1796
Common LawGamblingInterdictBankruptcySequestrationCreditorPatrick Frazer, Walter Berry, and Henry Farquharson pursued a process to remit a Magistrates' interdict against their private lottery, arguing that such lotteries were not prohibited by statute or common law. The respondent Sprott opposed the remit, contending that private lotteries constituted unlawful gaming and were injurious to public order and fair trade. The dispute centered on whether private lotteries were legally permissible or prohibited as harmful to the public.AI-generated
Documents in this case (2)
- Bill of Advocation Frazer, 5 Jul 1796July 5, 1796 Memorial of Patrick Frazer, Walter Berry, and Henry Farquharson, arguing that private lotteries are not prohibited by statute or common law and requesting the Court to remit the Magistrates' interdict
- Patrick Fraser v. William Sprott — Answers, 6 Jul 1796July 6, 1796 Information of the respondent, arguing that private lotteries are unlawful gaming and injurious to public order and fair trade.
People & places in this case
People involved
- Patrick Frazer — Party
- Walter Berry — Party
- Lieutenant-Colonel Simon Fraser, Esq., Younger of Lovat — Party
- Henry Farquharson — Party
- William Sinclair — Party
- James Marshall, Esq. — Party
- William Sprott — Party
- Sir John Sinclair, of Ulbster, first baronet — Advocate for Party
- Matthew Montgomery — Advocate for Party
- David Williamson Robertson Ewart, of Balgray — Advocate for Party
