Jean Farquharson v. Alexander Anderson — information, 31 May 1800

' • [BILL-CHAMBER.] ' MAY 31. 1800. INF. ALEX. ANDERSON, Efq; AGAINST JEAN FARQYHARSON. Jo. Mo1·ifo1z 1 W. S. Agent. · [Lord CRAIG Reporter.] • FOR ALEXANDER ANDER·SON, Efq; of Candacraig, Defender;.-\.GAINST • JEAN FARQYH..A_RsoN, youngeft Daughter of the de­ ceafed Robert Farq11harfon of Allargue, Purfuer. HE quefiion to be reported by Lord Craig rega1·ds the com- petency of certain witneffes adduced by the defender, in an acrion of declarator of marriage and damages, now depending before the Comrniifa1·ies of Edinbu1·gh, infiituted agai11fi him by Mifs Jean Fa1·quharfon and her natural fo11. Although at prefent it would be u11neceffary to defcend minutely into the merits of this caufe, it becomes requifite, for the pur·pofes of the prefent ap­ plication, to fiate very generally the facts fro1n which it took its rife, and the connection which fubfified between tl1e parties. In the year 1776, the defender became acquainted with the family of Robert Farquharfon of Al largue, the purfue1·'s father, A at ' I l I I [2] at which t i1ne {he feemed to be aboL1t e ighteen yea rs of age. Frotn the coo1mence1ne11t of tha t acquaintance, t il l a ll in te1·cou1·fe vvas fi- 11ally broke11 off, the defender pofit i,rely afferts, t ha t the idea offo1·- 1ning a matrin1onial engageme11t \v itl1 IV~i[s Fa1·qt1ha1·fon never e11- tered i11to l1is mind; and \vl1en the 111er1ts of tl1e cat1fe corne to be fiated, yoL1r Lor(ll11ips wi ll have 110 di:ffict1lty in difcov~ring tl1at a meafu1·e ot" tlia t nature was altogethe1· out of tl1e ql1efi1on. 1 he­ ther tl1e pt11·[ue r on l1e1· pa rt, l1ad fo1·med a defign of inveigling the clefe11de1·, \vl101n l11e confidered as a 1nao of fortune, into a ma­ t1·i1no11ial e11gage1ne11t, it is i1npofi1l> le fo1· 11i1n to UlY: It is efia­ blifbec1 by very clear evidence, as 11e tl1i11ks, tl1at £11e 1·epeatedl)' befiowecl t1por1 hi1n very flattering- atte11tio11s; bt1t nothing cri ­ mi11al tool;;: place betvveen them till tl1e mr.11tl1 of t1gt1fi 1786, \Vhen tl1e de±-ende1· paid a vif]t to l\1ifs Farq11!1arfo11 u11der i1i g l1t, i11 onleq11e11ce of- lier 0'1v11 prefii11g io,ritation. The co1111ell:io11 wl1icl1 beg:l11 at tl1at t i1ne, under· c ircumfta11ces not much calct1- lated to flatter his vanity on accou11t of tl1e difficulty· of tl1e co11- quefi 11e had 111ade, co11tinued till aliot1t the 111011tl1 of November 1793; and i11 Janua1·y i794, fl1e i11fo1·1ned 11im:01e \Vas \> ' ith chi ld. M i[s Farquha1·fo11 '''as delive1·ed of a fan 011 the 1 I tl1 Ap1·il 1794. On t11e 12th March p1·ecedi11g, a11 ext1·ao1·clir1ary 1neeting of the ki1·k-feffion of the p 1 action, co11cl11d ing to have it fot111d, that ihe \Vas tl1e defe11de1·'s lawful \vife; a11Ll if ll1e fhould