| Armstrong and Son, and Others v. Thomas Moffat and Others |
1800
|
Contract, Interlocutor, Penalty, Sheriff, Debt, Fine |
The candlemakers in Dalkeith routinely entered into one-year contracts with the Society of Fleshers to purchase the tallow from slaughtered cattle. This tallow was provided at a fixed price, and the candlemakers were entitled to examine it and receive a discount for any impurities they found. In 1799, the candlemakers sought, and obtained, a regulation providing for two appointees to search the tallow for impurities before it was transferred to them. The fleshers argued that this regulation should be suspended—or, at minimum, that they should receive a higher price—because the candlemakers were not entitled to receive purified tallow at the established contract price. |
| Finnan v. Syme |
1801
|
Corps, Company, Fine, Delinquency, Military |
John Syme was a volunteer in a Company of the Royal Dumfries Volunteers, but he did not communicate his resignation from the company and his superiors fined him for his delinquency. John Finnan, the Esq. Captain of the company, took the case to court to recover the fined money. The Court reduced the fine by half, but refused Syme's subsequent petition to dismiss the fine entirely (noted in the marginalia). |
| Grieve and Others v. Incorporation of Tailors |
1773
|
Burgh, Corporate Privilege, Fine, Aliment, Succession, Privilege |
John Grieve, suspender, was a member of the Incorporation of Tailors in Glasgow. He entered into a partnership with suspenders James Loudon and Robert Robb for the purpose of manufacturing stays, also known as corsets. The Tailors complained to the magistrates of Glasgow that staymaking was reserved exclusively for members of their trade; therefore, according to the tailors, Loudon and Robb had impermissibly engaged in the trade and Grieve had assisted them contrary to his oath. The suspenders argued that staymaking was not included in the tailors’ trade monopoly and should not be added by implication. |
| James Hill v. Thomas Hopkirk and John Macall |
1779
|
Fine, Election, Arrestment, Corporation, Jurisdiction, Election contest |
In 1752 and 1769, Thomas Hopkirk and John MacCall, respectively, paid a £20 fine to avoid serving on the Glasgow Town Council. In 1778, both men having retired to the country, they were successively elected Dean of Guild and also declined the position. The Town Council demanded that they each pay a £40 fine to the Merchants House as a penalty, so the two men presented suspensions of charge to Lord Gardenstone. They argued that the Town Council was not a court of law and did not have the authority to seize the private property of a burgher. Furthermore, they argued that even if the Town Council had the legal authority to impose fines, both men had been liberated by the fines they had already paid. The Lord Ordinary ruled in their favor, and James Hill, collector of the Merchants House, represented against this interlocutor. He argued that such fines were customary in several Scottish burghs, and that their previous fine did not liberate the suspenders from serving as Dean of Guild. In response, Hopkirk and MacCall argued that it was unjust that two men, both over the age of sixty, should be required “to take up the load of a laborious employment, at an age, when the humane regulations of every civilized community, permit the willing subjects to lay down the burden of public office altogether.” The Court found that the men were not liable for an additional fine, having already been liberated from serving on the Council. |
| Robert Hamilton Provost of Kinghorn, Pursuer v. James Rutherford, John Aitken, David Sibbald and Walter Rymer, in Kinghorn, Defenders |
1771
|
Defamation, expenses of process, Aliment, Fine, Proof, Election |
The pursuer, the Provost of Kinghorn, one of the royal boroughs situated upon the Firth of Forth, brought an action of damages for defamation against the defenders. They accused Mr. Hamilton of having sold the burgh's interest and having been bribed at the last general election. The pursuer limited his demand to the expenses of the process and the following judgment was pronounced, "Repel the defences; find the attack made by the defenders, upon the character of the pursuer, was malevolent and injurious; and therefore find them, conjunctly and severally, liable in expenses of process, of which ordain an account to be given in; but not in damages, in respect the pursuer has passed from any.” |
