OFFICERS OF STATE v EARL OF STIRLING (Court of Session)

The Officers of State brought a reduction of a service in absence, in favour of the Earl of Stirling, and both parties applied for leave to adduce further evidence.

The Lord Ordinary pronounced this interlocutor, adding the subjoined note: ‘Having considered this record, in reference to a motion made by each party for farther evidence, before determining in what form the evidence is to be taken, appoints both parties to print the record, and lodge the same in the Lords’ boxes of the Second Division of the Court, with a view to reporting the same on Tuesday next, and grants warrant accordingly for enrolling the same in the Inner-House Rolls.

Lord Justice-Clerk .—The Lord Ordinary has not found whether new proof ought to be allowed; but it will be observed that this was a service in absence. He merely reports the cause as to the mode of proof; and my opinion is, that if further proof be allowed, it ought to be by commission.

Lord Meadowbank .—I think that the circumstance of the service having been in absence makes a difference as to the mode in which the new proof may be taken. In the reduction of a service upon a competition, tried before a special jury and the Lord Ordinary, I would be against any trial by a jury.

The Court remitted to the Lord Ordinary, with a finding, that if further proof be allowed it ought to be taken by commission.