jan 1800 The Magistrates of Canongate, defenders, were authorized by statute to levy customs duties at the Water Gate with respect to certain articles at particular rates. For many years, the Magistrates had charged higher rates and levied duties on articles not mentioned in the statute. In 1795, the Magistrates published a new table of duties that served to increase rates and to add new articles. Pursuers Andrew Wauchope, the Trustees of the Post Road District, and William Scott (Procurator-fiscal of the County of Edinburgh) challenged the Magistrates’ authority to charge duties not specifically authorized by the statute.
Ker v. Sir Robert Anstruther and Thomas Smith 1800 Petitioner James Ker purchased a commission for the office of Deputy Clerk to the Bills. The commission did not mention that the deputy clerk would be required to handle plack bills, but Respondent Thomas Smith, one of the principal clerks, requested a letter from Mr. Ker stating that he would perform that duty. After signing the letter, Mr. Ker learned that he would not be paid an additional fee for handling the plack bills. He therefore petitioned the court to relieve him of the commission, with return of his purchase money, or otherwise ensure that he would not be required to handle the plack bills without receiving fees. The Respondents, who were the court's principal clerks, responded that they had not participated in the transaction whereby Mr. Ker purchased his commission from his late predecessor; moreover, Mr. Ker's predecessor clerks had, "time out of mind," performed the duty of which he complained.
Magistrates and Town-Council of Glasgow v. Murdoch, Warroch, and Company 1783 Duty (Tax) By statute, brewers who imported beer or ale into Glasgow were required to pay a duty on their entire output—whether sold in the city or not—with the exception of overseas exports. The defenders, who were partners in the brewing firm of Murdoch, Warroch, and Company, paid the duty until 1780, when they unsuccessfully requested an exemption for the portion of their beer and ale that was sold outside of Glasgow. The defenders then announced that they would no longer sell any products into Glasgow; however, they offered to make sales to Glasgow residents at the brewery. At the same time, a merchant named Alexander Munro began purchasing beer at the brewery and delivering it to Glasgow residents. The magistrates and council of Glasgow sued the brewers. They alleged that the brewery was unlawfully evading the duty by routing its products through Munro, who used the company’s old storeroom and equipment. The defenders responded that their brewery did not fall under the statute, which was only meant to cover breweries closer to Glasgow. They also argued that the arrangement with Munro was an arm’s length bargain that should not subject them to the duty.