Jean Farquharson v. Alexander Anderson — Petition, 10 Jul 1800 [3]

• I, ve < AL d '-ft~ ~ t~, 0 (L J,,... t-{;t,L w (A,,,- /;-c C:Ct It;--- <- I; ' I--- · r-! J Ii•,! /' v 0 f,. /J ~ ~-f I; ~,.,!--~J / 111.... r- V'.vii.- I- /'L N tl f/'...wt-J ~ 1-- <, <-; HA'f the Commiffaries of Edinburgh having fea]ed up the}- If 1 I J I ~-r,1~7 depofitions of Ann a11d Ifobel Forbes, and the Reverend ~...,.... /, q ~ c...... Mr John Gordon, and 11aving afterwa1·ds refufed to open the ~~ r-r,' ~ " ~ ~. ~ "~rvvs: feals put the1·eon, and alfo having refufed to examine Alexander "'"-'t..c.... u.. C)/ yf.t,L.lr_- "' tio11er is concerned with Mifs Jean Farquharfon, the petitioner D ec. 10. 1 799. d prefented a bill of advocation, which was fified by Lord Craig. Jan. 7. 18oe. <1.w..:-. ' fa..c; ~' Tl1e1·eafter, his Lo1·d1bip having ordered info1·mations on the a t-k.__ whole caufe, tl1e fame were ad vi fed by the Court, and, of this July z. figned 3. L "- date, th Lord Ordina1·y pronounced the following interlocutor: J 8 00• f 11 \.U ' Having confi dered this bill, \Vith the informations and whole.. ~ ~ lv-n i ' k-._,. ' proceedings, and l1aving ad vifed 'vi tl1 tl1e Lords, refu res the, / Ji t 1.,,, ~....... ~,,.,If ~ A ' ill,.J. /. ~.:k;.~ {U"".f. •,vt. t (! / ~;:;; ~'.. ~ t-o '.;UJ v...{" • /, ~L ~ t b- (,I'.._-fw e',_ ~,£...9. <- /WYk4, t ~ {"''',,.._~ ~ r! /.._ ~ J,__ r.-("" k,/~ µ ~ p '·"{:~ f l«4.. 4L '" ~ 7, (.vrt ~ """"AA..._,,. '~........ z • I~-... i,....,.f....._,..,;!'"'- c...._.,,,, t W:?rt..:~~-- 4-w ~ ~, • • r J • • • [2] ' bill, finds expe11ces due, and allo,vs an· ac ount thereof to be ' given in.' ~Had this interlocutor cont.aioed any i·efe1..,•ation as to tl1e powe1· of the Commi:fla1·ies to open thefe fe aled depofitions if tl1ey fhould Jee ca11fe, 11po11 advifing tl1e principal qL1efiion depe11d iog bet\\.' en thele parties, the petitioner fhould not 11ave tro11bled your Lord­ fhips with b1·inging the above inte1·loc11tor under review. But by that i11te1·loc11tor the witneifes a1·e found to be inad111zjflble; and were tl1at allo\ved to beco111e fi11~1l, it "\.Vould no doubt be con­ tended, that the Commi.ffari s were tl1e1·eby deba1·1·ed from look­ ing into the teftimony of thefe witneffi·s, even altl1011gh tl1ey fl1ould fee 1·eafon for fo doing, upo11 adv ifing the \vhole ca11fe. In th's fituation, the petitio11er is t1nde1· tl1e neceility ot· fubrnit­ ti11g tl1e cafe to your Lordfhips' re,1 iew. rl'he petitioner, \\'ho is a landed proprieto1· to a very confider­ able exte11t in the county of Aberdeen, in tl1e year 1776 becaine acquainted \\1 itl1 tl1e pu1·[11er Jean Fa1·quharlo11. Tl1is lady has bee11 pleafed to give a very high colou1·i11g to tl1e 1·anl <. of he1· ow11 fa111ily. Tl1e fall:, 11owever, is, tl1at 11e1· gr::i11dfat l1 e1· "''as an 1tine1·ant or t1·avelling pedla1·, \Vl10, by 11is i· emarl able economy, acquired in tl1is line a little ino11 cy, \Vitl1 wl1ich, abo11t tl1e year 17+5, 11e purcl1afed a fa1·m in the I-lead of trathdon, called 1-]a rgue, for the frtn1 of 6000 or 7000 merks. His eldeft fo11, the fatl1er of tl1e pu1·fue1·, was b1·ed a fa r e1·, and rented a11d re­ fided 11po11 a farm in tl1e Cabrach, l)elong i11g to tl1e D11ke of Gordon. On tl1is farm he continued to refide till tl1e;•ea1· 1779, i11 a ftyle f11itable to the far1ne1s i11 that pa1·t of the country. He 11ad a fo11 and tl11·ee daughters. 