Legal Subject: Election contest

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
Mr John Snodgrass, Preacher of the Gospel, George Steel, John Beatson, and Others v. Mr John Logan and Others 1772 Ministers, Adjudication, Aliment, Contract, Election, Election contest This case concerns the selection of the second minister for the parish at South Leith. In the past, the second minister has been selected by a committee with representatives from the incorporations of different trades and the kirk-session (a group of elders in the local congregation). The defender John Logan and the pursuer John Snodgrass were set up as candidates. The incorporations and the kirk-session disagree about the candidates. Each side also points to errors in the selections and voting process. In an interlocutory ruling, Lord Kennet Ordinary found for Logan. Mr Snodgrass, and the voters on his side, brought a process of reduction and declarator against Mr Logan, and his adherents, before Court. Mr Logan and his party repeated a counter-process of a similar nature.
Alexander Grant v. Lewis Ray and others 1767 Election contest, Aliment, Corruption, Bribery, Interlocutor, Oath Sir Alexander Grant of Dalvey pursued Lewis Ray, Colonel Hector Munro, and other elected magistrates and counsellors of Fortrose, alleging that the Michaelmas 1766 election had been procured by bribery and corruption. The litigation involved repeated disputes over the competency of witnesses, as Grant sought to examine Colonel Munro and Captain William Douglas regarding electoral misconduct while the respondents petitioned against orders permitting testimony by Robert Logan and invoked privilege against self-incrimination. Grant also petitioned to prove that Douglas had fled the country to avoid examination, and the parties exchanged interrogatories, objections, and replies concerning the alleged corrupt practices.
Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire 1791 Freeholder, Adjudication, Liferent, Trust, Prescription, Election contest Alexander Milne, as pursuer, petitioned the Court in June 1791 and again by reclaiming petition in December 1791 to alter a recent interlocutor in his action against the Freeholders of Aberdeenshire. Captain John Gordon subsequently presented his own petition requesting the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in the same cause.
Alexander Milne v. Freeholders of Aberdeenshire 1790 Freeholder, Election contest, Freehold Qualification, Penalty, Interlocutor, Disposition Alexander Milne pursued the Freeholders of Aberdeenshire, represented by George Skene of Skene, to reverse his expungement from the county freeholder roll following the Michaelmas meeting of 1790. The defenders answered that Milne’s freehold qualification was nominal and fictitious, contending that the statutory four-month limitation did not bar objections to fraudulent claims, while Milne asserted his independent acceptance of the wadset and denial of political obligation. The litigation proceeded through reclaiming petitions against adverse interlocutors, condescendences regarding the qualification’s validity, and Milne’s objections to the defenders’ account of expenses. The cause culminated in disputes over the award of statutory penalties and the allocation of costs between the parties.
Alexander Young and others v. Andrew Johnston and others 1767 Election contest, Debt, Aliment, Reduction, Succession, Election The pursuers alleged that Andrew Johnston Sr., bailie of Anstruther Easter, and his son Andrew Jr. accepted money to pay off the town's debt from men who wished to run for the borough's parliament seat. The pursuers therefore sought to have the election reduced.
Andrew Gray and Others vs. David Wilson and Others 1790 Election contest, Election, Interlocutor, Adjudication, Aliment, Sequestration Andrew Gray and others pursued David Wilson and others regarding the contested election of magistrates and counsellors in Anstruther Easter, seeking to void the defenders' election and obtain a declaration that the pursuers were the lawfully chosen officers. The defenders maintained the validity of their election and the proper exercise of voting rights, while the parties disputed whether the presiding magistrate possessed an ordinary vote or merely a casting vote to be exercised only in cases of equality. The pursuers contended that the magistrate had no ordinary vote and could only break ties, whereas the defenders argued that Baillie Chalmers had no right to vote unless an equality of votes existed.
Anstruther-Paterson v. Rutherfurd 1791 Election contest, Election, Oath, Aliment, Collusion, Feu duties Documents available Full description in progress.
