It follows, from the exclusive right of property, that a proprietor is entitled to prohibit all trespass within his grounds, and to bring an action of damages against the trespasser. Such prosecutions may be brought before justices of the peace. Trespass, by travelling through wheat, is, by statute, made liable to the penalties of L.10 Scots for the first offence, L.20 Scots for the second, and forfeiture of moveables — which Mr Blair says may practically be interpreted as an arbitrary fine — for any subsequent offence, and the penalties go to the public.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Trespass.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Trespass |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loch v. Tweedie | 1798 | Arrestment, Aliment, Trespass, Poinding, Interlocutor, Penalty | John Loch pursued Alexander Tweedie regarding damages caused by Tweedie’s trespassing sheep, defending his poinding of the flocks and asserting statutory rights to distrain while disputing the defender’s allegations as to penalties and damages. Tweedie repeatedly petitioned the Court to alter interlocutors, first regarding Lord Craig’s order and later challenging subsequent decisions, while Loch reclaimed against an Inner House interlocutor and submitted defenses supported by witness testimony. Tweedie answered Loch’s reclaiming petition and continued to seek alteration of the Court’s interlocutors through November 1799. |
| Ross v. Scott | 1793 | Lease, Penalty, Trespass, Adjudication, Aliment, Statute | James Scott, as pursuer, alleged that the defender Ross’s sheep had trespassed on his grounds and contended that the statute of 1686, cap. 11, entitled him to recover penalties. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| The Procurator-Fiscal of the Town of Stirling v. John Gillies and Others | 1793 | Salmon Fishing, Jurisdiction, Act of Parliament, Tack, Trespass, Statute | |
| Wilson and Scott v. Alexander | 1779 | Damages, Property, Animal Welfare, Trespass, Boni Mores, Aliment | In November 1777, Jean Alexander of Rosebank had some nux vomica (strychnine) put into her swine and poultry's meat. A few days later her neighbor James Wilson's dog died "after suffering the greatest agony." After Wilson discovered that his dog was likely poisoned by his neighbor, he confronted her and she responded with contempt, saying that the poison had been to stop her livestock's food being eaten by his dog. Wilson, filed a complaint with the Sheriff of Edinburgh, who found the complaint relevant. Alexander then brought the process by advocation to the Court, and Lord Westhall assoilzied (absolved) her, determining that she was entitled to lay poison in her property in order to protect it. Wilson then petitioned the Court to alter this interlocutor. His advocate, David Armstrong, argued that Alexander's actions had gone against the common good, and that Alexander should have trusted in the law to protect her from Wilson's dog. In response, Alexander said there was no proof that her poison had caused the dog's death, and that even if it had, "what she did she was entitled to do in virtue of her right of property, and in defence of that property." She also disputed the basis of Wilson's claim to damages - that his dog was valuable to him as, among other things, a protection from thieves. Finally, in an illuminating turn of events, Alexander responded to a rumor that she had also poisoned the Duke of Buccleuch's dog. Rather, the defender insisted, Buccleuch's dog had been killed by a mob at Loanhead. |
Documents discussing this subject (42)
- Alexander Govan v. Thomas Lang — Appendix
- Alexander Macalister v. John Campbell and Others — 14 Jan 1834
- Andrew Aitken and Others v. John Wilson and John Bannatyne — Proof
- Ann Millar v. John Anderson, Alexander Scott, and Others — Appendix, 25 May 1814
- Bill of Advocation — James Allan [2]
- Folsetter and Wright v. Lord Justice Clerk's Interlocutor — Petition, 22 Dec 1786
- Henry Black Stewart v. Alexander Robertson senior and Others — Petition, 6 Sep 1841
- Henry Black Stewart v. Robert Sangster, Alexander Whitson, Thomas Hunter Whitson and Malcolm Stewart Riach — Note of Advocation, 13 Jul 1844
- Henry Black Stewart v. Robert Sangster, Alexander Whitson, Thomas Hunter Whitson, and Malcolm Stewart Riach — Reclaiming Note, 15 Feb 1848
- James Ross v. James Scott — Information, 14 Feb 1793
- James Ross v. James Scott — Information, 23 Feb 1793
- James Wilson v. Miss Jean Alexander of Rosebank — Answers, 8 Jul 1779
- John Loch v. Alexander Tweedie — Answers, 19 May 1798
- John Loch v. Alexander Tweedie — Answers, 4 Apr 1799
- John Scott, sen. and John Scott, jun. v. John Robieson — Memorial, 7 Jul 1801
- John Sheriff v. John Foreman — Memorial, 25 Jan 1793
- John Stewart and Curator v. Alexander Brown and Company — Proof, 16 Jul 1821
- John Stewart v. Alexander Brown and Company and Alexander Brown — Answers, 10 Jun 1824
- Loch v. Tweedie — Petition, 12 Nov 1799
- Loch v. Tweedie — Petition, 20 Feb 1798
- Loch v. Tweedie — Petition, 8 Feb 1799
- Malcolm Stewart v. Henry Black Stewart — Replies, 22 Aug 1844 [2]
- Mungo Campbell v. Archibald Earl of Eglinton and James Montgomery — Information, 16 Jan 1770
- Petition — John Sheriff against Lord Dreghorn's Interlocutor
- Petition — John Stewart, and his Administrator in Law against Bill-Chamber Interlocutor
- Petition — Thomas Clark, Leather Casemaker in Bristo, near Edinburgh
- Petition — W. Ramsay against Lord Eldin's Interlocutor
- Petition — William Gall formerly Tenant in Nether-Saak in the County of Aberdeen
- Robert Graham and James Rowland v. Robert Dundas and William Richardson — Information, 17 Mar 1792
- Robert Sangster, Alexander Whitson, Thomas Hunter Whitson and Malcolm Stewart Riach v. Henry Black Stewart — Reclaiming Note, 7 Mar 1848
- State of the Process — the Distillers and Rectifiers of Spirits in Scotland
- STATEMENT of FACTS for Campbell of Glensaddell, &c. AND PURSUER'S ANSWERS thereto.
- THE PETITION of John Orrar of Gribloch, and James Orrar his son, and of Carron Company, --Humbly Sheweth,
- Thomas Buchan Sydserff v. John Dods Junior — Petition, 7 Feb 1853 [2]
- Thomas Hart v. John Carruthers, William Carruthers, and Robert Johnston — Bill of Advocation, 27 Feb 1829 [2]
- Thomas Hart v. John Carruthers, William Carruthers, and Robert Johnstone — Replies, 15 Nov 1826 [2]
- Tweedie — Petition, 11 Dec 1798
- William Carswell v. Samuel Irvin — Minute, 24 May 1850
- William Muirhead v. John Gilles, Alexander Hay, Alexander Cowie, George Davidson, William Primrose, and others — Information, 8 Jan 1793
- William Muirhead v. John Gillies, Alexander Hay, Alexander Cowie, George Davidson, William Primrose, and others — Information, 8 Jan 1793
- William Ramsay, William Ramsay, Junior, and David Wilson v. John Law M'Lellan — Answers, 28 Jun 1824
- William Scott v. David Steuart — Answers, 23 Apr 1795
