Pursuer William Stewart sued defender Robert Carrick for libel. The dispute concerned allegations that Stewart had committed fraud while competing for flax premiums offered by the Board of Trustees for Improving Fisheries and Manufactures in Scotland. After Carrick wrote about the alleged fraud to Stewart’s employer, Robert Patterson, Stewart brought a defamation suit in the Commissary Court of Glasgow. In his defense, Carrick argued that he had no malicious intent, that the facts in the letters were well-founded, and that Stewart had failed to show any damages resulting from the letters.
People involved
- William Stewart — Pursuer
- Robert Carrick, of Braco — Defender
- Adam Rolland, of Gask — Advocate for Pursuer
- William Craig, Lord Craig — Advocate for Defender
- Alexander Boswell, Lord Auchinleck — Lord Ordinary
- Captain James Macrae — Named in case documents
- Rev. Robert Carrick — Named in case documents
- William Paterson — Named in case documents
- Walter Turnbull — Named in case documents
- John Erskine — Named in case documents
- John Houston — Named in case documents
- Claud Alexander, of Newton — Named in case documents
- Alexander Porterfield, of Fulwood — Named in case documents
- Board of Trustees for Improving Fisheries and Manufactures in Scotland — Named in case documents
- David Flint — Named in case documents
- Charles Dalrymple, of Orangefield — Named in case documents
- Charles Macdowall, Esq., of Crichen — Named in case documents
- Mr. John Snodgrass — Named in case documents
- William Macgregor, of Parklee — Named in case documents
- Henry Home, of Kames, Lord Kames — Named in case documents
Places
- Houston and Killellan (principal)
Pursuer William Stewart sued defender Robert Carrick for libel. The dispute concerned allegations that Stewart had committed fraud while competing for flax premiums offered by the Board of Trustees for Improving Fisheries and Manufactures in Scotland. After Carrick wrote about the alleged fraud to Stewart’s employer, Robert Patterson, Stewart brought a defamation suit in the Commissary Court of Glasgow. In his defense, Carrick argued that he had no malicious intent, that the facts in the letters were well-founded, and that Stewart had failed to show any damages resulting from the letters.
