1788
ArrestmentCreditorBill of ExchangeForgeryDebtSequestrationPeter Belsh, a merchant in Stirling, charged William Wilson and Son, merchants in Bannockburn, over a discounted bill involving indorsers. Wilson and Son suspended the charge and subsequently submitted an information contending that their subscription to the promissory note was a forgery and therefore void.AI-generated
Documents in this case (2)
- Peter Belsh v. William Wilson and Son — Proof, 12 Jun 1788June 1788: Peter Belsh, Stirling merchant, charged; William Wilson & Son, Bannockburn merchants, suspended; dispute over discounted bill with indorsers.
- William Wilson and Son v. Peter Belch — Information, 24 Sep 1788September 24, 1788 Information of William Wilson and Son, Merchants and Manufacturers in Bannockburn, arguing that their subscription to a promissory note is a forgery and therefore void
People & places in this case
People involved
- Donald Macdonald — Party
- John Guild — Party
- Adam Walker, of Hammersmith — Party
- Hugh Smith — Party
- David Mitchell — Party
- Henry Erskine — Advocate for Party
- James Veitch, Lord Elliock — Lord Ordinary
- Robert Bruce, of Kennet, Lord Kennet — Lord Ordinary
- Alexander Gordon, Lord Rockville — Lord Ordinary
- Thomas Wright, of Easter Glinns — Named in case documents
- David Gourlay, of Kepdarroch — Named in case documents
- John Christie — Named in case documents
- Alexander Cunninghame — Named in case documents
- David Watson — Named in case documents
