Innes v Innes

* Much evidence was adduced in the cause, which was entitled to little weight in consequence of the indifferent character of the witnesses, or an apparent leaning in their testimony.

Several of the defender's witnesses deponed that she had told them that Morrison was the father of the boy, and that he was begot when Innes was abroad. And on one occasion a person who was not Innes had called at her house, apparently when intoxicated, and said that the boy was his.

The Doctor's account for attendance at the delivery was entered to the debit of “Morrison,” as he was given to understand that the mother was married to a person of that name, but the account remained unpaid.

So soon as Innes had reached London, on returning from France in September, 1826, he addressed several notes to Rogers, in terms which implied a degree of familiarity which was incompatible with their respective stations in life. They did not contain any apparent reference to an existing illicit connexion between them, and rather seemed to relate to another person who was then kept by Innes, and to whom Rogers was occasionally employed by Innes to pay money, &c.

Several of her witnesses swore that Innes visited her, and had connexion with her in 1826, at the period when she alleged the boy to have been begot, and also that on the day of the delivery Innes called on her, and said the boy was his. But two of these witnesses were of light fame, and one of them had previously said she knew the boy to be Morrison's—that Morrison was present, as the father, on the day when it was born, and that it was false to impute the paternity of the boy to Innes.