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 Jury Court Reports |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Jury Court Reports >> Baillie v. Bryson. [1818] ScotJCR 1_Murray_317 (12 March 1818) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotJCR/1818/1_Murray_317.html Cite as: [1818] ScotJCR 1_Murray_317 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 317↓
(1818) 1 Murray 317
CASES TRIED IN THE JURY COURT.
No. 31
Present, The Three Lords Commissioners.
Damages claimed for adultery, but the adultery found not proven.
This was an action of damages against the defender for the seduction of, and adulterous connection with, the pursuer's wife.
Defence.—A denial of the fact alleged.
“Whether the defender did, on the 1st day of January 1808, or at any time between that time and the 1st day of January 1812, seduce, and maintain an adulterous connection, and did commit adultery, with Mrs Elizabeth Cross, or Boyes, then the wife of the pursuer, at the pursuer's house of Carnbroe, or in the neighbourhood thereof?”
“Damages laid in the summons at L. 10,000.”
Fullarton, in opening the case for the pursuer,
Page: 318↓
Before a witness is examined, it is only competent to prove an objection to his competency, not to his credit.
An objection was taken to the first witness before she was examined, and an offer made to prove malice and bad character.
Page: 319↓
After Gallaway, a witness, had been examined on the point, the
Ersk. Pr. IV. 2. 14.
Moncreiff, for the defender.—This is the leading witness for the pursuer; her evidence is materially connected with the other evidence in the cause; and it is most important that the Jury should know her character before she gives her evidence. We shall prove, by those who know her, that they would not believe her on oath. We shall prove that she was infamous at the time she came into the pursuer's family, and that he knew that she was so. She has been guilty of various infamous crimes, [which he stated in detail;] and we are entitled to bring these before the Jury, that she may be received cum nota. Mr Erskine says expressly, that evidence of crimes is sufficient to cast a witness, though no conviction in a Court or by a Jury has taken place.
Page: 320↓
Bruce v. Falconer, Hume, III. 156.
Earl of Fife v. Trustees of, &c. supra 131.
The door is shut against both objections.
As to special objections, I think it is the law, and ought to be so, that proof of them cannot be admitted. As to the objection to general character, I think it is the law that proof of it cannot be allowed; but, on this point, I wish a bill of exceptions were presented, to have the point settled.
Page: 321↓
This is so general a question, that I hope some case will soon occur where it will be carried to the last resort, in order to have it finally settled.
Clerk, for the defender, said, He must except to the decision on account of the rejection of evidence, 1 st, As to general character: 2 d, As to particular facts; and stated, that it was offered to discredit, not to disqualify the witness.
Page: 322↓
Jeffrey, for the pursuer, before calling his witnesses, stated,—The other party asked us to admit the printed copies of the proof in the divorce case. We now call on them to say if they intend to use it for the purpose of pointing out discrepancies between the statements made then and those made now. If this be their purpose, the witnesses are entitled to have their former depositions read over. The proof is on the table, and in potestate of the Court.
Clerk.—This motion was rejected in a former case.
Page: 323↓
A witness examined and dismissed called back to identify a witness who denied ever having seen him.
The first witness for the pursuer was then called, and several special questions arising out of Gallaway's examination, were put to her in initialibus. She denied having made these statements, or ever having (so far as she knew) seen Gallaway.
The
In the course of her examination, the
The witness having stated that she saw the defender come out of the bed in Mrs Baillie's room, was asked, by one of the Jury, Whether
_________________ Footnote _________________ * The question was not again moved during the trial.
Page: 324↓
Before proving that money was given by a party to a witness, it must be stated that it was given as a bribe.
When one of the witnesses for the pursuer was called, it was objected that the pursuer had given money to her and several other witnesses.
It being stated that it was a bribe for her evidence in this cause, the proof was allowed, but failed. The same objection was made to another witness, but the proof was equally defective.
It was proved that Mrs Boyes (Mrs Baillie's mother) was dead. One of her servants was then asked what she said of her daughter going out at night to meet the defender?
Page: 325↓
Grant objected,—This is hearsay; and of a person who, if alive, could not have been a witness.
Jeffrey.—The first point is settled. As to the second, she, if alive, would have been a competent witness; but, rather than waste time, I withdraw the question.
Rules and Orders of Jury Court, § 33.
The cross-examination of a witness was begun by one counsel, and continued by another, when the
In an action of damages for adultery, held competent to give in evidence the decree of divorce. The clerk of the Commissary Court reading from the record, is sufficient proof of the judgment.
The pursuer, on the 15th May 1815, had obtained decree of divorce against his wife on the ground of adultery with the defender. With a view to show the amount of the expence incurred in that action, it was proposed to call the clerk of the Commissary Court, to prove the decree.
Grant, for the defender, contended,—The present is an action by the pursuer for the loss of the society of his wife. She may have been almost a common prostitute; and, if the husband did not know it, he may be entitled to a divorce, though not to damages. This is never
Page: 326↓
Stedman, 20th Jan. 1744. Kil. 484. M. 7337 and 13909.
