“Before answer as to any points in the cause, in respect that the defenders offer to support the proof of their propinquity as set forth in their claim in the service under reduction by other and supplementary evidence, finds that it is competent for them to lead such additional proof in this reduction; allows them a proof accordingly, and to the pursuer a conjunct probation, and grants commission,
“In respect of the interlocutor pronounced of this date in the counter action of reduction betwixt the parties, sists farther procedure in this process hoc statu.”
“Finds it is competent for the pursuer, under the conjunct proof allowed to him, to prove all facts embraced by his condescendence, tending to show that the alleged pedigree or line of propinquity founded on by the defenders is false, and was got up by fraudulent contrivance and collusion with other persons, or that their service was prepared and carried through by them or their agents, in the knowledge that the pursuer had been previously served heir to the deceased, and with the design of concealing the proceedings from him, in order that he might have no opportunity of appearing to investigate the proof or oppose the claim: Finds that the proof now proposed to be adduced by the pursuer, as explained in the first part of this minute, though it may have a particular application to other substantive grounds of reduction libelled, has yet a sufficient pertinency and relevancy to the question, as to the truth or falsehood of the pedigree put forward by the defenders, and to the credit and
“The Lord Ordinary has not been able, since the debate was concluded, to consider the proof, and the various points of argument applicable to it, in such a manner as to form an opinion on the merits of it. It may be necessary, however, to call the attention of the parties particularly to one point, on which the ultimate extrication of the case may, in a certain event, very much depend. The record was prepared, and the additional proof allowed in this reduction, at the instance of Alexander Watson, while the counter reduction, at the instance of the defenders, stood sisted mainly on this principle, that if it should appear that the propinquity of the defenders, Ann and Isabel Watson, was made out, there would be an end of the cause, and it would be unnecessary to discuss the merits of the pursuer's claim or service, seeing that the former claim was in a nearer degree. But if it should be the opinion of the Court that the propinquity of the defenders is not proved, it may not necessarily follow that their service is to be reduced at the instance of the pursuer without trial of the merits of his service, and allowing him, if he desires it, in the other action to lead additional proof, or the pursuers in that action to impeach his propinquity
“The Court seemed to think that the case just resolved into a competition of brieves,-that both parties should be placed on an equal footing,—that a supplementary proof might still be allowed to the appellant in the action at his instance if desired, as the sist could not prevent the Court from having that action before them, if necessary,—that although the respondents proof might be found to be insufficient, the appellant's might be worse; and their Lordships delayed the case till next day, that this view of the case, as well as the bearing of the proof, might be considered, and the appellant's counsel heard in point of form, if necessary. On the 25th, accordingly, the cause was called again, when, much to the surprise of the appellant, and without any farther discussion from the bar, the Court being of opinion that the respondents, who claimed as nearer heirs than the appellant claimed to be, had made out their propinquity, it became unnecessary to discuss farther the suggestions as to the form of proceeding.”