Kerr v. Darroch [1901] ScotLR 39_270_1 (21 December 1901)

Kerr v. Darroch [1901] ScotLR 39_270_1 (21 December 1901)

It is the absolute right of a pursuer in a filiation and aliment action to call the defender as her first witness; this practice is not improper, does not bar the pursuer from contradicting the defender's evidence, and is supported by statute and longstanding practice. The court should only intervene if the examination is irrelevant or unfairly conducted.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 39_270_1
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Mary Walls or Darroch; Defender/appellant: Henry Kerr
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 December 1901
Procedural Posture
Filiation and Aliment / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Filiation, Aliment, Calling Adverse Party as Witness, Order of Proof, Hostile Witness, Contradiction of Witness Evidence
Family Law Civil Procedure Evidence Filiation Aliment Calling Adverse Party as Witness Order of Proof Hostile Witness +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Walls or Darroch

Pursuer/respondent

Henry Kerr

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

Filiation and Aliment / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is proper for the pursuer in a filiation and aliment action to call the defender as her first witness
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer is barred from contradicting the defender's evidence after calling him as a witness
  3. 3 Whether the practice is improper or prejudicial to the defender

Ratio Decidendi

It is the absolute right of a pursuer in a filiation and aliment action to call the defender as her first witness; this practice is not improper, does not bar the pursuer from contradicting the defender's evidence, and is supported by statute and longstanding practice. The court should only intervene if the examination is irrelevant or unfairly conducted.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Sheriff-Substitute's decision affirmed; defender found to be the father and decerned against as craved