Alexander Watson v. Ann Watson; Isobel Watson — Revised Case, 9 Dec 1834
Abstract
Court directs parties to prepare and lodge revised cases for further consideration, emphasizing key issues of propinquity and age evidence.
RESPONDENTS' STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND ANSWERS thereto for the Pursuer.
Abstract
Defenders contest pursuer's claim to inheritance by asserting closer blood relation and procedural irregularities in his service.
Alexander Watson v. Ann & Isobel Watsons — State of the Process, 1833
Abstract
Pursuer claims heirship to deceased Alexander Watson, challenging defenders’ service and alleging fraud, collusion, and concealed evidence.
Ann Watson and Isobel Watson v. Alex. Watson — Defences, 14 Dec 1829
Abstract
Defences by Ann Watson and Isobel Watson, against Alexander Watson, denying his claim to the succession and asserting their nearer propinquity to the deceased.
Alexander Watson v. Ann & Isobel Watsons — Revised Case, 8 Jan 1835
Abstract
Court directs parties to revise and lodge cases for review by succeeding Lord Ordinary or Court, emphasizing key issues of propinquity and age evidence.
Ann & Isobel Watsons v. Alexander Watson — State of the Process, 28 Feb 1834
Abstract
State of the Process in Reduction Ann & Isobel Watsons, Against Alexander Watson, detailing the service and evidence presented by the defender and pursuers.
SUPPLEMENTARY PROOF for the Defenders, allowed by the Lord Ordinary.
Abstract
Defenders admitted supplementary proof to establish propinquity in reduction, with witnesses confirming no prior knowledge and caveats unnotified post-expiry.
Alexander Watson v. Ann Watson & Others — Proof, 16 Jan 1832
Abstract
Defenders present proof of kinship to establish heirship in reduction action against Ann and Isobel Watson, with Lord Ordinary allowing supplementary evidence.
Alexander Watson v. Ann Watson & Others — Proof, 16 Jan 1832 [2]
Abstract
Defenders present genealogical proof and correspondence in reduction action against Ann Watson and others.
REVISED CASE FOR ANN WATSON, Wife of William Glass, residing in Perth; and ISOBEL WATSON, Wife of George M'Cash, Shoe-Maker in Perth; and the said WILLIAM GLASS, and GEORGE M'CASH,
Abstract
Defenders assert superior propinquity to deceased Alexander Watson, seeking to invalidate pursuer’s service through supplementary proof, while pursuer’s allegations of conspiracy fail under scrutiny.