1'he [011 received tl1e rudi111ents of 11is educatio11 at a charity fcbool in tl1at corner, and i no\v become a clergy1nan. Tl1e (la11ghte1·s, by tl1 ei1· fatl1er's being 1~ro1)1·ietor of a pendicle of land, thougl-Jt tl1ernfelvcs entitled to re­ ceive tl1e appellation of Mi:ffes; and the pu1·fuer t10\V p1·011dly ftates 11e1·felf as tl1e ' daL1ghter of a landed ma11.' I <·ro111 the commence- 111ent of their acquainta11ce, a11d till all intercou1·le "\.Vi th this family brok ofT, tl1e petitio11e1· pofitiv ly aile1·ts, tl1at the idea of form­ i11g tl n1at1·i1no11ial e11g·age111e11t 11eve1· eTite red into Iii 111ind. 111- deed, indepenc.l t)t of h r fit11atio11 i11 life, tl1 gen ral condt1CI: of tl1is •lady was il.1ch, a to co111pletely exclude ft1cl1 a11 idea lro1n t-l1e ini1ic.l of a11y 1n ·111 i1ot ~lbfolutely i11!i.111e. The pu1·[u r ''' 011lcl i11 cl c.. e([11 ' ' e)011r Lordfl1ips fuppolc that the petition r \\' as l1er lecl t1cer·. Tl1e 1·everfe i 11owe,· r, com Jlt t l t11ade OL1t • • I- • • ' • • [•.3] It appea1·s that this purlt1er, 011 iont1me1·able occafions, conduc1:ed herCelf in ~1 man11e1· totally unbeco111iog the cl1arall:er of a mo­ defi \voma11, and tl1at it was i o confeqt1ence of advances on he1· part, tl1at the petitione1· was led to l1ave criminal i11t e1·courfe \Vitl1 11e1·, wl1icl1, according to her own declaration, tool{place ' in '.July or Augufi 1792, and notfoone1·.' It leems difficult which to admire moil, the 11umber or the qt1a­ lity of this lady's admirers. The firfi of thefe me11tioned in tl1e}Jt·oof is, James Grant, a gat1dger. The fecond, one Mac- pherlon, a cattle-dealer. How thefe rnar1·iages went off does 11ot appear. It does not however feern to have been from a11y Vas p1·evented from c:i1·rying 11is i11tentions of ma1·rying tl1e pt1rfuer i11to exe- c11rion, by difcove1·i11g, tl1at among the ot l1 e1· qualities rl1is 1acly poffeifed, t11at u11fortt1nate one of being addiCted to drioki11g \Vas not t11e leafi confpict1 ous. Tl1is fall: is eftabli01ed beyood a doL1iJt, by in11t11nerable \Vitneifes of mofr refpeCl:able cl1ar'all:e1·, \vl10 11ave bee11 exa1nined in tl1is caufe. Tl1e purfL1er has not atten1pted to deny it; bt1t is difpofed to infinuate, that tl1is f1·ail- ty was produced in confequence of he1· being [educed by the purfuer. It is, bo\•> 7eve1·, material to obferve, that the occafions in w l1i ch this lady was obferved in tl1is ftate, we1·e eve1·y one of tlie111 prior to tl1e year i792, \'\1 l1 en, as f11e herfelf fays, t!1e crin1i- na l intercourfe fi1·fi com1nenced, and no fooner. Ind eed, n1ofr of tl1e witneffes fpeal < to a period, even many years prior to th:it lafl n1enrioned. Purf. n, oof, p.31.H. Def. l~roof, ll· 72. I. The i1ext pe1·fon to \vl1om this lady appears to have been ren­ de1·ly at tached, \Vas John Cocl{burn, wright in Sl1ewell. Tl1is. perfo11, it appea1·s, \Vas hat ' lefs than an l1our: Tl1at the-w·itnefs fa\v the partie killing one ' a11othe1· it1 each otl1ers ocl{flers in this roo111.' • Tl1e pt1rfu e1· difcove1·ed her pregnancy in November 1792; and it then appears, tl1at D1e i·efolved to fix upon the petitioner as the fatl1e1· of 11 e r cl1ilci. It a11pea1·s, that fhe communicated tl1is cir ­ c11n1flai1ce to l1er brotl1e1·-in-la w Mr Gordot1 · but ' the purfL1e1· • dicl 11ot tl1e i1 fuy to tl1e deponent ihe expeCl:ecl Candacraig \:'as ' to 1na1·ry 11er.' Tl1is f;1111e I1· Go1·do11 was emplo)'td to ho-Id a 1neeting \Vitl1 tl1e i1etiti o11e1· abo11t fe11di11g the p111fi1er off the l'0111ztry. Not a \vord \Va s.f:1id aboL1t a marriage, and tl1e pur­ fuer' brotl1e1· the Reve1·e11d I1· Fa1·qul1arfon hin1felf deponed Def. Proof, p. z.' Tl1at ii: the defender acl{no-.,vledged the cl1ild, the deponent ' 'Otl l • t r 1 i ' would leave his fifier and 11im to fettle their afte1· matters betwixt ' themfelves, as the purft1er had, for fome time pail, take11 very little of the depone11t's advice.' All this paired in the end of De­ cember; no Jleps \Vere taken to inftitute a declarator of ma1·riage; but, on the contrary, on the r2th of Marcl1, near three 1nonths thereafte1·, an extraordina1·y meeting of tl1e kirk-feffion of the parill1 vvhere fhe 1·efides was held, fo1· the purpofe, as the mint1tes bear, 'of inquiring i11to tl1e truth of a report from this difiant ' corner of tl1e parifh, th:it Jean Farqul1arfon, reGding at Aucl1- ' more in tl1is parifh, an u1z11larried won1an, was with cl1ild, and ' to take fuch Jleps tl1ereanent as tl1ey fhot1ld fee caufe.' In con­ fequence of a previous intimation, tl1e purfue1· attended this Ineet­ ing of the kirk-feffion, and was by the1n exl1orted in tl1e ufual for111, to mal(e ' an i11gent1ous confeil1on refpecring the t1·uth of ' tl1e report, a11d to decla1·e who was the father of 11er child.' Tl1e matter agitated at tl1is meeting, continued to be difcufied at va1·ious after-federunts of tl1e kirl(-fefi1on, and of t11e preibytery of Alford, to,,·ho1n the reference had been 1nade; and tl1efe p1·oceedi11gs fully eftablifh, tl1at neitl1er tl1e p1·efbytery, nor the feffio11, underfiood, tl1a t the queit ion bef o i·e t l1e111 differed f1·0111 an 01·dinary cafe of a11te11uptial forz1ication, where tl1e fole ob­ jecr in view is to inflicr ecclefiafiical ce11fu1·e on tl1e delinquents. At the fi1·J1 ineeti11g of the kirk-feffion, held for the purpofe above explai11ed, the petitio11e1·, Vl'l10 is defcribed in the mi11utes as a11 unrnar1·ied \V001an, ' perfonally compeared, and being exl101·ted ' to make an ingent1ous coofeffio11, refpeC1:i11g tl1e above i·epo1·t; ' and \Vith 1·egard to the perfon who is the fathe1· of he1· child, if ' faid report was trt1e-, n1ade the following co11feII1on, viz., Tl1at fhe ' \Vas \Vitl1 child, a11d that Alexande1· Ande1·fon of Ca11dacraig, ' and none elfe, \Vas the father of 11e1· child.' F1·om tl1e minutes, of this date, it appears, that a fumn1ons at tl1e inflance of tl1e M ar. 24. 1794. kirk-feffion, 'fo1· the fin and fcandal of for11icatio12,' was raifed and executed againfi tl1e defender, p1·oceeding· on tl1e p111·fue1·'s inforcnation. Of this date, he was called upon to com pear nefo1·e April 3.__ the kirk-feilion, to anfwer an accufation brougl1t againfi 11i1n, at a former ineeti11g, by Jean Farquha rfon, at A uchn101·e; and, of thefe dates, tl1e purfuer again attended the feffion, and folernnly adhe- 17___ red to 11er charge of fo1·nication brought forward at the ve1·y May 1 •__ firfi meeting. It is perfecrly j) lain, f1·om the proceedings vvl1icl1 have been 11ow detailed, that the only object tl1e purfue1· a11c111er f1·iends had in view, was a fettlcment upon the purfl1er, \Vl1ich \Vas indeed the • • • [8] ' the natu1·al confequence of his acknowledging the child to be his. The preci[e furn