Legal Subject: Defamation

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Anderson v. Richardson	1786	Defamation, Libel, Aliment, Proof, Interlocutor, Prescription	John Anderson, Professor of Natural Philosophy, as pursuer, alleged that William Richardson, Professor of Humanity, as defender, uttered defamatory invectives against him in a public classroom at the College of Glasgow. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird	1790	Adjudication, Arrestment, Aliment, Inhibition, Insurance, Defamation	Thomas Cochran, weaver in Leith, filed answers to the petition of Margaret Clark, spouse of James Greig, sailor in Leith, responding to allegations of riot and damage. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Bell v. King	1794	Witness, Aliment, Adultery, Divorce, Mala Fides, Defamation	James Bell, Sheriff-Clerk of Berwickshire, pursued an action of divorce against his spouse Isobel King, alleging she had committed adultery with their lodger Thomas Purves. King denied the charge and sought to lead evidence from Purves himself and from her own mother and siblings, while Bell objected that Scots law rendered both the alleged adulterer and near relations incompetent witnesses for the defender. The litigation involved petitions to alter interlocutors, competing memorials on witness competency, and Bell’s answers to King’s bill of advocation regarding the separation and adultery allegations.
Bowden and Gibson v. Esten and Bennett	1794	Contract, Parole Evidence, Debt, Arbitration, Defamation, Aliment	Bowden and Gibson, as pursuers, maintained that the pursuer was entitled to his salary for eighteen nights under his engagement with Mrs. Esten, despite Esten and Bennett's refusal to allow him to perform as agreed. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Burt v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor	1789	Succession, Aliment, Debt, Creditor, Sequestration, Defamation	Robert Burt petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor that the Court had pronounced against the Lord Justice Clerk. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Cadell v. Johnstone	1798	Defamation, Arrestment, Libel, Proof, Aliment, Interlocutor	John Cadell of Cockenzie pursued John Johnstone, printer in Edinburgh. Johnstone petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, and Cadell filed answers opposing the petition. The defender subsequently submitted evidence in support of his libel claim against Cadell, detailing alleged violence and misconduct during Tranent militia enforcement.
Cadell v. Morthland and Johnstone	1799	Witness, Defamation, Evidence, Perjury, Proof, Interlocutor	John Cadell pursued John Morthland, Advocate, and John Johnstone, Printer in Edinburgh, for damages and libel arising from a false newspaper account that attributed inflammatory statements to him regarding militia officials at Tranent in 1797. During the course of the litigation, Morthland and Johnstone petitioned the court alleging judicial misconduct by Cadell as pursuer, including intimidation of witnesses and obstruction of proof, which Cadell denied while countering that the defenders had engaged in witness tampering and dilatory conduct. The cause also involved Morthland’s explanation of bills of exchange relating to property of the Scots Chronicle, and Cadell subsequently sought reimbursement for legal, printing, and clerical expenses incurred in the damages action.
Crichton v. Mackay	1788	Defamation, Aliment, Mala Fides, Creditor, Marriage, Succession	Alexander Crichton petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor. Defender Mary Mackay answered, responding to allegations of infamy and misconduct that Crichton had made against her.
Mackenzie v. Interlocutor	1802	Defamation, Interlocutors	The pursuers, Alexander Mackenzie and his spouse Anna Monro, questioned a decree pronounced by the Commissary-depute of Sutherland in a process of defamation and damages, brought by Reverend Mr. Walter Ross, Minister of Clyne against pursuers, and others. Pursuers asked to review the interlocutors: to vindicate the judgment against them in the Reverend Mr. Walter Ross’ defamation process, to be isolated of every charge presented by such Reverend and to find the true conviction to the case.
Merry v. Macrae	1791	Arrestment, Aliment, Defamation, Proof, Inhibition, Mala Fides	James Merry pursued James Macrae for assault with a stick, claiming damages and a fine. Alexander Young, Writer to the Signet, subsequently lodged an information contending that Merry's claim was unfounded and urging that the interlocutor against Macrae not be enforced.
Porteous v. Isat and Others	1781	Defamation, Ministers	This was a case about defamation. It stemmed from an ecclesiastical proceeding in which parishioners of Gorbals accused their minister, William Anderson, of adultery. The ecclesiastical case advanced to the General Assembly, where Rev. William Porteous gave a speech defending Anderson and attacking the complainants. A version of the speech was subsequently printed in certain Edinburgh and Glasgow newspapers, with Porteous’s assistance. The complainants published a rebuttal in a Glasgow newspaper, accusing Porteous of calumny and abuse, and threatening to expose his own “curious tete-a-tetes.” Porteous sued the complainants for defamation. However, the complainants argued that they were merely responding to Porteous’s provocation.
Robert Callander v. John Milligan	1847	Arrestment, Debt, Defamation, Bankruptcy, Sale, Damages	Robert Callander pursued John Milligan for damages for defamation and unlawful apprehension. Callander alleged that Milligan had instigated false accusations of cattle theft, causing Callander's detention by police at Carlisle and resulting in lost sales and reputational injury. Milligan denied liability, contending that Callander had stolen the cattle rather than purchased them through an assignee as claimed, while Callander maintained he had paid for the beasts before being wrongfully detained.
Robert Hamilton Provost of Kinghorn, Pursuer v. James Rutherford, John Aitken, David Sibbald and Walter Rymer, in Kinghorn, Defenders	1771	Defamation, expenses of process	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.”
Robertson and Farquharson v. Cameron, et al	1786	Arrestment, Aliment, Sequestration, Creditor, Defamation, Damages	The defenders Daniel Cameron, Joseph Fyfe, James Boyd, and Thomas Miller filed an information arguing that the pursuers Robertson and Farquharson were unlawfully detained in prison after being apprehended for attempted robbery. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
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	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.
Stein v. Marshall	1803	Proof, Bankruptcy, Defamation	After he obtained a discharge from his creditors, the pursuer brought an action against James Marshall, alleging that he had defamed the pursuer’s character. The defendant sustained that the pursuer was fraudulently bankrupt and thus, he affirmed that the pursuer's creditors were defrauded. The pursuer's petition was refused, because he based his claim on a private conversation between the defendant and Robert Jaimeson, one of his creditors. The Court held that conversation was not relevant to prove the claim of the pursuer.
Stewart v. Carrick	1774	Defamation	Pursuer William Stewart sued defender Robert Carrick for libel. The dispute concerned allegations that Stewart had committed fraud while competing for flax premiums offered by the Board of Trustees for Improving Fisheries and Manufactures in Scotland. After Carrick wrote about the alleged fraud to Stewart’s employer, Robert Patterson, Stewart brought a defamation suit in the Commissary Court of Glasgow. In his defense, Carrick argued that he had no malicious intent, that the facts in the letters were well-founded, and that Stewart had failed to show any damages resulting from the letters.
[MERGED → 4141] Stein v. Marshall	1804	Proof, Bankruptcy, Defamation	After he obtained a discharge from his creditors, the pursuer brought an action against James Marshall, alleging that he had defamed the pursuer’s character. The defendant sustained that the pursuer was fraudulently bankrupt and thus, he affirmed that the pursuer's creditors were defrauded. The pursuer's petition was refused, because he based his claim on a private conversation between the defendant and Robert Jaimeson, one of his creditors. The Court held that conversation was not relevant to prove the claim of the pursuer. [This case appears twice in the SCOS database. See ID #4141 for additional documents.]