A borough holding a charter of incorporation from the Crown.
Definition source
Kinnear, J. B., Digest of House of Lords Cases Decided on Appeal from Scotland, 1709-1864 — Glossary of Scottish Law Terms (Edinburgh, 1865). Public domain.
Legal Subject: Burgh |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alexander Stewart v. John Isat | 1773 | Burgh | This case was about the implementation of an act of Parliament that authorized the town of Glasgow to impose a duty on beer and ale. Alexander Stewart, the collector of the duty, sued John Isat over an alleged arrear. In response, Isat claimed that he was being charged more than other brewers. He argued that the magistrates could not force an individual to pay higher charges than others who were similarly situated. Stewart, defending Glasgow’s magistrates, argued that they were entitled to charge Isat the full amount authorized by statute. He explained that brewers were charged different rates because the magistrates generally reduced the duty on brewers who paid dry multure (i.e., a toll for milling) to the town. Isat disputed this as a factual matter and argued that the magistrates could not use the duty to compel individuals to accept a servitude to the town’s mills. |
| Grieve and Others v. Incorporation of Tailors | 1773 | Burgh, Corporate 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. |
| John Aitchison and others v. The Magistrates and Billet-Master of Haddington | 1795 | Interlocutor, Burgh, Thirlage, Suspension, Representation, Magistrate | |
| John Ure, and other Heritors within the Royalty of the Burgh of Forfar v. Patrick Carnegy, and Others, Heritors of the Landward District of the Parish of Forfar | 1792 | Decreet-Arbitral, Heritor, Burgh, Teinds, Contract, Debt | John Ure and the other heritors within the royalty of the burgh of Forfar pursued Patrick Carnegy and the other heritors of the landward district of the parish regarding the method of dividing the church. The pursuers argued that the church ought to be divided in proportion to population, while the defenders maintained that it should be divided according to valued rent as settled by Lord Coalston's decree. Both parties presented informations to the Court setting forth these competing claims. |
| Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley v. M'Dowal et al | 1792 | Trustees, Assignation, Burgh, Debt, Trustee, Creditor | The Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor in their action as pursuers seeking indemnity for road repairs executed under the 1753 turnpike act. The defenders William M'Dowal, George Houston, Robert Fulton, Robert Corse, Boyd Porterfield, Boyd Alexander, Archibald Speirs, and the assignees to the tolls answered the petition, resisting the magistrates' request for alteration of the court's prior order. |
| Magistrates and Town-Council of the Burgh of Pittenweem v. Robert and William Alexanders, Thomas Martin, and Others | 1771 | Elections, Corruption, Burgh | 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. |
| Magistrates of Dunfermline v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor | 1789 | Tack, Interlocutor, Thirlage, Possession, Onus Probandi, Burgh | The Magistrates and Town-Council of Dunfermline petitioned the Court to alter Lord Monboddo's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Shaw v. Fleming | 1775 | Elections, Burgh | This case concerns a disputed election in the burgh of Rutherglen. Different trades (including deacons, masons, and weavers) would meet with members of their industry and submit lists of candidates for the elections, a common election practice of the period. Pursuers George Shaw et al. lodged a complaint against the town council of the burgh of Rutherglen. Apparently the town council adopted a practice of restricting voting to resident masons and wrights, and disallowed non-resident masons and wrights from voting. Shaw et al. alleged that this attempt to disenfranchise the non-resident masons and wrights was unlawful. |
| Sir James Boswell v. Alexander Hamilton | 1830 | Succession, Burgh, Aliment, Teinds, Feu, Parish | |
| Stephen and others v. Duff and other Magistrates and Counsellors of the Burgh of Elgin | 1771 | Election contest, Burgh | This case concerns disputed elections for council in the Burgh of Elgin. John Duff, defender, and his group controlled the Burgh council up to the election in the Michaelmas 1770 term. Duff was provost of the burgh, with members of his group serving other positions on the council. In that 1770 election, Thomas Stephen, pursuer, won and became provost of the burgh of Elgin. Stephen was a member of a rival group. In the next election, the Michaelmas 1771 term, Duff and his group won the election and regained their positions on the council. Each group accused the other of resorting to riots, disturbances, bribery, and other improper means to affect the Michaelmas 1771 election. |
| The Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley v. The Freeholders and Commissioners of Supply of the County of Renfrew | 1792 | Arrestment, Burgh, Burgh of Barony, Charter, Debt, Aliment | The Magistrates and Town-Council of Paisley pursued the Freeholders and Commissioners of Supply of the County of Renfrew regarding liability for expenses incurred in maintaining prisoners committed to the burgh's custody. Sir Michael Stewart and others, representing the defenders, argued that the magistrates were personally liable for costs arising from prisoners committed on their own warrants. The pursuers countered that, as a burgh of barony with a sufficient prison, they were entitled to be relieved of such expenses from the public rogue money fund. |
