M'Naughton v Glass

Subject_ Proof—Semiplena Probatio—Oath in Supplement—Process.— Headnote: Where the pursuer of an action for the aliment of her natural child, has been allowed to give her oath in supplement—Held, that this oath is given by her as a witness in the cause; and that, although her own counsel has asked the general question, Whether the defender is the father of the child? and she has deponed, that he is,—the defender is not thereby barred from specially cross-examining her as to all pertinent details.

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.” *

“The Lord Ordinary thinks that the defender must be allowed to bring out the real truth by putting particular questions, either at first or at last, and that the substance of the arrangement here was, that they should be put at last. It does not appear to him that there is any deponent who ought to be treated with greater jealousy than the pursuer of such an action, when admitted to give evidence in her own favour. The pursuer's doctrine is well calculated to avoid the detection of perjury, and of course to encourage its commission.”

The Court unanimously adhered, observing, that when the advocator was allowed the privilege of giving her oath in supplement, she was not in the position of a party deponing on a reference,but was, in substance, just a witness in her own cause: and that though her own counsel might put the general question to her, that could not bar the opposite party from subjecting her to a special cross-examination as to all pertinent details.