§ MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)asked the Lord Advocate whether, in the case of Weir against Weir, in the Sheriff Court of Caithness, the Sheriff Substitute decided in favour of the defender in respect of facts brought out in the portion of the written evidence in the case which is amissing; whether Sheriff Depute Thorns, when the case was before him on appeal, reversed the decision of the Sheriff Substitute, decided in favour of the pursuer, and cut out and abstracted from the process the evidence, or portion of the evidence, on which the Sheriff Substitute relied in support of his decision in the case; whether, in Scotland, the Judge of an inferior Court, in a case subject to the review of a superior Court, has any right whatever to cut out and abstract from the process, or to cancel beyond recognition, any portion of the written evidence taken in the cause by the Judge of the first instance, and upon which the decision of the Judge of the first instance rested; whether he will cause Sheriff Thorns to restore to the process the evidence, or at least an authentic copy of the evidence, cut out and abstracted by him, and which he (Sheriff Thorns) states "was not destroyed but is amissing;" and whether he will institute an independent investigation with the view of ascertaining the true facts as to the number of pages of evidence so cut out and abstracted, as to whether the same were or were not torn up by Sheriff Thorns, and as to what he did with, or what became of, the pages of evidence so cut out and abstracted?
§ *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,) ButeThere has not been time to obtain the requisite information. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put the question on the Paper on Thursday.