| 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. |
| Campbell v. Stein |
1786
|
Bribery, Corruption, Forgery, Common Law, Debt, Statute |
This case was about a criminal charge of bribery. Distiller James Stein allegedly gave a package containing £500 to a Solicitor of Excise. Stein was prosecuted for attempted bribery. In response, he argued that the charged offense did not constitute a crime at common law. Additionally, Stein argued that the prosecution’s indictment was insufficient to support the charge, because it did not contain any facts demonstrating a corrupt intention. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