fail i11 this concluGon of!1e1· ft1111mons, de1nanding a ft1111 ill n:ii11e of· da- 111ages, ~ts l1avi11g been [e(it1ced. The p1·oceedings \vhich have taken place, wl1en tl1ey are laid before)·our Lordihips, 'vill fatisfy yot1 that tl1e pu1·ft1er he1·felf is not ferious in the conclufion fo1· a declarator of mariage. The claim of damages has lecl botl1 parties into a,vide1· difcuilion. I11 fupport of 11is defence, tl1e d fende1·, among other pe1·fon, cited Mifs Ann and Mifs Ifobel Forbes of Inve1·er11an, M1· John Gordon, minifier of St1·athdon, Alexander Fa1·q11harfon in f~t1cl11·i chan,. nd Ifobel Duncan, \vife of J oh11 Ley in G le11carry, all of \vhom have been rejecred as witnefies by the Co1n111iffaries, e 'cept tl1e perfon lafi me11tioned; and as the gueftion to be 110\V ftated to yot1r Lo1·dfhips, regards t.l:le admiffibility of thefe cliffe1·ent. ' vi t ­ neifes, it will be proper to inake you acq11ai11ted witl1 t11e objec- ions refpecrively preponed againft tl1em by tl1e pu1·fuc1·. On t11e rotl1 Toven1ber 1796, l\1ifs i\.1111 Fo1·bes appe:.i.1·ed in r. l\Iifs A. For Court to be examined, and ernitted a d pofitio11, whicl1, vrith the bes. wl1ole otl1er depofitions neceffary to e11able)'Our Lord1r1ips to form an OJ)inion on the matters fubn1itt cl to re\·iew, is an11exed to tl1is paper. Upc•n confideri11g l\1ifs Forb s's oatl1, tl1e Co1n­ miffary-examinator (Mr· \Vallace) refufecl to exan1ine t11e \Vitnefs further in the catife. A gainft this judgment, a bill of advocation \vns prefe11ted by the defender; and on advifing it with a11i\ve1·s and i·eplies, the fol­ lowing interlocuto1· was pro11ounc d by L,01·d Eikg1·0,,e, naw Lord Jufrice- • • I I l), I [4] Marrh 18. i797. Jufl:i e-Cle1·k: ' Tl1e Lo1·d ~fkg~·ove,. as Ordi11ary on tl1~ B ills, ' having· agai11 confidered th1~ bill, ' v1th ~he anf viii take tl1e de1)ofitions of ' the wit11efs, and ordai11 it to be fealed U(), to lie in 1·etrn1is, ' fubjeCl: to the difpofal of the Cot1rt at the concl11fi o11 of the ' proof.' Tl1e defender· does "\Vitl1 g reat defe1·e11ce co11ceive, tl1at \vl1e­ ther tl1e ol-)jec.tion to the ad1nifiibility of tl1e two l\1iDes Forbes is \veil or ill fou11ded, tl1e interlocutor above 1·ecitecl, \vl1ich is 11ot 011ly at vari <1nce •vitl1 the judgme11t of tl1is Court in tl1e cafe of Mifs Ann Fo1·bes, but is obvioufly i11co11Ciil:e11t with it ­ felf, ougl1t nc> t to have been pronou11ced. It is i1npoilible to diri)Llte that tl1e depofitio11 ot· Mifs ffobel Forl1es 011ght to l1ave 11ee11 t <1l{e11_; a11d if the Con11niffaries, f1·on1 fiippoGn g that ihe frood ' 'ery m11ch i11 tl1e fa111e fitL1 <1tion with l1e1· fifie1·, tl1oug ht it ex1Jedie11t to order tl1 <1t lier evide11ce lJ1ot1ld be feal <.I up, tl1e clet-e11de r woL1ld!1ave bee11 1e1·feCl: ly fatisfied. J3L1t th at precaL1- tio11·, however jufi and j)1·oper, is co1npletely at variance \Vitl1 the firil:})art of· the judgment, fir1di11g, for tl1e reafo11~ tl1e1:e i11 ailigned, t~iat l\1ifs Forbes is 'a \VitneG i11admiilible in the ' caufe;' {01· if tl1at opi11ion be well fou11de(I, tl1ere \V::J s 110 i·e;1- fo11 for exa111i11i11g l1er;it all.