BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Charleson v. Stewart [1900] ScotLR 37_266 (09 January 1900) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1900/37SLR0266.html Cite as: [1900] SLR 37_266, [1900] ScotLR 37_266 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 266↓
[Sheriff Court of Wick.
In an action raised in the Sheriff Court for damages in respect of breach of promise of marriage, the defender made certain averments as to the insanity of various relations of the pursuer. The Sheriff-Substitute held that these averments were irrelevant, and allowed the parties a proof of their remaining averments. The pursuer having appealed for jury trial, the Court, of consent, recalled the interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute, and without expressing any opinion as to the relevancy of the averments in question, sent the whole case to trial.
An action was raised in the Wick Sheriff Court by Miss Jessie Charleson, Pulteney-town, Wick, against David Stewart, for payment of £1000 as damages for breach of promise of marriage.
The pursuer averred that in or about August 1898 the defender asked her to marry him, and that she had consented to do so, but that the defender in January 1899, without any reason, ceased to pay the pursuer attention, and now refused to implement his promise to marry her.
The pursuer pleaded, inter alia—“(1) The averments in statement of facts No. 4 for defender are irrelevant.”
The defender denied that he ever promised to marry the pursuer, and made the following statement of facts which he averred justified him in terminating his intimacy with her:—“(Stat. 4) Several of the pursuer's relatives both on the father's and mother's side have suffered and suffer from insanity. Her paternal grandfather died in a lunatic asylum, and a relative of her mother is presently confined there. An uncle on the father's side is very weak-minded, and a brother of the pursuer is a lunatic or subject to insane delusions. The pursuer failed to inform the defender of this taint of insanity in her family.”
The Sheriff-Substitute ( Mackenzie) on 30th October 1899 pronounced the following interlocutor:—“Sustains the first plea-in-law for the pursuer: Quoad ultra allows to both parties a proof of their respective averments so far as not admitted, and to the pursuer conjunct probation: Appoints the case to be put to the roll that a diet may be fixed for taking said proof.”
The pursuer appealed to the First Division for a jury trial.
The defender contended that the averments in statement 4 were relevant, and that in any event the interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute should be recalled, and the question of relevancy left to be considered at the trial.
The pursuer consented to this course being taken.
The Court pronounced this interlocutor—
“Of consent recal hoc statu the interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute dated 30th October 1899: Approve of the issue No. 86 of process as the issue for the trial of the cause, and appoint the expenses of the discussion upon the preliminary pleas to form part of the expenses in the cause.”
Counsel for the Pursuer— G. Watt— Laing. Agent— S. F. Sutherland, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defender— A. Jameson, Q.C.— M'Lennan. Agent— Alex. Mustard, S.S.C.
