Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Sceales v. Sceales and Others [1866] ScotLR 1_109_1 (16 January 1866)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/01SLR0109_1.html
Cite as: [1866] ScotLR 1_109_1, [1866] SLR 1_109_1
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session
Page: 109↓
Court of Session Inner House Second Division.
v.
Facts:
Motion by defenders in a declarator of marriage that the pursuer should be ordained to furnish them with her present address or place of residence (alt. Lord Ormidale, diss. Lord Cowan), refused.
This is an action of declarator of marriage, at the instance of Ellen Darsie or Sceales, who is designated in the summons as “residing in London, widow of the deceased Stewart Sceales, formerly of Customs, Leith, latterly residing in Aberdeen.” The pursuer alleges that she became acquainted with Mr Sceales about the end of 1852, while she was in the service of his sister; that he then commenced a courtship, and afterwards made her a promise of marriage, upon the faith of which she allowed him to have carnal connection with her. The pursuer alleges further that a child was born of the marriage, and that in 1860 she separated from her husband, who had delayed to make a declaration of his marriage, in facie ecclesiae, from fear of his relatives. Between the period of her first acquaintance with Sceales and her separation from him in 1860, she says that they lived as man and wife in different places in Scotland and in England. Sceales is dead, but his representatives and others who defend this action deny the promise of marriage, and say in answer to one of the pursuer's statements, that “before her intimacy with Stewart Sceales, and during and after that intimacy, the pursuer led a loose and irregular life.”
A motion was made in the Outer House by the defenders that the pursuer should be appointed to state her present residence or give her address, and
Page: 110↓
the Lord Ordinary (Ormidale) granted the motion. The object of the defenders is alleged to be the wish to get information from her as to the kind of life which she is and has been living in London. The pursuer reclaimed; and to-day the Court, Lord Cowan dissenting, recalled the interlocutor, and remitted the case back to the Lord Ordinary to refuse the motion.
The Lord Justice-Clerk said—The only difficulty that I feel in disposing of the reclaiming note against the interlocutor in this case is that the thing is utterly unprecedented. But, as the case stands before us, the motion of the defender is that the pursuer should be ordained to furnish the defender with her present residence or address, and the Lord Ordinary has granted the motion. Now, I can conceive circumstances that might justify such an application; but these must be very special, and none such have been alleged in the present case. On the contrary, the defenders' counsel have not made it intelligible to me what possible advantage they could get by the information which they desire; and the pursuer's counsel contends that as a general rule a party is not bound to say where his place of residence is merely at the bidding of his opponent. It may be extremely inconvenient to make such a statement. I see no ground either in fact or in law why this motion should be granted and I am therefore for recalling the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor.
Counsel for Pursuer— Mr Scott. Agent— Mr Scotland, S.S.C.
Counsel for Defenders—The Solicitor-General and Mr Monro. Agents— Messrs Melville & Lindesay, W.S.