A v B
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 1895 |
| Docket Number | No. 86. |
| Date | 23 February 1895 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
Lord President, Lord Adam, Lord M'Laren, Lord Kinnear.
Reparation—Rape—Averments of assaults on women other than pursuer—Relevancy—Proof—Credibility.—
In an action of damages for rape the pursuer, besides making averments of rape, stated that the defender was of a brutal and licentious disposition, and had on two specified occasions attempted to ravish two other women.
Held that the latter averments were irrelevant, and fell to be deleted from the record.
Whyte v. Whyte, March 15, 1884, 11 R. 710, commented on.
Observed by the Lord President that while the articles were struck out of the record that did not preclude the pursuer from cross-examining the defender about the matters contained in them, as his credibility might be tested on matters going to character, although not relevant to the issue.
A raised an action of damages in the Sheriff Court of Aberdeen against B, in which she averred that the defender had on two specified occasions committed rape upon her.
The pursuer further averred;—(Cond. 2) The defender ‘is a man of brutal and licentious disposition, and for a number of years past he has sought systematically to gratify his lust by ravishing girls and young women.’
In cond. 5 and cond. 6 the pursuer averred that the defender ‘in accordance with his system’ on certain dates in the years 1893 and 1887, had attempted to ravish two other women, whose names were given.
The defender pleaded;—(1) The pursuer's averments so far as irrelevant should be expunged from the record.
On 5th December 1894 the Sheriff-substitute (Robertson) allowed parties a proof of their averments.*
The defender appealed to the Sheriff (Guthrie Smith), who, on 12th December 1894, recalled his Substitute's interlocutor ‘in so far as it
allows a proof of her averments in the second paragraph of article 2, and in articles 5 and 6 of her condescendence, which averments are hereby held as deleted from the record.’*
The pursuer appealed for jury trial, and proposed two issues whether on the occasions specified in the record the defender ‘had carnal knowledge of the pursuer's person forcibly and against her will.’
Argued for the pursuer;—The averments in question ought to be remitted to probation, for if proved they would corroborate the pursuer's averment as to the assaults committed upon her. It had been held competent to prove a man's disposition to be violent, provided notice of the particular acts founded on was given on record.1 In the case of Whyte v. Whyte2 the evidence of a witness that the defender had committed adultery with her was held to be competently corroborated by evidence of the defender's indecent conduct to another woman with whom adultery was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robertson v John White & Son
...were refused probation in which it was sought to obtain support from allegations of similar conduct on other occasions (such as A. v. B. 22 R.402; Inglis v. National Bank of Scotland, Limited, 1909 S.C. 1038). These cases have, in my opinion, no application to the present. The fact that Dun......