--The London Times, June 15th, says:
‘
The process in the
Court of Session relative to the question of a Scotch marriage does not promise to be speedily settled.
Some time ago the
Lord Ordinary remitted to
Mr. Crichton, advocate, to take proof by commission in the case, and the proof for the pursuer (
Miss Longworth, alias
Mrs. Yelverton,) has been reported by the
Commissioner, along with numerous appeals on both sides, as to questions refused or allowed in the course of the proof.
The Lord Ordinary (Ardmillan) having heard counsel on these appeals, issued an ‘"interlocutor"’ on Thursday disposing of them.
There are only two points of importance involved in the appeals.
His Lordship has found that in respect it is alleged by the pursuer, as a ground of action, that marriage was constituted by cohabitation and habit and repute, it is competent to prove what was the opinion formed at the time by witnesses having the opportunity of observing the conduct and conversation of parties in regard to the footing on which the pursuer and defender lived together.
Accordingly, he dismisses the appeals for the defender against all evidence of that character, and the effect of the judgment, it sustained, will be to admit some important testimony for the pursuer.
The other point affects the right of the pursuer herself to be examined.
In an action of this kind, by the law of
Scotland, the parties themselves cannot be admitted to the witness' box, but the pursuer seeks to have her evidence received as to the loss of certain documents, with the view of being allowed to prove their contents by parole testimony.
The Lord Ordinary holds that this application is without precedent or authority, and that the evidence is not admissible.
His Lordship remarks that his disposition in the case has been to admit evidence as fully and unreservedly as is consistent with the settled principles of the law, and in doubtful points to lean towards admission rather than exclusion.
The necessary refusal of the pursuer's own testimony is, however, a serious disadvantage to her in the Scotch suit.
It is understood that the present interlocutor is to be reclaimed to the
Inner House, and the taking of proof for the defender before the
Commissioner is suspended till the reclaiming note is disposed of. Till all appeals taken in the course of proof are finally adjudicated the case will not be opened on its merits.
’
