Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Snodgrass v. Hunter [1899] ScotLR 37_60 (8 November 1899)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1899/37SLR0060.html
Cite as: [1899] SLR 37_60, [1899] ScotLR 37_60

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 60↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Wednesday, November 8. 1899.

37 SLR 60

Snodgrass

v.

Hunter.

Subject_1Process
Subject_2Jury Trial
Subject_3Res Noviter
Subject_4Confession of Perjury by Witness.
Facts:

A party who had been found liable in damages for slander opposed a motion to apply the verdict on the ground of res noviter, in respect that one of the three witnesses for the pursuer had confessed that he had committed perjury at the trial. Held that the question whether the witnesses were telling the truth was a question for the jury at the trial, and that the defender's statement did not amount to res noviter.

Headnote:

Mrs Snodgrass brought an action for slander against Mrs Hunter, and on 21st July 1899 obtained a verdict with £250 damages. On 4th November 1899 a motion for a new trial on the ground that the damages were excessive was refused.

On 8th November Mrs Snodgrass moved to apply the verdict. Mrs Hunter presented a note in which she averred that one out of the three witnesses for the pursuer had confessed that he had committed perjury at the trial, and the criminal authorities were investigating the case. It was argued for her that this constituted res noviter veniens ad notitiam, and that the motion to apply the verdict should be opposed in the meantime.

Judgment:

Lord Kinnear cited Lockyer v. Ferryman, March 6, 1877, 4 R. (H.L.) 32, opinion of Lord Chancellor Cairns at p. 35.

Lord Adam—I am of opinion that the note for the defender here should be refused. I think this is an unprecedented application, We had this case before us on Saturday on a motion for a new trial, and we heard nothing of what is now put forward. It is now said that there is res noviter, but that res noviter is the very question which was before the jury—that is, whether the witnesses were telling the truth, or whether, as it was stated by the defender on record, this was a trumped-up case. According to the authorities and the case cited by Lord Kinnear that is not res noviter. I am for refusing this note.

Lord M'Laren—It is always competent for a defender against whom the verdict of damages has gone forth to move for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, and when a motion for a new trial in this case was before us last week I should have thought that the defender, if she knew that the witnesses for the pursuer had committed perjury, would have moved for a new trial on that ground, but the only ground mentioned was that the damages were excessive. The present application is in substance nothing more than an application for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence because witnesses were not speaking the truth. As to the fact that one of the witnesses has made a statement to the procurator-fiscal, that I agree is not res noviter, and forms no ground for refusing to apply the verdict.

Lord Kinnear concurred.

The Lord President was absent.

The Court refused the note and applied the verdict.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Pursuer— Munro. Agents— St Clair Swanson & Manson, W.S.

Counsel for the Defender— A. M. Anderson. Agent— J. Knox Crawford, S.S.C.
1899

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010