}11 a word, if it be trt1e, tl1at ft1f.. ficie11t re;1fc1n appea1·ecl fro111 tl1e exa1ni11ation i1z i11itic1/1bus, to warr;111t tl1e Co1111niD:1ry-exa1ni 11 ato r in declaring J.\~i(s {label Fo1·bes i11:1dmiilible, there \V:1s i10 prop1·iety in proceedi11g to. tal{e lier evidence i11 caufa·; a11d if l1e did j)1·oceecl to t:tke ber evidence tipon tl1e merits, a11y judg1nent at tl1 <1 t ti1n e, \Virl1 re­ f1) ect to l1er admill]bility, was clearly pren1;1tu1·e. 1 ' lie uefender was perfectly aware of the objeCl:ions to tl1is inte1·Iocutor "'' he11 it was pro11ounced, but he did not tl1i11k it 11eceffar)· ro tal{e a11y B i1nmediate ', I I) •- [6] io1mediate J1e1)s fo1· obtaini11g an alte~·atiot1, as 11.e had at le::1fr fucceeded i11 fatisfying the Commiffar1es, that this lacly ought to be exa111ined, and l1e truCTed that wl1en the p1·oof fhot1ld be concluded on both fides, they \VOt1ld l1e G1tisfied of. the jt1fiice of allowi11g tlie feals to be tal <.en off, a~1d the le to be a witnei fo1· the defender, and tl1at tl1eir ' depofitio11s, already!eale nder:i11d bim,,~. s of fL1 h a natu1·e as to bia l'e b. '2 0. 1799. and inf!ue11ce the fair11eG of bis tefii1nony. Of tl1is date, tl1e follo,vi11g interlocutor \Vas pro110L111ced by t11e Coo11niff11·ies: (Commif1ary Wallace), ' Having co11fidcred tl1e objecrions of ' the j)urfuers to tbe adn11iffibiliry of 1r Jolin 01·don, minifrer ' at Strathdon,:ind Alexa11der FarqL1harfon in A11cl1riacl1a11, au­ ' f\> ers thereto fo1· tl1e defende1·,::ind depofition of Mr Gordon ' and Alexa11(ler Fa1·q11harlo 11, e1nirte nder did not de­ ' fire the deponerit to fl1ew or 1·ead rl1e depofirions eitl1e r to his ' fifte1·s or any orl1er perfon;' fo that if any irregula rity \Vas comn1itted in comn1t1nicati11g· to a11 otl1e rs except the pa1·tie, aI1cl thofe wl10 acted for· tl1ein, what 11ad con1e our i11 tl1e coL1rfe of rl1e ev1de11ce, it is i11 no refpetl \vl1nteve1· imputable to tl1e de­ fe11der. On pt:rufi11g rlie depofitio11s of the Mifies For!Jes tl1emfelv·es, your Lo1·cJD1ir)s '-'' ill be Gtisfied, tl1at 1101l1ino- in tl1e fi11;1lleft de­ g ree imprope1· 01· ir1· g11lar 11as ral{e11 place. It is not p1·ete11ded, that the clepofitio11s read by their brotl1e1· in their prefence,,,. re connected witl1 the f;1tl: a to ·tV!1icl1 they the1nlelves-..vere to be exa1nined; nor ven if t11-ey \Vere, could it be fe1·iouf1 alleo-ed, t l-iat the pr vious dep0Grio11 l'Ot1ld i11, ny de(J'ree i11fll1ence0 