Appendix to Petition for William Dean and Attorney
Abstract
Petitioners seek warrant to arrest William Thorp for debt and imprison him in Ayr tolbooth until he provides security for prosecution or pays 425l. sterling.
William Dean v. The Magistrates of the Burgh of Ayr and the Keepers of the Jail in that Burgh — Memorial, 27 Nov 1802
Abstract
Memorial of Mr. Dean, arguing that William Thorp is in meditatione fugæ and must be imprisoned until he finds caution de judicio sisti
The Magistrates of the Burgh of Ayr and the Jailors of that Burgh v. Messrs. Niblock and Burgess and Charles Shaw — Memorial, 27 Nov 1802
Abstract
Memorial of the Magistrates of the Burgh of Ayr, and the Jailors of that Burgh, arguing that the warrant for the incarceration of William Thorp was illegal due to lack of proper oath and evidence.
PROOF FOR THE PURSUERS. ADDITIONAL PROOF FOR THE DEFENDERS, connected with the evidence of James Campbell, a preceding witness for the Pursuer.
Abstract
Witnesses testify to prison conditions, officer conduct, and the escape of Thorp involving sawed bars and concealed tools.
William Dean v. Magistrates of the Burgh of Ayr and the Jailors of that Burgh — State of the Process, 15 Apr 1802 [2]
Abstract
Dean sues Ayr magistrates and jailors for failure to detain debtor Thorp, who escaped from jail despite secure facilities and official warrants.
Thomas Stewart v. James Scott — Answers, 24 May 1803
Abstract
Answers by James Scott, Cashier of the Commercial Banking Company in Dundee, to the petition of Thomas Stewart, Merchant in Leith, responding to allegations of malafide conduct and breach of arrestment.
Thomas Stewart v. James Scott — Answers
Abstract
Answers by James Scott to the argument made by Thomas Stewart, that Scott is liable as cautioner for costs and damages arising from a transaction involving oats sold to William Rattray and William Alexander.
Petition — Thomas Stewart. against an Inner-House Interlocutor [2]
Abstract
Petitioner seeks to hold James Scott liable for a grain debt secured by his letter of guarantee, challenging an Inner-House ruling finding him liable.
James Scott v. Thomas Stuart — Answers, 24 May 1802
Abstract
Thomas Stuart, Leith merchant, defends against James Scott, Commercial Bank of Dundee cashier, over breach of a grain-purchase guarantee letter.
Petition — James Scott against Lord Hermand's Interlocutor
Abstract
James Scott, cashier of Commercial Banking Co., seeks to alter a recent interlocutor, arguing his letter guaranteeing three men cannot bind him for a two-party deal.