was even mentioned, namely L. 300. The petitioner was, however, fatisfied, that he was not father to the child, and therefore refufed making any fuch acknowledgment. It \vould have been perhaps more prudent for him to have ac­ ceded to the propofal. He would have at leafi avoided much ex­ pence, befides much unmerited abufe, which, in the courfe of this procefs, has been moil: liberally befiowed upon him. It occurred to the petitioner, that the whole matter might be eafily arranged, could Milne, whom the petitioner had but too much reafon to be fatisfied was the real father of this child, be prevailed upon to marry the purfuer. In fuch a marriage, there appea1·ed nothing unfuitable. Independent altogether of the pre­ vious intimacy between thefe parties, Milne was himfelf poffeffed of a t·a1·m, and furely Mifs Farquharfon, who was herfelf the daugh­ ter of a farmer, and whofe portion co11Gfted of nothing more than L. 150, could have no reafon to feel her dignity hurt in form­ ing fL1ch an alliance, particularly i11 her fituation at that ti111e. The petitioner has no difficulty in admitting, that he offered at that time Milne a fu1n of money, if 11e \Vould con­ clude a mar1·iage with Mifs Farqul1arfo11; and he is yet to learn, that there was any thing illegal in fa doing. The pu1·­ fuer has held out to your Lo1·dfl1ips, that the petitioner's fole ob­ ject was, to get Milne to acknowledge 11imfelf the father of tr1is cl1ild; but that is by no means the fact. The whole evi­ dence tl1at has been led in the caufe, goes decidedly to this, that the petitioner's requeft was, that Milne fi1ould 111arry the purfue1·, and it was only as a confequence of his having agreed fo to do, that he w1·ote tl1e letter, acknowledgi11g himfelf the father of this child. Here likewife the petitioner has no difficulty to admit, that he did defire [everal perfons to converfe with Mil11e, and to p1·evail upon him to en ter into this marriage; and he i at a lofs to difcover wherein the illegality of 11is fo doing confified. All the" perfo11s, hovvever, to whom he tl1us fpoke, the Comrniffaries 11ave thought fit to reject as witneffes in t11i caufe; and by the interlocutor b1·ought under r evievv, a witnefs, Ifobel Duncan, is rejected, upon no other g round tl1at tl1e petitioner can dilcover, but that lbe was wife to one of thefe perfons. The petitioner does fubmit, that the1·e is no good grot1nd for fufiaining this ob­ ject ion. From the ftatement he has given, lie trufis he has fati- fied you1· Lo1·dihips, that there was really notl1ing improper in his endeavouring to prevail upon Milne to marry thi purfuer, nd confequently, that there could be notl1iog imp1·oper in thcfe \Vitneifes •-• [. 9 J witnefies ufing thei1· influe11ce with Mil11e for that pu1·pole. 2df;1, As agency is the ground on whicl1 thefe 'vitneffes a1·e rejected, it is n1aterial fo1· your Lordiliips to obferve, that at that period no action of decTa1·ato1·, or procefs of any kind, 11ad been irifiituted, or even tl1e f1nallefi: hint given to the petitioner, of any fuch be­ ing intended. The petitione1· has always underfi:ood agency to be folely applicable to forne proceedings afte1· the queltion l1as con1e to be agitated in a court of fa,v, or at leafi wl1en tl1e1·e is a certainty of the matte1· becon1i11g a fubject of judicial dilcuf­ fion. Bt1t he1·e no fucl1 thi11g can be