William Dallas v. William Elliot — Answers, 30 Nov 1790
Abstract
William Elliot defends William Dallas’s freehold qualification as nominal and fictitious, citing precedent and circumstances of land conveyance.
William Dallas v. Freeholders of Roxburghshire — Petition and Complaint, 12 Nov 1790
Abstract
Petition and Complaint of William Dallas, Writer to the Signet, asking the Court to overturn the freeholders' decision to expunge his name from the Roxburgh roll.
John Rutherford of Edgerstone v. Captain Douglas — Answers, 14 Dec 1790
Abstract
Answers by Captain Douglas to the petition and complaint of John Rutherford of Edgerstone, Esq; arguing that the petition is incompetent under the statute authorizing summary complaints.
Ans. Mr HENRY HALL, TO THE Pet. & Comp. J. RUTHERFORD, Esq; Arch. Tod, W. S. Agent. ANSWERS FOR Mr HENRY HALL, late Tenant at Linthaughlee; TO THE PETITION and COMPLAINT of JOHN RU
Abstract
Henry Hall defends his Roxburgh roll qualification, rejecting claims of nominal, fictitious, or confidential status, citing precedent and his independent, self-determined right to vote.
John Rutherfurd v. Henry Hall — Petition and Complaint, 26 Nov 1790
Abstract
Petitioner challenges Henry Hall’s freeholder status as nominal, politically granted by Lord Douglas, and seeks removal from Roxburgh’s roll.
Petition — Sir George Douglas
Abstract
Petition of Sir George Douglas of Springwood-park, Baronet, and Patrick Kerr of Abbotrule, Esq, asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
William Sibbald of Pinnacle v. Sir George Douglas of Springwood-park and Patrick Kerr of Abbotrule — Answers, 8 Dec 1790
Abstract
Answers by Sir George Douglas, Bart, and Patrick Kerr, Esq to the petition of William Sibbald, arguing that the Crown charter he produced was surreptitiously obtained and that the lands were not church lands held feu of the church.
Petition and Complaint — William Sibbald
Abstract
Petition of William Sibbald asking the Court to overturn the freeholders' refusal to inroll him as a freeholder in Roxburgh, on grounds that his Crown-charter and infeftment are unexceptionable titles.
Archibald Dickson v. Archibald Douglas — Answers, 30 Nov 1790
Abstract
Answers by Archibald Douglas of Edderstone to the petition and complaint of Archibald Dickson of Housebyres, responding to the objection that the decree of disjunction is void and null.
Petition and Complaint — & Comp. Arch. Dickson, Esq; against the Freeholders of Roxburghshire [2]
Abstract
Archibald Dickson petitions the Lords of Council and Session to be admitted to the Roxburghshire freeholders’ roll, challenging a 30-22 vote that rejected his claim due to alleged procedural flaws in the Commissioners’ valuation division.
