Date13 Jan 1789TypeAnswersCaseChrystie and Chrystie v. Ferguson, et alAuthorAlexander WightLength12 pagesRepositoryUniversity of Virginia Law Library (Special Collections)ContainerUVALL Box 06MarginaliaYes Abstract AI-generated Respondents defend 1789 Burntisland election against claim of bribery and invalid form, arguing majority uncorrupted votes sustain election. ← Chrystie and Chrystie v. Ferguson, et al — Petitionand Complaint, 21 Nov 17882 of 2 in this casePeople in this documentAlexander WightSubjectsAlimentMagistrateElectionElection contestReductionDecreet-ArbitralCreditorMala FidesPlaces mentionedEdinburghBurntislandKinghornKilrennyRaith