The Sun. — London, England, 1820-09-02 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT: HOUSE OF LORDS, FRIDAY, SEPT. 1. THE QUEEN. The Gross-Examipation of MADAME DUMONT ‘ continued by Mr. , Ve ILLIAms. • Q. 1 wish now to call your attention to the ~_ journey you' 'took by /and to Jerusalem. - Did not the Princess travel on that occasion on horse back i—A. Yes ; that is to' say, as far as I can !ecoil , ..ct, it was on'an ass. Did .ou travel yourself in some kind of car- rialte ?—Yes. AlOnf.; with the Countess Oldi ?—Yes. Dia you not travel afterthe Princess ?—Some -tune.; before, sometimes lifter.' • On that journey did you not continue to attend on the Countess Oldi?—tdid not wait on the Countess of Oldi. • Did you not continue to be with her was alwa.Vs in the same palanquiti with her. ,/ Did not your, sister attend QII the Princess in that journey ?-I‘l3 , sister was always on horse back near'ilte Princess. - \''‘ as not your,siSter during that journey con stantly near the Princess ?—When we stopped, I was frequently near her. . During that journey, did the Princess rest by day and travel during the night ?---Yes. .°'! , ,Vhen you stopped at Aum, do you, or do you rot, mean to say that you undressed the Princess -On that occasion ?—I recollect I was _under the tent of the Princess, but I do not recollect whe ther I undressed her or not. Do you mean to say that the Princess was 'un dressed at all under the tent, on that occasion'? — When I left the Princess, she was in a white bed • sown. Do you mean "to say that the ,Princess was un dressed at all ?—She had pulled - off her upper dress. Do you mean by that dress, the dress in which the Princess was travelling ?—Yes, the gown or robe which was . open. Do you mean anything more than the outer gown, of whatever description ?—I do not recol tect if it was any thing more. * Then the dress was as it had been all the night she had been travelling, except as-to that exte= rior dress, or whatever it was ?it was a white petticoat below. • Was Tier dress any way altered, except by having thd exteriOr.habilirnents taken off ?—I do not recollect. When that exterior habiliment was taken - off, did not the Princess put on a night-gown, or bed gown, for the purpose of . reposing on the sofa ? W-fien I left her, she was in a nhite petticoat. 1' . do not know what she did after I left her. Did she stop on her journey to Jerusalem ano ther night ?—'Fes. ; Did you attend her Royal Highness on that o;:cesion ?—I helped her to dress. want to know whether, on that second oc casion When she stopped in travelling, she was undressed did tot see her when we arrived; I only saw her when she rose in the evening. On that occhsion, in 'the evening, was she dres sed or undressed ?—When I entered her room sire was dressed in a white petticoat,' as I have :titeady said. ' • ", Mr. KERSTERN, the Queen's Interpreter, said, the translation - of , theword, signifying a part of her Royal Highness's dress, was " robe." When the Princess - was About to start*, had she any thing'rtiore to . do to her dress than to put on:the exterior habiliMent which you before Men tioned ?--I do not think that she had any thing else to put on. You hive said, I think, that you took ship at Tunis when you were' going to Jerusalem ? We went on in the t same vesser in which we came. From Tunis ?- - Y es. ' I'behieve the crew - consisted of two or three -On& twenty persons altogether belieie there abort ts. • • • —Then there were, besides the crew, ten or a • dozen who belonged to •the suite of her Royal • • - .Do you .remember taking a harper on board at Tunis ?—Yes. A Jew ?—Yes. - On that occasion, we are told, the cabin of the vessel, at the extremity.of it, was occupied the Princess and the Countess of Oldi ?—There were two cabins; one for the Princess, another e6r the Countess of Oldi. Wliere did you sleep a cabin near the dinino. cabin. • • • , Did - your cabin open into the dining cabin? , — It opened into the passage... W,hat,.passacre :—The• passage which runs all along , the vessel.. 'Where had'llieronymns slept during the voy 7: age --He slept in another cabin, in the same di- . rection as mine ; it was the last on that side of the ship.• 4-suppose that any of the crew who were at went to' sleep in the hold ?-1 don't know where they went.• • I)c.' -you know. where the harper slept during thp voyage ?—I do not remember exactly.where hey slept ; but it was, • I think, near the table • where we dined : I do not recollect exactly. tyhat distance was that from the place where you slept the other end of the vessel. Ydn, I suppose, slept in.your own bed every night ?—While..we were travelling or afterwards? Airing the whole voyage from Tunis that ,when her. Royal ; Highness .slept on •the -024, I slept. one night in her cabin and one iu my -own. , , , ' • • • NYou mean alternately ?