| Folsetter and Wright v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor |
1786
|
Apprentice, Contract, Theft, Interlocutor, Sequestration, Fraud |
William Folsetter and James Cobban petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Justice Clerk's interlocutor on the bills. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Graham and Rowland v. Dundas and Richardson |
1792
|
Libel, Theft, Verdict, pannels, Proof, Evidence |
Robert Graham and James Rowland, as pursuers, filed an information against Dundas and Richardson arguing that the jury's verdict against them was unintelligible and therefore could not support a sentence of condemnation. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| His Majesty's Advocate v. Murdison |
1773
|
Theft, Trial, Verdict |
Alexander Murdison was subject to a criminal indictment alleging that he and his herder, John Miller, stole certain sheep “or [were guilty] of receiving and having in their custody the aforesaid parcels of sheep.” Murdison was convicted, and subsequently challenged the verdict on three grounds. First, according to Murdison, the verdict did not specify whether the defendants were guilty of theft or of receiving stolen property. Second, no verdict was given on several of the specific charges in the indictment. Finally, the verdict was signed on a Sunday. |
| Lamont v. Ewing |
1792
|
Arrestment, Debt, Jurisdiction, Theft, Sequestration, Aliment |
Thomas Ewing, defender, petitioned the Court to overturn the interlocutor of the Lord Justice-Clerk, which found the water-bailie of Glasgow competent to hear the pursuer Lamont’s civil action for stolen goods. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Sword v. Auld |
1794
|
Aliment, Debt, Arrestment, Theft, Creditor, Evidence |
Sword pursued William Auld, a carrier, for the loss of two boxes of muslins stolen from his carts in Glasgow in May 1789, claiming damages of L. 102:10:9 Sterling. Auld, who was no longer domiciled in Scotland, argued that a carrier was not liable for goods stolen while under his charge and that the pursuer’s proof of value was unsupported. After the Court suspended the decree against Auld, Sword petitioned for reconsideration of that interlocutor, and Auld replied that the goods had been safely delivered to Glasgow where the risk passed to Duncan, who agreed to take charge. |
