ROSE M'NAUGHTON v WILLIAM GLASS (Court of Session)

Here the Court, holding a semiplena probatio to have been established, made a remit to have the pursuer's oath in supplement; when the Commissioner intimated, that not being himself aware of the particulars, and looking on the oath as truly a part of the pursuer's proof, he thought that the counsel for the pursuer should commence the examination, and the counsel for the defender should then cross-examine.

The pursuer's counsel then put the general question at once to her, to which she deponed, that the defender was the father of the child.

The defender's counsel having proposed to put some special interrogatories on cross-examination, the pursuer objected, on the general rule of examination laid down by Erskine, particularly in regard to reference to the oath of parties, that the general question having been put, no matter by whom, no special questions could be afterwards competently asked.

The pursuer appealed to the Lord Ordinary, who pronounced the following interlocutor and note:

‘The Lord Ordinary having considered the two reports by the Commissioner, and heard parties on the appeal taken by the pursuer against the judgment of the Commissioner, allowing the defender to put special interrogatories to the pursuer, while under examination on her oath in supplement, dismissed the said appeal, and allowed the sealed part of the deposition to be opened up.’