Jeffrey, for the pursuer.—This is not the foundation of the action, but the pursuer is entitled to recover the expence incurred in consequence of the conduct of this defender. The claim (as in the case of the seduction of a daughter) is for the loss of the services, not the society, of the wife. In the first case on the subject, in this country, the expences of the divorce was the first article claimed.
Mr Clerk, in reply, was proceeding to state what he considered proved.
Mr Carphin, clerk of the Commissary Court, was then called upon to read from the process the decree of the Commissaries, when an objection was taken that it had not been produced
Page: 327↓
Clerk.—Being produced by the defender, the pursuer is not entitled to use it. The decree cannot be proved by parol evidence; the only competent proof of a decree is an extract, containing the grand decerniture in the cause, without which no execution can follow; and the defender was no party to the cause.
Page: 328↓
The question was allowed, and a bill of exceptions was tendered.
It is incompetent, in an action of damages for adultery, to give in evidence the expence incurred in the divorce, if that question is not finally decided.
A witness was then called to prove the expences.
Page: 329↓
Jeffrey.—There would be hardship in being under the necessity of delaying to bring the action of damages till the question of divorce was finally settled. The account of expences will not bind the Jury, but give a general view of the amount, and they may find them provisionally, if the case is not reversed.
Moncreiff.—The hardship shows the incompetency. The pursuer is only entitled to the direct, not the consequential damages of the loss of the society of his wife.
Page: 330↓
Proof of the pursuer's conduct limited to the time of the existing marriage.
After the case was opened for the defender, the admission of his marriage and also of the pursuer's marriage was read by the clerk.
Moncreiff then wished to put in an extract of the pursuer's divorce from his former wife; but an objection being taken, he said, We did not think any objection could be made to it. The pursuer puts his character in issue, and it is extremely doubtful if in England a person who had himself been divorced ever obtained damages; his ideas of the married state are such that he is incapable of enjoying its comforts, and though it is not proved that he treated his present wife ill, he may not have treated her well. The question is, whether the conduct of the defender is injurious, and to what extent? If a man, within a month or two after his own divorce, marries and brings an action like the present, would he be entitled to any damages, or to the same damages as a virtuous man?
Page: 331↓
My brethren agree with me that it is impossible to allow proof of this fact without allowing it as to the whole of his life, which is certainly incompetent. The question here is, if he is to have damages? If he is to be cut out of these by a proof of his former conduct, it is going into a field so wide, that this long case would be absolutely interminable.
With a view to show the loose conduct of the pursuer, a witness was asked, if, about ten years ago, he had been employed to find a lodging in Glasgow for him and a young woman?
Jeffrey objected,—By this question it is intended to infringe the decision of the Court. It is a leading question.
Page: 332↓
Evidence was again offered of the bad character of some of the witnesses for the pursuer, and that they were not to be believed upon their oaths; and was also offered to prove the particular facts. It was held to be incompetent on both points; and the two bills of exception were now presented as the most regular time for doing so.
Clerk.—Adultery must be proved by some circumstance necessarily implying it, and not from a train of loose and unconnected circumstances. No instance has been proved; the stories told by the witnesses are improbable, some of them incredible, and the witnesses are single witnesses. The defender wished to marry Mrs Baillie's sister, which accounts for their intimacy. If you doubt of the fact of
Page: 333↓
Jeffrey, in reply,—The questions are, 1 st, Is the adultery proved? 2 d, Is there any thing in the pursuer's conduct which ought to prevent him from recovering damages? Many facts not criminal in themselves have been proved to show the probability of the crime, and no explanation has been given of the facts necessarily inferring guilt, except her frankness and the defender's attachment to her sister. The only explanation of the facts sworn to, is a general charge of perjury against the witnesses. There is not the slightest suspicion of this, and if they were to perjure themselves, why did they stop half way? Why did not the one witness swear that she saw the lady in bed at the time the defender came out of it, and the other that he saw them in the act of adultery?
Mrs Baillie's declarations are not evidence against the pursuer, and nothing has been proved against him. His kindness and attention to his natural children show him to be possessed of proper feelings.
Page: 334↓
There is given in the issue, a period of four years, and there are three points for your consideration; 1 st, The seduction; 2 d, The adultery; 3 d, The damages.
Before entering on the proof, I may state to you that I take it to be clear law, that it is the adultery, not the seduction, that is the criminal act on which the claim of damages is founded. The adultery is the fact founding the action, the seduction and gaining the affections of the wife may involve circumstances to be considered in aggravation of damages. In finding damages due, it is not necessary to find specially as to the seduction.
Having drawn this distinction, I wish you to come to the consideration of this case with coolness, and without those prejudices which may arise in such a case; and that you should give fair consideration, but not rashly give too much weight to the circumstances. With this view, and as this is a circumstantial case, it is
Page: 335↓
The points of inquiry are, 1 st, Whether there are facts and circumstances sufficient to prove that the act of adultery was committed? 2 d, Whether it is proved that Mrs Baillie was in a state of mind rendering her a more easy victim?