alleged. The prefent actio11 was 11or inftituted for inonths after the whole proceedings allud'ed to 11ad take..n place. Furtl1er, your Lordihips will obferve, tl1at the witnefs Ifobel DL1ncan 11ad ve1·y little hand i11 perfuadi11g Milne to agree to ma1·ry the purfuer; that the witnefs had not been etn­ ployed to co11verfe with Milne upon the fubject; and that her meet­ ing with l.Y1ilne i)1·oceeded f1·om no improper vie\V on her part, an(l any converlation which ihe 11eld with 11im, was tl1e inofi innocent imaginable. She depones, ' That her 11uiband 11ad told her tl1at ' Sa11dy Milne was to be fee11 at Pen. Anderfon's that evening; ' and the depone11t went ro Pen. Anderfon's i11 expectation of ' 111eeting her hzifba1zd there: Tbat the deponent having exp1·ef­ ' fed to her huiband an anxiety to knovv what l1e was about, ' he1· huiband told her he was to bring forward Sa11dy Milne at ' Pen. Anderfon's tl1at night, in order to know whetl1er he \Vas ' tl1e t'ather of tl1e child of 'vvhicl1 the P-_urfuer was tl1en pregt1ant, ' and that her huiband alfo told the deponent, that if ihe pleafed, ' ihe might alfo ftep down to Pen. Anderfot1's: That the depo­ ' nent accordingly we11t to Pe11. Anderfon's after it was dark, ' where £he found only Pen. Anderfon and he1· daughter: That ' her 11uiband and Alexander Milne ai·rived at Pen. AnClerron's '·about an 11our after the deponent; and George Stewa1·c ca1ne in ' a fho1·t time after them. Depones, That the company got a ' fingle dram of 'vvhifky a-piece out of a fmall tea-cup. De­ ' pones, Tbat a good deal of- converfation took place relative to ' Sa11dy lVlilne's 111arryi11g the pu1·fuer Mifs Farqul1a1·fon: That ' tl1e deponent does 11ot dii1111ctly recoll ect whetl1er ilie t11·ged or ' pa1·Licula1·ly advifed Mil11e to marry Mifs Fn1·qul1a1·fo11, but ihe ' did exprefs an opinion, that it wot~ld be a11 eligible 1natc/J for ' &i1n: T11at Sandy Mil11e obferved, that he was afraid tl1at if ' he j!Jot1ld 1na1·1y L\1 i Cs Farq uha1·foo, her b1·ot 11e1· would 1)rove ' his i·uin; and when defir·ed to expki.in how her b1·othe1· would ' ruin hitn? Milr1e anfwered, He \.vould ihoot him: Tl1at Sandy ' Milne did not, fo fa1· as the deponent r·ecolleCl:s, Jlate any 1·eafo1t ' to app1·ebend that Mifs Farquba1fon might 11ot be i11d11ced to take hint_c 'for • • I \ •- • • ' [IO] ' /01· a hztjba11d. Depones, That lVJilne d id n o t affig11 any other ' reafo11 for not 1na1·1·ying M1fs Fa1·qul1arfon. Depones, That f11e ' did not hear any rne11tion made of any plan whic h inigl1t be fall ­ ' en upon to ind11ce tl1e purfue1· to accept of Milne fo r a hufba11d: ' Tl1at ilie does 11ot recol leet tl1at any of tl1e company affigned any ' particula1· 1·e, [011 for u1·ging· 01· advifi11g Milne to mar1·y the pur­ ' ft1e1·. D e r)o11es, That George Ste\vart vvas clefired by Alexander ' lilne to go to C <111clac1· <1ig's: Tl1at Mil11e had bee11 defired by ' fo1ne of the co1npany to g·o and!peak to Candac1·aig, and had i·e­ ' fuled to do fo unlefs Candac1·aig· \Vo11ld w1·ite, i11 conleqt-ie11ce of ' wl1ich t·e wa1·t was fent by Mil11e to Candacraig: That the de­ ' ponent was prefent '\vl1en Ste\vart retu1·ned, bringi11g back ''lith • 111111 a fe"v li11es, V1'l1ich were read i11 tl1e deponent's prefence, ' a11d \\' hicl1 imported only, fo far a f11e cc1n recollec2, a defi1·e ' tl1at l\.1ilne CT1011ld co1ne to Can