Carnegie v. Turnbull 1796 Freeholder, Election contest, Aliment, Sequestration, Disposition, Freehold Qualification Carnegie complained of his removal from the roll of freeholders, arguing that he had departed the meeting before being called to take the trust oath and that no formal intimation had been given. Turnbull answered that Carnegie had been struck off for evading the oath after warning, and further asserted that Carnegie had divested himself of all land in the county prior to appearing at Forfar to assert a vote, thereby denying his qualification.
Chrystie and Chrystie v. Ferguson, et al 1788 Election contest, Decreet-Arbitral, Reduction, Election, Bribery, Corruption Alexander Chrystie and another pursued Ferguson and others to reduce and set aside the election of the Magistrates and Counsellors of Burntisland, alleging bribery, corruption, and invalid form. The defenders answered, maintaining the validity of the 1789 election and arguing that a majority of uncorrupted votes sustained the result.
Counsellors of the Burgh of Burntisland 1789 Election contest, Magistrate, Election, Aliment, Decreet-Arbitral, Reduction The Provost, magistrates, and counsellors of Burntisland defended the validity of the burgh’s 1789 election of counsellors against complaints alleging bribery and seeking voidance or partial relief. Alexander Pitcairn petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor that had ruled against his election as a counsellor, while William Muir and James Davidson also pursued complaints regarding the election, prompting answers from the magistrates and subsequent duplies. The magistrates later submitted a memorial arguing that Muir and Davidson’s election was void due to their non-residence and foreign status.
Crawford, et al v. Morrison, et al 1787 Election contest, Aliment, Election, Mala Fides, Adjudication, Inhibition Thomas Crawford, Charles Pirrie, Alexander Paterson, and John Gardner pursued John Morrison and others to have Morrison’s election as Deacon of the Incorporation of Wrights in Glasgow declared void. The respondents defended the 1787 election as having proceeded by lawful procedure and majority vote, and further averred that the complainants had themselves accepted office under the contested appointment.
David Fowler v. Andrew Reid 1765 Election contest, Aliment, Bribery, Mala Fides, Corruption, Reduction Complainers David Fowler and James Miller alleged that an election in Kilrenny was tainted by corrupt practices designed to instate officials who would support Robert Alexander for a seat in parliament. Fowler and Miller sued the burgh’s elected officials, seeking to have the election vacated or, at minimum, to be reinstated in their positions as counsellor and bailie. The officials denied these allegations and alleged that members of the opposing party, including Sir John Anstruther and complainer David Fowler, had themselves engaged in corruption.
Davidson v. Hill 1802 Retour, Charter, Statute, Election contest, Freeholder, Sasine At a meeting of the freeholders of Stirlingshire, Robert Hill claimed to be enrolled upon the lands of Western Glenboig. He produced two extracts of retours which he claimed proved his title. Harry Davidson, one of the freeholders, objected to Hill's enrollment, arguing that Hill’s retours were insufficient. The Court found that the 16th Act of George II required an old extent of lands to be established by a retour, but that this could be done by one or more retours, and that, accordingly, a freeholder who produced two separate retours of two parcels of land had a right to be enrolled (Morison's Decisions of the Court of Session).
Duff v. Fyfe 1796 Freeholder, Aliment, Succession, Election contest, Oath, Libel Patrick Duff of Carnousie, with concourse of His Majesty's Advocate, charged Lieutenant James Fyfe with perjury, alleging that Fyfe had falsely sworn to possessing a nominal and fictitious freehold qualification for parliamentary voting. Fyfe defended by arguing that the estate in question—a liferent superiority—constituted a true and real estate in law, and therefore was not nominal or fictitious for the purposes of qualifying to vote.