—Y e s. And the harper slept in a different part of the ship,-did be ?-1 - , do not Ipow where he slept, biit I ;believe .he slept near trio. dining table. Did - yonnot sal, a little while ago, tlatitiVas in a different part of the shipt-.--;l'saidit was'in the eextremity..lll a 'cabin which was below. ' T do nut rutatt . the part of the vessel above 'but below. Do you mean to •swearithat the' ew Harper slept every night in that place during that voy- age from Tunis till you landed don'i ,know where-.he slept every night, you.swea.r.,_that ,yon don't know where he slept any of e . night ?—I recollect having heard that he slept there, but I never saw him. Then you do not know, do you, where he' slept any one night' of your own knowledge ? No. - Nor any part of a night ?—Not by my own knowledge.- I understood you to mention a place called Charnitz ?—Yes. From that place, if I understand you right, you said that Bergami went to get a passport ; am I right ?—I recollect that Bergami departed "from that place, and I was told be" went for the purpose of getting a passport. Was it in the winter season ?—As far as I re collcct, it was in the spring=in the month of 1 .51 a rch. Was there frost or snow on the ground ?—A, great deal of snow. Was it an indifferent inn at which you were A small inn. If I understood you right, you were on ,a bed in the room of the Princess there ?—Yes. Bad. you taken off your, clothes ?—Not en- tirely. .Had you taken off more than your gown do not perfectly,recollect. but I bplieve not. Had the Princess undressed herselfl-L-I do not recollect. , She was in bed. Do you remember the dress she was , in the ha bit of wearing at that time ?—Yes., Was it not a blue habit, trimmed with fur, which w ent close round the neck ? Was there a great deal of fur about it ?—Yes ; there was a great deal of fur about it, and it was a blue dress. Had she at the same time a cap ?--When she was travelling she had a cap. A t tat-ening cap ? Yes. , Bad she gone iato ht•d with that dress upon her ?—Yes. Do you mearl, that in the middle of the day, when she went tonic on the bell, she had not undressed herself at all ?-1 saw her Royal llighncss on the bed, during the day, in that riding habit. Did you see her take it off at all while at that inn ?—I do not recollect at all: • You yourself were in, bed in the same-room with her?—, Yes. 1 believe you left the small-inn early in the morning?-- Yes. If I understood you right, you entered the service . of the Princess in the year 1814?—Yes. And remained in it tilt 1517 ?-,-Yes. • Until the month of November in that year, or thereabout? —Yes. .Did you 'gait the Princess's service of your own accord, or were you di , charged I—l was discharged. Were vats not discharged fur saying something which af terwards'you adMitted to be false?—Yes. In fact it was not true. • Did you go „ into any other service after you were dis, charged from that of the Princess, before you came to Eng:. Did, not you: money fail yon.before you came to Englapd ? —No. Du yon mean to say yoti were not short of money before you came to England ?—No, becauSe I had money in Swit zerland, and I could have got it if I wanted it.. Did you ever say you were getting short of money ?—I dp 'not recollect saying it. I had money-in Switzerland. - Did you never'Sity that you had failci to save money in the service of her Royal Highness ?-1 do not recollect ever say- iug so. Did you never represent so to any body ?—I cannot swear: but I do not rec!oltect it. • • of representing that you bad failed to save nioney ?-1. do ii , IVill yeti swear it ?---1 w;11 not swear it—but I du not re collect. Were you not appliee to by sortie person soon after you left the Service of the Princess of Wales ?--Not very soon after. • • .1 do not hnow what you Fall soon; I will say within half a year 1-1-1 t was more than six months; I had been tint of set. rite nearly one year; it was nearly une year since I left that set vice. ' You . say that ~ '4)u were applied, to—do I understar,d you to say that you were applied to to know what yon'had to say respect' to the Prineess ?---One year after I left her service. Dues the witness say yes ? —Yes ; one year aft e r. ' • -. • Do. you mean to represent that fill application was not made to you much:earlier than a, year after you-,had been dis charged from the service of the Princess?' -mere Was not. Is it or is it not true -that an application was matte to you within half a•year of your quitting tht. Princess'?--No appli cation was made to me earlier than-one year after I had left the Princess, neither by personal application nor letter. Or in any-other manner ?