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 >> Stevenson v. Meiklejohn [1870] ScotLR 7_565 (22 June 1870)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1870/07SLR0565.html
Cite as: [1870] ScotLR 7_565, [1870] SLR 7_565
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session
Page: 565↓
Court of Session Inner House First Division.
v.
Facts:
Observations by the Court upon the manner of conducting proofs in the inferior court.
This was an action by Meiklejohn in the Sheriff-Court of Stirlingshire, against Stevenson, concluding that he should be declared the father of the pursuer's two children, born 29th July 1863 and 3d August 1866 respectively, and for aliment. After a proof, the Sheriff-Substitute gave decree in terms of the conclusions of the summons. On appeal, the Sheriff-Depute affirmed this judgment. In the note the Sheriff-Depute remarked:—“The Sheriff wishes, in connection with this case, to direct the attention of the Sheriff-Substitute, and through him of the procurators, to a matter of general practice. The Act of Parliament directs proofs to be taken, ‘ as far as may be continuously, and with as little interval as the circumstances or the justice of the case will admit of.’ This direction of the Act appears to have been in this as in a previous case after referred to, but must not in future cases be, overlooked. In the present case the pursuer commenced and concluded her proof on the 21st July. The defender's proof was not commenced until the 10th of August—was then adjourned, and not again taken up and completed until the 18th of August. There do not appear to be any circumstances, and none are stated, to justify these long intervals. In a recent case appealed to the Second Division of the Court ( Sands v. Auld), a somewhat similar delay was the occasion of condemnation from the bench, and was remarked upon as particularly reprehensible in a filiation case; and it was observed that the evidence of the pursuer and defender in such cases should be noted in detail, and that it was bad practice to note that either of the parties in their evidence said ‘ conform’ to a preceding witness. They should be made to tell their own story in their own way. Further, it is desirable for the information of the courts of appeal that the ages of the pursuer and defender, and of the witnesses generally, should appear in the notes of evidence. All these remarks are applicable to the present proof, but may be easily obviated in future cases.”
The defender appealed.
Balfour and Harper for him.
Buntine, for respondent, was not called on.
The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.
This is a practice entirely inconsistent with the Act of Parliament, and is the cause both of delay and expense. I hope the observations of the learned Sheriff, which are well entitled to respect in his own Court, will be attended to elsewhere. In the second place, the testimony of the pursuer, who is the principal witness in the cause, is reported in a most unsatisfactory way. She is held as concurring on the most important points with the testimony of her own witnesses, who have been previously examined. Now, every word of the examination of such a witness, and of all witnesses, should be taken down.
In the third place, we have the new fashion of not giving the age of the witnesses. That information is sometimes of the very greatest importance, and ought always to be supplied in the Court.
These considerations, I am satisfied, have only to be pointed out in order to insure their adoption.
Agents for Appellant— Duncan, Dewar & Black, W.S.
Agent for Respondent— James Barclay, S.S.C.