Dunbar v. Sinclair 1789 Freeholder, Aliment, Succession, Election contest, Deed, Teinds Sir William Dunbar, Baronet, and other freeholders of Caithness, as pursuers, petitioned the Court to find that the freeholders had wrongly repelled an objection against defender Sir James Sinclair, now Earl of Caithness, and to grant warrant for expunging him from the roll. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Eliott v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor 1797 Trustees, Debt, Succession, Hypothec, Election contest, Action Sir William Eliott petitioned to reclaim an interlocutor of the Lord Justice Clerk denying his claim to £50:10s. paid to the writer Thomas Tod, arguing that the account was not prescribed and fell outside the scope of triennial prescription. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
George Allan and Others v. Andrew Crambie and Others 1770 Election contest, Aliment, Arrestment, Sequestration, Election, Reduction Pursuers George Allan, Andrew Garnock, and Charles Cock challenged the September 1769 election of defender James Hunter as deacon of the Incorporation of Hammermen of the town of Kinghorn. There were 12 votes for Allan and 10 votes for Hunter, but Hunter was able to successfully challenge the qualifications of 6 of the 12 voters in favor of Allan. For example, two of the voters were apparently non-residents. Allan, on the other hand, sought to challenge 3 of the 10 votes for Hunter. One voter was struck from the rolls of the incorporation for failure to pay dues. Allan et al. sought to prove that Allan properly achieved a majority of votes in the election. The parties disputed who received the majority of votes to become the deacon of the incorporation.
George Anderson v. James Stephen, Andrew Jamieson, and others 1766 Election contest, Aliment, Proof, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Property The complainers in this case alleged that the counsellors of Crail were under the influence of Sir John Anstruther and that Sir John's representatives sold meal to the trades at a special price in order to bribe certain men before the borough's election.
Hay v. Watson 1832 Bankruptcy, Debt, Sequestration, Trustee, Creditor, Election contest John Hay, stockbroker in Edinburgh, as pursuer, lodged a reclaiming note against the interlocutor finding the defender, Ebenezer Watson, duly elected trustee on the sequestrated estate of Robert M'Laren. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
High v. Main 1788 Election contest, Election, Oath, Corporation, Adjudication, Voting rights Thomas High and Robert Main contested the deaconship of the Kinghorn Weavers' Incorporation, Main having petitioned to alter the council's decision admitting High to the office in his place. The central question was whether town-servants under the magistrates held voting rights in such elections, with the complainers citing precedents from Inverkeithing, Cupar, Perth, and Haddington to support their position. James Donaldson and others raised parallel challenges to the election of the deacon of the bakers, and the parties submitted answers and petitions seeking alteration of the Court's interlocutors.
Hunter v. Robb, &c 1765 Election contest, Aliment, Corruption, Bribery, Debt, Succession The complainants in this case protested the borough election held in September 1765; the respondents were counsellors of the borough. Each side accused the other of being bribed by Sir John Anstruther or Robert Alexander, contestants for a seat in parliament.
James Andrew, and Others, Merchant-Counsellors of the Burgh of Linlithgow, and Thomas Henderson, Deacon of the Incorporation of Weavers there v. Henry Gillies, Provost of Linlithgow, and Others 1775 Election, Election contest, Burgess, Debt, Tax, Magistrate The 1774 election of the council of Linlithgow produced three counsellors who did not reside in the burgh. Several members of the council sought a declaration from the court that the three non-residents were ineligible to serve, and that their election was therefore null and void. The burgh's provost, ten other members of council, and the challenged counsellors opposed such an order, claiming that the suit was politically motivated. The defenders argued that it was unnecessary for counsellors to reside in the burgh, that the pursuers were barred from suing because they had concurred in the election, and that many non-residents had served as counsellors over the years.
James Bruce v. James Hogg 1790 Election contest, Adjudication, Sequestration, Election, Aliment, Member of Parliament James Bruce, a tailor in Anstruther Easter, petitioned the Court against James Hogg, seeking a finding that the Town Council had wrongfully elected Hogg as a Counsellor in place of Bruce, who had been legally elected and accepted. Hogg answered that Bruce’s election was void and that the vacancy had been properly filled. Bruce, joined by other Counsellors and Magistrates of the burgh, replied, defending his own election and challenging the validity of Hogg’s interim election on the grounds of statutory time limits and lack of prior notice.
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.
John Finlay and Others v. John Newbigging and Others 1792 Debt, Aliment, Corporation, Reduction, Succession, Election contest John Finlay and other weavers petitioned the Court to overturn Lord Ankerville’s interlocutor, alleging that reformers within the Incorporation of Weavers in Lanark had illegally excluded them and misused funds in violation of the by-laws. John Newbigging and other members answered, maintaining that the respondents possessed no right to expel members for non-payment of assessments.