— , As-lkaow what it is altfmt may I lie at liberty. to explain—(A sensation was expressed in tine Honk, accompanied with.an order to havethe'questiens and answers read ever again.) • " • - They werr•accordilngly reed. Mr. Wuttasts—First let me' have an answer to-'m ques tion, and then, if. you require an explanation, it cannot be refused. • • • • • [Witness here said something to the Interpreter for the Bill, which he did not seem to •understand. Mr. Broirehaos . asked if he-could translate it-? He answered:-"• No." Mr. B. Ilion asked the Queen's Interpreter, and he said tt Y e s,". Th e later was then put to the , rfrunt. of the bar, - and desired to speak.—During this time a loud buz and murmur prevailed throngb the House.] , • • ` . The INTettravrep.......Witness - says that six months after She left. the service of her Royal Highness, she wrote to her sister to say, that an application was made.to her,•but that it was a double entendre between her and her sister.—{A general btu.) - ••- Mr. ilsouotram (with energy to the Interpreter, who had continued.in his. place.)—Get down:-Sir. • - . The SOLICIToR GENEnAL.---Wily ? Mr. Benuonam (with ,increased energy)—" Because, Mr. Solicitor-General, I have.a. right to -have my own Interpre ter."—(Lond errs of'' Order, order.") - The Loan CtiaNcEt.t,ont.s—lf you wish to have you own In terpreter, the other Interpreter must be near enough to hear what. the witness'says: Have you, never said that the Princess •was surrounded With spies 'when she-was in Italy .•••-f don't recollect having said so. You hare not represented it in any manner don't recollect. Will you swear that you 'Mee not ?—I won't swear. • Have you a treneberons memory ?—No . - but it. is so long that I can't recollect what I might have said in conversation. Will you swear that you' represent e d it in one way 01 ' another can't recollect. DP you 'know Ompteda ?•-Yes. • Have'you ever Spoken to him ?—(lace at the Villa Villani. '1 hat was when he was on a visit. to the Princess I soi , pose ?—He was th'ere - , and I suppose on a visit to her Royal • ' Was he often there •?—}le stopped, far some days. But I ask 'if lie has been more than once there Whilst you were in the service of the Princessl=Yes. Hoti• many times have you' knoWn him on a visit to. her Royal : Rightness pave seen hint at Once c iitrin-crt.ptaces. On one occasion, you ,say be stopped three. or four days, were his other visits of as lung duration.?- mi l think ,not. But the other two visits, were they. of Ibe same duration? They were•ofshorter duration-as far as I recollect. On whicleoccasion was it that a complaint was -made by the Princess of the conduct of this Baron at hen house s The SoLteurort-GEN'Eam.,—l object to the forts of that question. • • The Loan'CnaNCzt.tba.—You Most first ask if there- was a comolainr. Was there not acomplaint during one of his visits, of his. conduct ?—Yes. • On ,what occasion?—As far as I recollect .11-was atj Villa Was the complaint about locks, or false keys? The Comcrroa-GcNnintat. objected to this question. The .Luna _CHAtcCELLuIt said the questions was au improper one. Mr. Ws Lwaritts.---I am in your Lordships' bands, but I hare always considered that I had ,a right in cross-examination to assume any fact, and to pot 'it in a-n intern gatiity shape. Was the coMplaitit about:kicks don't recollect respect ing what. - Nut respecting the . ''eonducT of 'Baron Ottiteda; whilst be -was in the house of the Princess ?..-I-don't recollect whether it was whilst he was in the house or after he was gone. Question -repeated.—I do nut recollect what, was the sub ject of - t'he coioplant. • . 1 . Did you not take aconsidevklge share in \lg complaint?— No • • • , A - Did you not write a challenge ? A laugh :)—I don't re collect.. - Did you, yr did you.not, write a letter for Mr. Howland - ? I do not remember writing any fetter fur Mr. Howland nor for any body else. • Did he nut desire you to write for him to Baron Ompteda ? I recollect nothing about it. [A Letter was here handed to the witness, so folded that she could only see aline or so of it:] Tell.me; did you write that letter ?—lt is not exactly like my hand-Writing. Do you•believe that it is your band-writing, or not ?—lt is not exactly like my hand.writing:' - • Do you, or do you not, believe - ifto be your hand-writing ? I do nut reeohect writing a letter. • Do you or do you not- believe it tube your hand-wilting ?—. I do not think it exactly- like my band-writing; I don't recol lect having Written it. 'Phis is not what I asked you ; I believe - minels a very or -, . 'dinary question. Do you or do you not.believ l that letter to be in your liand-wiiting?—l cannot decide whether it is my hand writing; it is-not quite like it. • - It is a plain question, which any one with'—he millionth part of your understanding might answerl—l can't say. Question again repeated.—ltis not -exactly like my hand writing. . • Clues - lien repeated ?