tl1e evidence which tl1efe 1·efpetl:able ladie ' ere tg e1nit. The J)lJ r ­ fuer has not been nble to £110\\', tliar tl1eir i11inds were inclined in favou1· o ithe1· of tl1e parties· and in a \\·ord, tl1e have l1e 11 foL1nd by t~1e Co1n1ni_f1aries to be i11comper 11t " itn 11e, n1erely becaufe, without a11y 11nproper defign 011 tl1eir part, or that of t11 d efe11d r, they have been i11duc d, from i11oti ' es of tl1e mofi in­ nocent ar1d moil natura l ct11·iofit)·, to 1·ead tl1e accou11t whicl1 fome of tl1e wituefies hacl given ot' a tra11{atlio11 tha t formed un- a oidably • • • (II J avoidably a· topic of very gene1·al difcuilion in tl1at part of the country. The defende1· does not feel hi1nfelf i11terefi ed in inqurri11g, whetl1e1· cares may 11ot be figu1·ed, in \vl1ich, owing to the con­ duct of t!-1e pa1·ty l1imfelf, and to a11 imprope1· degree of anxiety wl1ich may be difcovered by the witnefs, a pe1·fon wh0 has pe r ­ ufed tl1e proof or forn1e1· proceed i11gs, n1a y not be preclL1ded from giving evidence in tl1e cau[e. But, eve1·.)1 queftio11 of tl1at ~ind is to be decicled on its O\vn n1e1·its. For, if it be t1·ue, tl1at a pe1·­ fon wl1ofe teftimony l1as been biaffed by tbe perufa l of forn1e1· de­ pofitions, induflriouily commt1n icated by the party \vho c ites him, js difqualified from g iving evidence, it is equally true, that if no blame can attacl1 eitl1 <'r to the witnefs o r the party, and if 11is evide11ce has not in a11y i·efpeCl: beei1 n lfeCl:ed by wl1rtt he has rend, tl1e Court ought at leafr LO hea1· wl1at l1 e 11as to fay. It is fca1·cely neceffa ry. to remind yot1r Lordi11ips, \Vitl1 what ext1·erne i·eluc­ tance tl1e la\Y admits objecl:io11s, tl1c~ effect of \vl1icb is to preclL1de the exa1nination of the '''itneCs enti1·ely. 'I'l1e gre:1t objeCl: \vl1ich eve1·y co11rt 11as i11 vie1,v, is tl1e inveftigation of t1·t1th; to difcover amo11g contradictory averments 110\v the faCl: really fl:ands; a11d 11ence your Lordi11ii)S a1·e neve1· difpofed, but t1po11 ve1·y frrong· grou11ds, to dec la1·e a wit11efs totally in aclmiffible. And, in tl1is mode of p1·ocedure, there i-s the clea reft jufiice and expedie11cy. Tl1e party is thL1s allov,·ed to eftablil11 every 1·eleva11t fact niate- 1·ial to the caufe Ile maintains, vvhile tl1ere i, compar:1tively, lit' ­ tle hazard of.the '"' itnefs dec laring what is falle t1pon oath; as, be­ t-ore g iving his evide11ce, l1e co111es u11der tl1e 111oft folemn engage- 111e11t to tell wha t is t1·uth; and both pa1·ties, a11d tl1 e CoL1rt befo1'e 'livhom l1e is examined, exe1·t tl1emfelves to fi11d out if a11y part of his depofition is innocently o r \Vilfully falfe. Tl1e fatl:s a lreatly 1ne11tioncd aµpe::i ri11 g from tl1e clej)Ofition of Mr For bes, efrabl i fh very ft1tisfactorily 1 th:1t tl1e