John Gray v. John M'Aulay 1791 Election, Election contest, Penalty, Statute, Witness, Mala Fides John Gray, writer in Dumbarton, pursued John M'Aulay, town clerk of Dumbarton, to enforce statutory penalties for allegedly making a commission to George Ferguson contrary to the Act of 16 George II c. 11. M'Aulay denied issuing any commission, maintaining that the document was merely an extract of minutes, while Gray contended that the clerk's affixing of the burgh seal to the extract of election rendered it a legal commission. Following an Inner-House interlocutor that dismissed his complaint, Gray reclaimed against that decision.
Lord William Gordon and Others v. Colonel Norman Macleod of Macleod and Others 1791 Freeholder, Statute, Possession, Election contest, Title, Court of Session Lord William Gordon, Vice-Admiral of Scotland, presented a petition and complaint against Colonel Norman Macleod of Macleod, Arthur Forbes of Culloden, and others regarding the removal of his name from the Inverness-shire freeholders' roll. The complainer alleged that the respondents had acted irregularly in striking off liferent-voters, while the respondents contended that the four-month limitation period did not bar the removal of nominal or fictitious voters and that their conduct was legally justified. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies addressing the procedural regularity of the expunging and the applicability of the limitation period, followed by speeches on whether objections of nominality were competent after four months. Thereafter, Lord William Gordon and Lieutenant Alexander Godsman petitioned the Court to alter its interlocutor and award expenses, prompting further answers from the respondents defending their freeholder status and maintaining the validity of their prior objections.
Magistrates and Councellors of the Burgh of Dunfermline v. Wilson, et al 1786 Debt, Arrestment, Election contest, Creditor, Aliment, Diligence The Magistrates and Councellors of the Burgh of Dunfermline, as defenders, filed answers to the petition of Thomas Wardlaw and others, responding to claims of electoral corruption. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Pittenweem v. Robert and William Alexanders, Thomas Martin, and Others 1771 Elections, Corruption, Burgh, Election contest, Aliment, Bribery Robert Alexander and his brother, William, attempted to take over the burgh magistracy of Pittenweem in the mid-1760s, after the death of Sir Harry Erskine. They were successful and assumed power in 1765. Former magistrates of the burgh of Pittenweem filed suit against the Alexanders, alleging that the Alexanders and their agents engaged in undue influence and corruption during the election process. They alleged that some of these corrupt transactions were between the Alexanders and bailie Thomas Martin, defender. During the lawsuit, the Alexanders apparently used burgh funds to cover the costs of the litigation. The magistracy of Pittenweem also took out a loan from Robert Alexander. The former magistrates won the lawsuit, returned to power, and then challenged the burgh debt to Robert Alexander in the Court of Session, arguing that it was not validly procured.
Marquis of Lorne, et al v. Denny, et al 1796 Election contest, Interlocutor, Election, Reduction, Burgess, Appeal The Marquis of Lorne and others pursued John Denny and others regarding the Michaelmas 1796 burgh election in Dumbarton, seeking to overturn the minutes that recorded John Dixon’s vote as valid and asserting a majority victory despite the contested proxy. The defenders answered that the pursuers’ voters lacked burgess qualification, and subsequently argued that Provost Lorne possessed no voting right and that key electors were not burgesses, ultimately demanding a poll election.
Micheal Marshall and Richard Dick v. John Carre of Cavers, Esq, and Others 1781 Debt, Aliment, Arrestment, Contract, Election contest, Tack The petitioners, a current counsellor and a former counsellor of the burgh of Jedburgh, alleged that an election was influenced by bribery and corruption. They asked the Court of Session to set aside the results and find that the candidates favored by the apparent minority had been legally elected.
Minutes of Election of the County of Stirling 1790 Election contest This is a printed record of the Minutes of Election of the County of Stirling, dated 6 July 1790. It is a standalone document that precedes several cases dealing with Stirlingshire elections that are contained within "UVALL - Box 22 - Vol. 02 - Papers in Political Cases, 1790-1 - Stirlingshire Elections." Please see that sub-record for a complete listing of the cases and their corresponding documents.
