Legal Subject: Proof

Case	Date	Legal Subject	Abstract
Allardice v. The Officers of State, and the Ministers of Bervie and St. Andrews	1798	Teinds, Valuation, Proof, Stipend, Tack, Prescription	Robert Barclay Allardice pursued the Officers of State and the Ministers of Bervie and St. Andrews regarding the modification of the teinds of Hallgreen lands. The Reverend Robert Croll submitted that the teinds should be fixed at a fair and equitable rate, while Allardice argued they ought to be valued at a fifth of the rent prior to improvements rather than the current improved rent. The parties exchanged competing memorials on the proper basis for calculating the teind duty.
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.
Arbutnott, et al. v. Scott, et al.	1794	Proof, Res judicata, Interlocutor, Salmon Fishing, Mill, Aliment	Arbutnott and others pursued Scott and others regarding a dam-dike that superior heritors claimed intercepted fish passage in violation of statutory regulations, while the defenders insisted the structure was a necessary check-dike for their mills. The petitioners sought alteration of a recent interlocutor, and the superior heritors informed the court that the dike was constructed to obstruct fish rather than supply water. The defenders maintained that alteration would injure their milling rights, and subsequently petitioned to be assoilzied, challenging the relevancy of the condescendence and the competency of the additional report and depositions.
Burrell v. Lord Glenlee's Interlocutor	1798	Proof, Interlocutor, Servitude, Property, Aliment, Lease	William George Burrell petitioned the Court of Session to alter an interlocutor issued by Lord Glenlee. 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.
Copland v. Ireland	1786	Proof, Interlocutor, Tack, Diligence, Rent, Sequestration	William Ireland petitioned the Court for leave to adduce additional proof and to renew diligence against William Birtwhistle, alleging that William Copland of Gregory had failed to report proof regarding Birtwhistle. Copland answered, responding to the claim that he had neglected to report the proof concerning Birtwhistle.
Creditors of Newlands v. Mackenzie	1792	Creditor, Debt, Proof, Arrestment, Reduction, Bill of Exchange	Andrew Mackenzie petitioned the Court to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor requiring him to produce title-deeds before receiving payment of his account. The creditors of Newlands answered that Mackenzie ought to be paid without producing the writings.
George Taylor v. Mrs. Taylor, or Binnie	1831	Aliment, Divorce, Adultery, Libel, Proof, Agent	George Taylor, as pursuer in a divorce action against Mrs. Taylor, or Binnie, reclaimed against Lord Newton's interlocutors and requested that the Court recall them. The Court resolved to obtain the opinions of the judges on whether proof of remissio was prejudicial and should precede proof of the adultery. The consulted judges returned answers to the questions posed by the Lords of the First Division regarding the plea of remissio in the divorce action.
Graham and Rowland v. Dundas and Richardson	1792	Libel, Theft, Verdict, pannels, Proof, Evidence	Robert Graham and James Rowland, as pursuers, filed an information against Dundas and Richardson arguing that the jury's verdict against them was unintelligible and therefore could not support a sentence of condemnation. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Greig v. Johnston	1782	Aliment, Proof	Helen Greig sued Archibald Johnston for maintenance of a child alleged to be his. Johnston argued that Greig had already discharged her maintenance claim as part of a settlement agreement. Greig denied having discharged the claim, and challenged the evidence offered by Johnson.
Inglis v. Lord Stonefield's Interlocutor	1789	Fraud, Contract, Damages, Aliment, Interlocutor, Proof	William Inglis presented a reclaiming petition asking the Court of Session to alter its interlocutor on damages for non-implementation of a bear-delivery agreement with Lord Stonefield. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
J. and P. Duguid and Others v. W. Duguid and Others	1823	Succession, Aliment, Creditor, Trustees, Proof, Marriage	The children of John Duguid claimed a share in William Duguid’s estate against the trustees, who had sought exoneration after distributing legacies while residuary beneficiaries remained unidentified, filing a condescendence that opposed the executors’ objections to their evidence. The claimants’ entitlement required proof of John Duguid’s life, death, and family in America, leading to the granting of commissions for taking evidence abroad, which the respondents moved to recall or restrict to major American cities while seeking permission to participate. Proof was subsequently taken abroad regarding John Duguid’s circumstances and the claimants’ right to the estate.
