Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The late Isabella Wilson, by testament, appointed the pursuers to be her executors, and inter alia directed them to divide the residue of her estate among four charitable societies. One of these was called in the will “The Society for the Conversion of the Jews.” After Miss Wilson's death, certain persona claiming to be the next of kin to her raised this process for the purpose inter alia of having it determined who was in right to the foresaid bequest. They contended that the bequest was and void from uncertainty; that there was no society bearing the title as given in the will; and while there were many societies in existence having similar designations, it was impossible to determine which Miss Wilson meant to benefit. The raisers were Mrs Ogg and others, and claimed to be related to Miss Wilson through their grandmother, who they alleged was a cousin of Miss Wilds grandfather. They alleged that Miss Wilson's father was John Wilson, and her and father George Wilson. When the case came into Court a society, bearing the name of the “Scottish Society for the Conversion of Israel,” &c., appeared to claim the bequest. There also appeared a claimant called James Wilson, who alleged that he was one of Miss Wilson's next of kin, and nearer than the other claimants, in respect that his grandfather was a brother of the grandfather of the testatrix. In his claim he alleged that Miss Wilson was the daughter of John Wilson and the granddaughter of another John Wilson, and that his father was James Wilson of Glasgowego. After the record was closed a debate took place as to the procedure in the cause when the Scottish Society for the Conversion of Israel objected to discuss the question as to the validity of the be quest with two sets of claimants, both of whom could not be next of kin, and who had different averments as to the testatrix's grandfather's name through relationship with whom they both claimed.

The Lord Ordinary (Ormindale) found that those claiming to be nest of kin should establish their propinquity before the case went further. They were both allowed a proof of their averments, and a commission was granted to take the evidence of aged and infirm witnesses who could not attend the proof in Edinburgh. That commission has been partly executed. Thereafter the claimant, James Wilson proposed before the diet of proof that he should be allowed to amend his record to the effect of calling the grandfather of the testatrix George in place of John, and to describe his father as of Gettyhill in place of Glasgowego. He alleged in a minute that these were mere errors “which occurred through the haste with which the first inquiries were necessarily conducted,” and were afterwards discovered by the country agent in the course of his investigations.

The other claimants opposed the motion, and after hearing parties, Lord Ormidale refused it, giving the following explanation of his reasons for lo doing:—“It was acknowledged on the part of the claimant Wilson, that the erroneous statements in the record, which he desires to have

Page: 169↓

corrected, are not of the nature of mere clerical errors, and it is clear they are not so. It is also plain, the Lord Ordinary thinks, that the alteration referred to do not relate to matters falling under the category of res noviter venientes, and accordingly the form of proceeding applicable to matters of that description, has neither been adopted or proposed to be adopted by the claimant Wilson. The recent case of Campbell v. Campbell, 10th February 1865, 3 M'P. 501, cited by the claimant Wilson, appears to the Lord Ordinary to be adverse rather than favourable to him. That case we was treated by the Court as an exceptional one, in respect of a principle which has no application to the present.”

The party Wilson reclaimed against this interlocutor, but the Court to-day adhered to the same, and found Wilson liable in additional expenses to each of the other claimants modified to £4, 4s. to each.

Wilson declined a proposal to which the other claimaints assented, that he should be allowed to make the proposed alterations, on his paying expenses since the date of revisal of his claim.