parties were all equally free from any unifie r pur1)ofe in com1nL111icating tl1e de­ pofitions tl1a t had been tr ~1nfmitted tc> the defencle r by 11is agen t. Y\i' he11 tl1efe depofit io11s were r ad, t l1ere was ' a clartc1· i11 the ' co11nt1·y, tl1at Mifs A1111 Forb~s was to be cite(! a. a \,'' itnefs,' whicl1 her brother inforn1s your Lord01i ps l1e di ·c1 not then lJe·· li eve; and Mils Ifobel Forbes expref.,ly fwears, 'That ihe ne­ e. ve r l1ad any idea, tl1at tl1e depone1 r 11 erfe lf \.Vas- to he adduced ' as a \.Vitnefs, till the defender and tl1e cleponent's fifier 11ad re­ ' turned from Edinburgl1 after 11e1· fift e r l1ad firfi been exa1n in cl ' in tbe caufe;' a11d, beficles, it is pert(·c11y evide1Jt, 11~{t bot·h tl1efe • • I [I 2] tliefe ladies had perufed tl1e p:irts of tl1e p1·oof il10\,·n them, folely as a matter of arnufe1nent, by wl1icl1 their O\v11 evidence col1ld not poffibly be affeCted. Upo11 tl1e fiate of the faCt, tl1e defender, witl1 Come confidence, f11blnits to your Lordiliips, th at tl1ere t\vo perfons are c?rnpetent \.vitne!fes in tl1e caufe. The purfl1e1· c:111not prodl1ce a 11ngle au­ tho.i·ity, i11 point o_f law, 01: aor 011e principle.of common fe11fe~ which \Varra11ts him to 111a1ota1n, that tl1e accidental perural O• atl 11nimpo1·ta11t 1)aCTage i11 tl1e proceedings, that may have previ­ oufiy tal Llt to him by the defender, viz. \\The1he1· l\'lr Gordo11 cor1fide 1·ed the procedure befo1·e the l{irk- fef1io11 or­ Sr1·arhdon as a cafe ot- fi1nple fo rnicatio11? It ca1111ot be prete11d­ ed, tl1at tl1e1·e \V ill. 111 tl1at e,·cnt, rl1c ol)jeaion, e'1en if it cotild be confide1·ed as of r111y \vei gl1t, ''' re iucnt1oned 1·ead, \Vas in fpri11g, or early in fumme r lafi:, foon after the de­ t.e11der ~tnd Mr Farquharfon, rl1e purfuer's brotbe1·, returned from ttttendi11g the proof at Edi11bl1rgl1; a11d that the deponent 11ad rl1e11 11eard fhe 1nigl1t be a \Vit11e[s i11 the cattle, ancl tl1at fhe 11ad i1ot tl1e11 been [un1rnoned to be a witoefs. Tl1is is t1·L1tl1, &c.- Fdi11bttrgb 1 2 rjl J11ly 1797. Co111peared JOHN FORBES of lnvererna11, Efq; aged 58 years, nor mar1·iecl, offered as;1 wit11efs fo1· tl1e defender, and bei11g fo­ Je1nnly f\vo1·11, ~-Lc. and ir1t errogared, clepo11es, Tl1at rbe depo11er1t, about 1a re 11 01·.t\ pr i I \V <\ a year, 011ent, \Vl10 \vas p1·oceedi11g direCl:ly to i·ead tl1em; but tl1e defende1· i11t~ rruptecl l1im, ft1ying·, ' They needed not lofe their ' pl111ch, or i11rer1·upt tl1ei1· clatte1·; tl1e t1epo11e11r rnigl1t t ke tl1e111 ' l1orr1e \Vit!1 11i111, a11d read tl1em at 11i lei!ure;' \\1 l1icl1 tl1e depo- 11 e 11 t tl i t1 a c (o 1 d i t 1g1 y, a 11 d 1· cad t 11 e i11 t o!1 i s t 11 r e l i fl e r, i n h is O\v11 11oufc. De)011es, 'fl1at tl1e det.e11der de:fi1·ed rl1e dej)011e11r ro rett1rn tl1en1, \Vl1icl1 tl1e depo11e11t p1·ot11iied to do at l1i leifi.1rt. Depo11es, T'l1at tf1e clefender did 11ot deGre the depo11e11t to 01ew ~1· re:1d the de1)~firions, eitbe:· to l1is lifiers, or to any orl1e1· per­ i()tl. Depo11es, fl1at, nt tl1e time.: l1e read then1 to l1i fifl:er tlie <.1epo11e11t had hc:iirc\ ~1 clatte1· i11 the coL111t1·y, 1\1 ~1 t hi fifie1- 1.r\. 