Legal Subject: Common Law

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
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.
Crawford, et al v. Wilson, et al 1794 Justices of Peace, Interdict, Statute, Common Law, Arrestment, Suspension
Cunningham and Simpson v. Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith 1795 Debt, Arrestment, Statute, Common Law, Contract, Jurisdiction Cunningham and Simpson petitioned the Court to alter the interlocutor of Lord Dreghorn, Ordinary on the bills, which had refused a bill of suspension in the matter of apprentices Dowie, Stewart, and Drysdale. They subsequently sought suspension of the judgment and interdict against Sir George Home, Baronet, and the Commissioners for raising Seamen at the Port of Leith, and their officers, regarding the levying and carrying away of apprentices Dowie and Stewart.
Fraser, et al v. Sprott 1796 Common Law, Gambling, Interdict, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Creditor Patrick Frazer, Walter Berry, and Henry Farquharson pursued a process to remit a Magistrates' interdict against their private lottery, arguing that such lotteries were not prohibited by statute or common law. The respondent Sprott opposed the remit, contending that private lotteries constituted unlawful gaming and were injurious to public order and fair trade. The dispute centered on whether private lotteries were legally permissible or prohibited as harmful to the public.
Robert Robb v. Gabriel Halladay 1766 Jurisdiction, Witness, Perjury, Libel, Premises Liability, Common Law Robert Robb accused Gabriel Halladay of committing perjury during Court of Session proceedings regarding the Anstruther Wester elections. Halladay raised several technical objections to the libel (i.e., the indictment); Robb responded to these objections and argued that the case should move forward. The libel was dismissed.
Tailors of Glasgow v. Hugh M'Kechnie and Others 1777 Corporation, Burgh Royal, Poor, Common Law, Right of Employment, Female Occupation, Soldier Finlay Ferguson, George Ferguson, and James Wallis all served in the British Army, and they all had daughters who married journeymen tailors. After their marriage, the three men: Hugh Mackechnie, Christopher Taes, and Peter Clydesdale, set up as master tailors in Glasgow. Not being members of the Incorporation of Tailors, they based their right to practice tailoring upon the statute 3d Geo. III. c. 8., which declared that soldiers, their wives, and children, were entitled to "set up, and exercise such trades, as they are apt and able for, in any town or place, within the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, without any let, suit, or molestation, of any person or persons whatsoever.” The Incorporation of Tailors brought a complaint against these men in 1776. The Magistrates of Glasgow ruled that they must pay 5 s. sterling, cease from working as master-tailors under penalty of 100 merks Scots, and be imprisoned in the tolbooth until they should make payment and grant bond. Arguing that this incarceration was "violent and illegal," the defenders obtained letters of suspension and liberation. The case came before Lord Stonefield, who ruled against them. They next petitioned the Court for review. The Court adhered to Lord Stonefield's interlocutor, and decided that the statute in question "does not entitle the daughter of a soldier to confer that privilege upon her husband."
William Sprott v. Patrick Frazer 1796 Gambling, Common Law, Interdict, Bankruptcy, Sequestration, Statute William Sprott, Solicitor-at-Law and Procurator-Fiscal for the City of Edinburgh, answered a bill of advocation in which Patrick Frazer, Walter Berry, and Henry Farquharson sought to have the Magistrates' interlocutor and interdict against their lotteries remitted on the ground that private lotteries were lawful. Sprott contested this argument, maintaining that private lotteries were illegal and defending the magisterial prohibition. The case thus raised the question of the lawfulness of private lotteries, with the defenders seeking to overturn the interdict and the pursuer supporting the magistrates' authority to enforce it.

Documents discussing this subject (72)