Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The Lord President, who delivered the judgment of the Court, said—There are two grounds on which it has been argued that the suspender should be liberated. In the first place, it is said that the original application did not contain a relevant statement that the suspender intended to leave Scotland for the purpose of evading payment of the respondent's claim against him. The object of his intending to leave is not expressly stated either in the application or in the applicant's oath of verity. It is now, however, settled in practice that it is not necessary to state this in express terms. I have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that this objection is not well founded. But, in the second place, it has been urged that, even assuming the relevancy of the application, the allegations made have not been sufficiently supported. In any view of this question it is as narrow as any case I have ever seen. The petitioner depones to the birth of the child in 1862, that Jackson left Blantyre shortly thereafter, that he has only recently returned, that she believes he intends immediately to proceed to sea, and that she has received that information from two persons, whom she names, one of whom, she says, told her that he had received his information from Jackson himself. Jackson, when examined, says he does not intend to leave Scotland, and that he never said so to anyone. A proof was thereupon allowed to both parties. The petitioner adduced the two persons on whose information she says she acted, Neither of them supports her statement. The first says he had not spoken to Jackson till the night before his examination, being a time subsequent to that alleged by the petitioner. He has some recollection of having been in the petitioner's house, but he was then in such a condition that he could not remember, and he does not remember anything about what he then said. It is difficult to deduce from his evidence whether he said anything or not, but certainly it does not prove that he told the petitioner what she says he told her. The other witness does not confirm the petitioner either. He says that Jackson told him that he had been away at the sea, but he said nothing about going back again. But although this is the state of the evidence, there are several matters clear enough. When the child was born in 1862, Jackson was alleged to be the father, and a demand was made on him for aliment. Soon afterwards he left that part of the country. This is admitted by Jackson himself. He says he went to Liverpool, and took employment in a steamer trading between Liverpool and America. After an absence of some years he reappears in Blantyre. He says he means to remain in Scotland. He gives no explanation as to his intended change in his mode of life. A proof was allowed to him as well as to the petitioner; and if it be the case that he had come back here animo remanendi, he could easily have proved that fact, and shown that he was not in Blantyre simply as a sailor visiting his friends. The question, then, is this—Do the whole facts impress one's mind with a belief that Jackson was here merely on a visit or animo remanendi? I don't think there is any presumption that he intended to change the mode of life which he had been leading for some years, and he has led no proof on the subject. As I have said, the case is a narrow one, and it has not been very thoroughly expiscated in proof; but on the whole we have come to the conclusion not to interfere with the judgments of the Sheriff-Substitute and of the Lord Ordinary.