A FORMER air hostess convicted of a 16-month stalking campaign against a love rival had her conviction set aside yesterday after three appeal judges heard that two other women had now come forward to claim that they were harassed by the alleged victim.

Marsha Beveridge, 24, had been fined #350 at Hamilton Sheriff Court for breach of the peace.

She was alleged to have carried out a campaign of harassment against Miss Maree Murray, 29, between September 1993 and February 1995 which involved lying in wait at various locations, approaching her, and shouting and swearing at her.

Miss Beveridge had formed a relationship with double-glazing salesman Robert Sinclair. Years before, he had been involved in a relationship with Miss Murray.

Miss Beveridge, who now lives in Edinburgh, was alleged to have become obsessed and to have begun a stalking campaign against Miss Murray, of Ivy Place, Blantyre, who said she feared for her own safety and that of her young son.

Sheriff Ian Donaldson found her guilty, and she was ordered to seek psychiatric help.

But yesterday Mr Jamie Gilchrist, defence counsel, told Lord Sutherland, who heard the appeal with Lord Cameron and Lady Cosgrove, that Miss Beveridge was not the stalker but rather the victim of stalking by Miss Murray.

Two witnesses had come came forward and contacted Miss Beveridge or her solicitor. They had now provided sworn statements.

An affidavit provided by Joanne Maider was that she had associated with a former boyfriend of Miss Murray's. She alleged that, on a number of occasions, there had been contact between her and Miss Murray and that Miss Murray was in effect harassing her.

Lord Sutherland noted: ''At one stage, it appears Miss Murray made a complaint to the police about her conduct and no further action was taken on that complaint.''

An affidavit from the second woman, Mrs Lorraine Arrol, was similar. She said she had formed a relationship with a man who had also formerly been the boyfriend of Miss Murray, who had a child by him.

''She speaks to being harassed by Miss Murray on a number of occasions,'' said Lord Sutherland.

Mr Gilchrist had argued that, if this evidence had been available at the trial, it would have had a significant bearing on the crucial question of credibility between Miss Beveridge and Miss Murray. It would have been highly relevant to show that Miss Murray had behaved in a similar way towards others as Miss Beveridge complained she had behaved towards her. If it had been before the sheriff, he might well have formed an entirely different view of the case.

Lord Sutherland said it was not suggested that the sheriff had not been entitled to form the view that he did, but the appeal had been brought on the basis that significant new evidence had come to light.

''These two witnesses both came forward after the trial had taken place. It was reported in the newspapers and had been read by these two witnesses.''

Lord Sutherland added: ''We are satisfied that the evidence which has been placed before us on affidavit appears, prima facie, to be credible and reliable, although of course the evidence has ultimately to be determined.''

The appeal court decided to set aside Miss Beveridge's conviction and grant authority to the Crown to bring a fresh prosecution.

The Crown now has two months to investigate the fresh evidence and decide whether Miss Beveridge should be required to stand trial again.