1111 \\'as to ~e a wi:t1e!s in r.l1i ~aule; but the depot1e11t ga e 110 11cecl to 1.r. and d1cl not believe it, and tl1e depon t)t \as dii-ple.i­ led to tl1111k il1e fhauld get any t1·ot1ble. bout rl1i bufi11el-..._ 11 d being i11te1·rogated fo1· the purfl1e1·, depone, That the depon 11 doe-• • [3] docs not rec ol!etl: to have 1·ead [aid depofitions at Bellabeg, or ~\11 y otl1e r jJ!ace, except as a l)ove d e1)011ed to. Caufa Jcie11tire pat et. And tl1is is trt1tl1,.&c. Mi[s ANN FORBES, a "vitnels forrne1·ly cited, wl10 has bee11 alrea(ly exam ioecl in ca1~/a, on tl1e p <1rt of the defe11der, and wl1 o[e iaid depofition, i11 o\Jediet1ce to a11 ioterlocuto1· of tl1e Court of Seilion, is 01·daioed to be fealed up, bei11g now ex:11nined for the])ttrfue1· on tl1e objeetion fiated to 11er adtniffibility, depo11es, Tl1at the depo11ent 11ad at I11verernan, abot1t foL1r years pall: tl1e fu rn- 1ner th e J)urfuer w;1s t1a111 cd to S::ind y Milite, fame co11ver[1rion with Racl1ael Ste \v ~irt, 'vl10 lives at Millto"'1 11 of All:irgue. D e ­ pones, Tl1at afte 1· f 'l1e11 addu­ ced as a vvitne[s, he \Vould be examined 1·ela tive to tl1 e 1)1·oceecl­ i 11gs l)efore tl1e feffio11, tliough tl1e clepo11e11t does 11ot 1·e 11ie111ber tli;1t l\11· J\._nder[o11 tol cl liitn fo in expreis ter1ns. Depo11es, Tbat j)t·ior to his cit::ition, l1e f.1 v and pert1Ced a IJape r, purt)orti11g to be a copy of the declarario11 emitted by tl1e purfuer i <1 tl1is pro­ cefs, \vliitl1 paper \Vas, to the beft of- tl1e depo11ent's recollLCl:io11, g iver1 l1i1n or fe11t l1i111 by tl1e defe11der: Tl1 fee11 a copy of tl1e depolltion of the P.... everend Mr Farqt1b, rfon, 111i11iileL· of Colilo11, the purfuer's brother, \vhicl1 c!epoorio11 \.Vas t1ri1 i11e\vn to tlie depone1it by the fa id M1· Farqt1bar[on l1i111felf, ~~ ncl another copy was afterw:1rds i11ew11 to tl1e depone11t by the de­ fender; and tl1i s alto happened prio1· to his citation.- Depo11es, Th:1t • I • • I- [6 J 'fhat l1e ~111 <.) f:1,,· a copy of tl1e de1)01irion of the Reve1·e11cl Mr "f orbe· 11 inifl:er of Leochell, ''' l1icl1 depof1tion \Vas fbew11 to tl1e (lepon:nr hy M1· Fo1·l1es 11i111lelt" not long afte1· it was emitted: Tl1nt the clt'po11ent either fa\v 01· l~earcl a_ parr.icular accou~t of tl1e declaration e1nitte fired ro ex1)lai11 110\v her brotl1e1· \vould r11ir1 l1i1n? 1Vlil11e anf\vered, He \VOuld i11oot l1i1n: Tl1at andy Milne