James Turnbull and Malcolm Macdonald v. Sir George Home, Baronet	1793	Jurisdiction, Suspension, Arrestment, Proof, Sequestration, Interdict	James Turnbull and Malcolm Macdonald, as suspenders, sought to compel their bound apprentice Alexander M'Kenzie to return to service and argued that he could not legally enter His Majesty's Fleet as a volunteer. Sir George Home, Baronet, maintained that a seaman formerly apprenticed to a slater might lawfully serve in the Fleet notwithstanding the opposition of his former masters. The dispute turned on whether an apprentice bound to a slater could voluntarily enter naval service or remained subject to his masters' claim for specific performance of the indenture.
Janet Barber v. John Caddell	1789	Rent, Possession, Aliment, Tack, Lease, Proof	Janet Barber, relict of James Renny, pursued John Caddell of Cockenzie in a suspension bill alleging he had unlawfully sold her crop and seized her land without authority. Caddell petitioned the Court to remit the suspension, asserting claims of possession and rent arrears against her. Barber answered, defending her suspension and responding to Caddell’s allegations regarding possession and arrears.
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.
Messrs Aitchison, Brown, and Company v. Lord Monboddo's Interlocutor	1792	Bankruptcy, Debt, Intromission, Creditor, Proof, Fraud	Messrs Aitchison, Brown, and Company petitioned the Court to alter Lord Monboddo's recent interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Scott and Cruikshank v. New College of St. Andrews	1793	Tack, Teinds, Valuation, Proof, Rent, Lease	The New College of St. Andrews defended an action by Scott and Cruikshank regarding deductions from rental, arguing that deductions based on old improvements and tenant accommodations were not legally or reasonably justifiable. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
Sir John Ogilvie of Inverquharity v. Sir David Carnegie of Southesk	1795	Valuation, Charter, Disposition, Commissioners of Supply, Proof, Succession	Sir John Ogilvie of Inverquharity pursued Sir David Carnegie of Southesk and other freeholders regarding their refusal to inroll him on the roll of freeholders for the county of Forfar in respect of the lands of Baldovan. The dispute centered on whether Ogilvie had sufficiently established the lands' valuation at £386:5:8 Scots through cess-book entries and receipts to qualify for the roll, or whether the freeholders had properly rejected his proof as insufficient. The parties exchanged answers, replies, and duplies debating the adequacy of the valuation evidence and the applicability of precedents.
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.
Stobie v. Morison, et al	1788	Succession, Debt, Proof, Aliment, Collation, Action	David Stobie, writer in Edinburgh, as pursuer, disputed Catharine Morison's claim to half the executry of her deceased brother Adam Morison. Morison and her husband, John Wilson, petitioned the Court to alter an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Stonefield in the cause. Stobie answered the petition, resisting her claim to the executry.
Waugh v. Trustees for Ruecastle's Creditors	1789	Agent, Trust, Process, Proof, Witness, Arrestment	Thomas Waugh, writer in Jedburgh, petitioned against a Lord Alva interlocutor, objecting to the admissibility of Andrew Reid as a witness. The Trustees for Ruecastle's Creditors, together with Richard Tod, merchant in Leith, and other creditors of Walter Ruecastle and John Scott, answered the petition, defending Reid's qualification to testify.
Young v. Hernderland's Interlocutor	1793	Aliment, Mala Fides, Libel, Oath, Proof, Creditor	Pursuer John Young, tenant in Upper Nisbet, petitioned the Court to remit Lord Henderland's interlocutor. Based on the single document cataloged for this case.
[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.]