Southern Necropolis Burials- relationship of deceased to lair's 'proprietor'

[Fordyce]

"Bur 25-7-1850 : Elizabeth Ogilvie age 29 : Friend of Peter Baxter : 9 Hill St [Garnethill]"
"Bur 15-12-1850 : James Preston age 7m: Cousin of Peter Baxter : 7 Wallace St [Gorbals]"
I believe the addresses are those of the deceased not of the 'Proprietor' of the Lair.
It is likely Peter Baxter was living at 39 Warwick St Gorbals at the time (he was there with wife and family in 1951).
Am I right that the named Proprietor would have paid the fees?

After extensive searches, Elizabeth Ogilvie can only be the wife of James Sibbald Preston (who was very much alive); and James Preston can only be the son of James Sibbald Preston (but there is a smidgeon of doubt whether Elizabeth Ogilvie was the mother - there is no record of his birth).

And after more extensive searches, nothing can be found to connect James Sibbald Preston (who was an engine fitter born Haddington, East Lothian - Elizabeth Ogilvie was born there too) and Peter Baxter (who was a joiner born Kilfinan, Argyl). And no reason why there should be other than living reasonably nearby each other.

It's the 'Cousin' that's bothersome. 'Friend' turns up frequently enough in the Interment Registers, as do other relationships like 'Uncle' or 'Father'. Is it safe to take the term 'Cousin' literally or could it be a euphemism? A euphemism for what?!
 
I'm trying to understand what the Internment Register is telling me vis-a-vis Peter Baxter.

This is part of ongoing research to explain why James Sibbald Preston turns up in 1851 at 9 Drury St, Blythswood married to a Helen from Stirlingshire (with no record of that marriage) and has a child in Sep 1853 where he names the mother as Elizabeth Ogilvie. And yet more complexity in that possibly the same Helen seemingly turns up in 1855 at 39 Warwick St as a MacFarlane tenant/occupier, and in 1856 at 9 Warwick St as Helen MacFarlane (who records herself as unmarried in three later censuses).

[GR2]

Friend also means a relative in Scots usage.

[Fordyce]

Thanks for that GR2. I'll take as a possible interpretation, because I can't for the life of me see how this Peter Baxter could be a blood relative, having traced back all parties to very different parts of Scotland a good long way..

However, there is a theoretical possibility he committed adultery, having had seven children with his wife 1831 through 1846 before going with Elizabeth Ogilvie (who was still married but one cannot tell whether they were still together) before he had a eighth child with his wife in 1852 (the pair stayed together until she died in 1871, he as her widower died in 1875). Peter Baxter's return to his wife could be because his 'friend' Elizabeth Ogilvie had died (Jul 1850) due to 'stomach complaint' (which I'm also prepared to accept as a euphemism for problems after childbirth).

The flaw in this is that it doesn't explain why this child born Apr/May 1850 would be named James Preston (yet buried in the same Lair as Elizabeth Ogilvie). I could conjure up explanations, but they get more fanciful each time.