During the four years included in the issue, and during a constant and unconcealed intercourse, there are only four instances selected to which the proof applies. You may free your minds from the consideration of the proof of part of her dress being found next day, or the day following it, in a bed that had been prepared for the defender. One witness has proved that the defender left Carnbroe on the night in question, and another that he came home to his house in Hamilton. One of the main facts proved to infer guilt being disproved, is a material feature in the case.
The small number of instances is mentioned, not with the view of making you disbelieve
Page: 336↓
There is proof of his paying very frequent visits, and he might have pleaded business as an apology for not coming so often. There is also much proof showing her desire that the criminal intercourse should take place, but you must consider whether this desire was mutual, and whether the fact of adultery took place. In judging of this, you will consider his character and situation with regard to her sister; his power of absenting himself; and the requests by the General to visit him.
After commenting on the evidence, his Lordship stated,—If you are satisfied that the adultery
Page: 337↓
I cannot help thinking that Lord Kenyon (for whom I had the highest esteem during his life, and veneration since his death) introduced into cases of this sort a principle as to damages extremely dangerous in its consequences. He considered such questions not merely as calculated to repair the injury done to the one party, but as a punishment of the other, and as intended to correct the morals of the country. The morals of the country have not been improved, and I am afraid its feeling has been much impaired. A civil Court, in matters of civil injury, is a bad corrector of morals; it has only to do with the rights of parties.
In England there is no judicial tribunal having the power to separate a vinculo matrimonii; and to prevent imposition, the House of Lords, before passing a divorce bill, require not only a divorce in the Consistorial Court, but also a finding of damages at common law. This makes it necessary in the neighbouring
Page: 338↓
His Lordship said, That he had no fear of the Jury giving excessive damages; but he thought it right, in concluding, to state to them the circumstances which induced him to think, that, if given, the damages ought not to be high.
Verdict,—“The Jury find the fact of adulterous connection between the 1st of January 1808 and the 1st day of January 1812 is not proved.”
Counsel:
Fullarton,
Jeffrey, and
Cockburn, for the Pursuer.
Clerk,
Grant,
Moncreiff,
J. A. Murray, and
Robinson, for the Defender.
Solicitors: (Agents, J. Mowbray, w. s. and Carnegy and Nelson, w. s.)
June 10.
Jeffrey, in the Court of Session, moved, on several grounds, for a rule on the defender to show cause why a new trial should not be granted.
Page: 339↓
July 7.
Grant opposed the motion, and contended, In fact, there are only two grounds on which this new trial is sought; 1 st, That the verdict is contrary to evidence; 2 d, Res noviter veniens ad notitiam.
1 W. Black. 1, 2.
1 Wilson, 22.
1 Cowper's Rep. 37.
2 Wils 249.
The first is a most delicate ground, and if the Court are in every case to review verdicts on the report by the Judge, trial by Jury, instead of being the best, will be the worst method of trying cases, and will be the beginning instead of the end of litigation. In England, when there is evidence on both sides, the Court will not set aside the verdict as contrary to evidence; Hankey v. Trotman, A. v. B., Norris v. Tyler, and the judgment of the Court, as delivered by Lord Camden in Beardmore v. Carrington. In case of a tort, which is in form criminal, no new trial will be granted where the verdict is for the defender; Huckle v. Money, and Smith v. Parkhurst.
2 Wilson, 206.
2 Strange, 1105.
W. Black, 802. Ca. in Eq Abr. 377. Patterson v. Stow, &c. Feb. 1, 1817.
2 d, Res noviter veniens ad notitiam. It is not enough that he did not know the facts. There may be cases where a party by the act of God is deprived of evidence, but these are very rare; Hogg v. Spong, Cases in Equity Abridged, &c. *
_________________ Footnote _________________
* See most of the above cases in Grant on New Trials, 172-6, 131, 227, 220, 175, and 104.
Page: 340↓
July 9.
6 Bac. Abr. 662. ( v. Trial.)
6 Bac. Abr. 663. 1 Burrow, 390.
Jeffrey.—The Court must set aside the verdict as contrary to evidence. I admit that a clear case must be made out; but it is a matter of discretion, and there is no absolute rule against granting new trials. The rule only applies to cases of contradictory testimony; but here the verdict is against the testimony on both sides. The case of Berks v. Mason, and the cases in Grant, 162-5, support this application.
Patterson v. Stow, 1st Feb. 1818.
1 Vesey jun. Rep. 135-6.
7 Mod. 54. 6 Bac. Abr. 661.
2 d, Res noviter. The First Division ordered a condescendence in a similar case. In England it would be granted; Grant, 128. The whole evidence as to the pursuer's misconduct was a surprise. Incompetent witnesses were admitted, which gives a party a right to claim a new trial; Grant, 167. Incompetency not
Page: 341↓
July 10.
The Court were unanimous in thinking that there was not sufficient ground for setting aside the verdict as contrary to evidence. The
With respect to the other ground,
Page: 342↓
The other Judges concurred in this opinion, and a condescendence was ordered on the second ground.