Nisbet, et al v. The kirk-session of West-kirk 1773 Election contest, Heritor, Session-Clerk, Election, Salmon Fishing, Succession Sir John Nisbet and other heritors petitioned the Court against the kirk-session of West-kirk (St Cuthberts) for unilaterally electing a schoolmaster-clerk to serve as session-clerk and precentor without heritor consent. The kirk-session answered, admitting that it possessed no right to elect these parish officers without the consent of the heritors.
Papers in Political Cases, 1790-1 - Manuscript Index 1790 Election contest This is the manuscript index that appears at the beginning of Vol. 02- Papers in Political Cases, 1790-1
Penrose-Cumming v. Lawson 1785 Freeholder, Perjury, Oath, Libel, Aliment, Election contest This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament, alleged that his opponent, James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was John Lawson, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Lawson argued that his oath was not false, because he was, in fact, entitled to vote. Lawson further argued that whether or not he was lawfully entitled to vote, he had reasonably believed that his oath was true.
Penrose-Cumming v. Rev. Leslie 1785 Libel, Oath, Perjury, Freeholder, Election contest, Disposition This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament and a freeholder in Moray, alleged that James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was Rev. William Leslie, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Leslie’s qualification to vote rested on a wadset (similar to a mortgage) of a superiority over part of the lands of Kinneddar. During the proceeding against him, Leslie raised a number of arguments against the charges. These included that Penrose-Cumming lacked the kind of specific injury that would give him title to pursue the case, that Penrose-Cumming had failed to allege sufficiently detailed facts, and that Leslie's rights were not, in fact, fictitious.
Peter Ramsay and Others, Councillors and Burgesses of Pittenweem v. Andrew Martin and Others 1765 Election contest, Aliment, Oath, Perjury, Mala Fides, Debt Petitioners sought to have a borough election nullified on the ground that it was conducted in a corrupt fashion by counsellors who were bribed by Robert Alexander, a candidate for the local parliament seat.
Petition and Complaint of William Macewan 1792 Debt, Freeholder, Arrestment, Statute, Jurisdiction, Election contest William Macewan petitioned the Court to overturn the determination of the freeholders of Perth that his qualification was nominal and fictitious. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Petition of the Countess of Sutherland 1792 Debt, Tailzie, Entail, Arrestment, Succession, Election contest Elizabeth Countess of Sutherland and George Granville Leveson Gower, now Sutherland, petitioned the Court to permit them to sist themselves as parties to a question concerning the recording of the entail of the Sutherland estate. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Robert Alexander v. James Chrystie 1766 Election contest, Aliment, Arrestment, Contract, Oath, Penalty The commissioners from five boroughs of the county of Fife gathered to elect a parliament-burgess, and on the first vote Robert Alexander was elected. Later, the presiding officer voted again so that Alexander's opponent won. Alexander sued the clerk and returning officer, James Chrystie, because of the way the voting was handled.
Robert Fall v. Robert Louthean and Others 1791 Aliment, Jurisdiction, Election contest, Inhibition, Reduction, Voting rights Robert Fall pursued Robert Louthean and others, complaining that the Town Council of Kilrenny had illegally deprived him of his office as councillor and elected others in his absence. Sir John Anstruther argued that the competency of the action was the sole point before the Court, as directed by Lord Eskgrove.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Alexander M'Kenzie 1790 Debt, Liferent, Succession, Proof, Freehold Qualification, Election contest Lieutenant Alexander Mackenzie, defender, answered the petition of Robert Home-Gordon and George Mackay, pursuers, asserting that the interlocutor dismissing the complaint was final and unalterable. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Captain Alexander Sutherland 1790 Rent, Freeholder, Lease, Proof, Possession, Election contest Robert Home-Gordon and others sought to expunge Captain Alexander Sutherland's name from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland, challenging the validity of his freehold qualification. Sutherland maintained that his qualification remained valid and argued the complaint was incompetent. The parties led proof regarding Sutherland's possession of wadset lands since Whitsunday 1789 and his receipt of rents from the tenants of Culmaily for the crops of 1789 and 1790. Home-Gordon subsequently petitioned for enlargement of proof, alleging that Sutherland's qualification was nominal and fictitious.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Captain Donald Matheson 1790 Rent, Freeholder, Lease, Possession, Election contest, Expenses Robert Home-Gordon, George M'Kay, and others pursued Captain Donald Matheson, seeking to have his name removed from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland on the ground that he lacked a valid freeholder qualification. The litigation subsequently reached a minute concerning the validity of Matheson's freehold qualification.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Captain Gordon Clunes 1790 Rent, Possession, Lease, Proof, Election contest, Teinds Robert Home-Gordon of Embo, George M'Kay of Bigbouse, and other freeholders of Sutherland petitioned to expunge Captain Gordon Clunes from the county roll of freeholders, challenging the validity of his freehold qualification. Clunes maintained that his qualification was valid and not subject to expungement, prompting replies from the complainers and the adduction of proof by both parties concerning possession of wadset lands since Whitsunday 1789. The complainers subsequently sought to enlarge the proof and to object that Clunes's qualification was nominal and fictitious.
Robert Home-Gordon v. John Gordon 1790 Infeftment, Wadset, Freeholder, Election contest, Hereditas Jacens, Aliment Robert Home-Gordon of Embo and others petitioned the Court to expunge John Gordon of Carroll from the roll of freeholders of Sutherland, objecting to his qualification for the roll. Gordon answered, asserting his eligibility by wadset-right and inheritance, and the parties subsequently exchanged replies and duplies disputing whether his wadset was merely nominal and fictitious and whether his possession had altered since enrolment.
Robert Home-Gordon v. Lieutenant-General James Grant of Ballindalloch 1790 Freeholder, Possession, Election contest, Proof, Interlocutor, Wadset Robert Home-Gordon of Embo, George M'Kay of Bighouse, and other freeholders of Sutherland pursued Lieutenant-General James Grant of Ballindalloch to expunge him from the county roll of freeholders on the ground that his qualification rested upon a nominal and fictitious possession of wadset lands in the county. The pursuers alleged that Grant had not truly possessed the lands of Navidale since Whitsunday 1789 as required, while Grant defended his enrollment by asserting continuous possession from that date and denying any change in circumstances warranting removal. The litigation proceeded through successive pleadings, proof regarding payment and stewardship of the wadset lands, and repeated petitions by both sides to alter interlocutors or enlarge the record, with Robert Grant of Elchies also becoming enmeshed in the dispute over similar allegations of nominal qualification and electoral solicitation.
Robert Munro v. John Baxter, Provost of Cupar, and Other Burgesses 1772 Election, Debt, Jurisdiction, Election contest, Adjudication, Aliment This case stems from a disputed election for the Dean of Guild of Cupar in 1766. Robert Munro and John Stewart stood as candidates. Munro claimed to have won the election. The town council decided that the other candidate, Stewart, had actually won. On appeal to the Court of Session, however, the court determined that Munro had won the election. The court did not award Munro costs and fees related to the litigation. Munro then petitioned the town council for reimbursement of his expenses. The town council agreed to make a donation to Munro. A few members of the town council, objecting to this donation, sought to stop the payment in court. Munro contended that the Court of Session did not have jurisdiction over the royal burrows with respect to administrative and revenue matters.
Scotlands v. Thompson 1776 Defamation, Aliment, Mala Fides, Libel, Damages, Election contest The defender, the Reverend James Thomson, petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor. The pursuers, Scotlands, opposed the petition in a memorial arguing that Thomson's accusations were malicious, politically motivated, and subversive of public order.
Scotlands v. Thomson 1775 Defamation, Aliment, Election contest, Interlocutor, Creditor, Libel John, Robert, and David Scotland sought damages from James Thomson, minister of Dunfermline, after Thomson preached two sermons accusing them of lying and corruption in connection with the Dunfermline election. Thomson claimed that it was his duty to censure wrongful behavior, and that the second sermon was justified by a provocative letter to the editor written by Robert Scotland.

Documents discussing this subject (showing 100 of 445)