—I can't swear to what I am not sure of. . . - Loan CuANcELLoa.—You only show part of the letter,. she ought to see the whole. Tell her interpreter that she is not'asliA whether she knows it to be her writing,. but if she believes that it is ?-1 Can't positively, say that it is not, but I do not think it is. Wit.ntAsis•—How much of. that paper, that has been before her all the - time that I h ave asked such . a multitude of questions,•,hai been-lobmitted to her eve? LI3IERICK here stated to their Lordships, that there was a conversation carrying on between strangers and some oldie Counsel, that interrupted the Counsel in general. I , Jr. littouoiLsm—This conversation, my Lords, is going on constantly, and if we object to it it would become your Lordships' duty to remove the ahstrtiction, hut if pot, 1 con ceive no one has a right to object to it. It is the first time tbatprompting a Counsel has been imputed as acritnel and so far from being irregular, Vconsider it would be irregular for a Counsel to speals.withont promptly* The LOP D CHANCELLOR—If any Nohle Lord wishes to make an observation, the Counsel must-withdraw. Do you now see the line and a half which is submitted to you ?—Yes. • Do you see it distinctly ?—Yes:! -IS it your hand-writing?-1 cannot say whether it is mine, because I do not recognize the %silting,. Asked again.---1 cannot say, because .it is not exactly as 1 I wish to know from you—' =— Here the LORI) CHANCELLOR asked if the papers were marked. Wrt.t,tams—Yes, my Lord. . Here witness withdrew ; on Ins, return Mr. Williams re sumed. . • . . Was it not in the month of November) 1817, you quitted the service of the Princess?—Yes. . • Did you not know - at - that time all •y ou have stated to-day ? —Yes. SinCe the time you quitted the service of the Princess, have you not represented her character to besof a high description ?. —I do not recollect. ,• - Will - you swear yorthave not represented yotr,Would sot, render balf your _tile, if she could read; your heart ?—I may have said that, I do not recollect. Did you not say that it she could.-read your -heart she, the .Princess„ would be then convinced of your attachment and af- , fection for her augnst•person ?-1. recollect to have written to. my - sister, hut do not remember what 'said. Will you swear you did not write to that effect to your sister ?—1 have written 'to my -sister. • Will vou swear that you d did not wri!e to that effect wrote several letters to my sister: Did you not write to the effect I mention ?—I wrote sere ral time's; and I have spoken of her_Royal Highness, but do not know the - expressions. But the efte,ct?—l have written .to my sister in that sense —tot hat effect., • Will you swear. that you did not. say,.". Oh-God '.' I would give half my life if the Princess Could read my heart?"--I may have used them. .. • That• was some time after. you were discharged?—Not long after, . . . • Has she not written to her sister that she had enumerated .in the great. circles, with enthusiasm, of rare talents,,mild - -. ness, charity; and all the perfections of her Royal Highness? —I do not recollect tho,e precise expressions; but I have. ; spoken of the way in which the Princess behaved to me- Have you not used the actual expressions do not re collect ; but I have written to thiit effect. You will not swear t hat you 'did not use them ? —No.. But to the effect ?,--Yes. • • Have yin not said that you "had seen your hearers affect eel, and heard them exclaim, the world was unjust in speak ing ill of one who deserved .it so little, and who is so worthy of being happy ?—1 do not remember the expressions. But have you not written. to that .effect several Will you swear you did not use the expressions ?—No. 'You kept a journal, did you not Do you remember writing to your sister, "You can't think what a noise, my sister, my Journal has made?"-1, wrote se veral times,' but I cannot recollect what. Did you not use. the words I. mentioned? —I. do not re collect. Will you swear not You said every tote had read your Journal, and that -M. Caulisez wished to take it to Lausanne, where all the English who were there wished to see it 1-1 cannot recollect., But did you not write to your sister to that elfect ?—I do not recollect. is impossible ,for me to recollect the expressions. But the effect ?—I cannot swear that of which I am not perfectly sure. Did you not show that Journal to Madame Caulisez?— Yes, but I cio. not know whether it was before or' after my ret n. But has •she' not teal it ?—She bas; but I do not know whether it scat before or after my return. Have you written to the following effect, to your sister, of her Itryyal Highness " 1 have been delighted at seeing the Journal, for you know that I see a great deal of the most amiable Princess in the world." 7-1 do nut recollect these ex pressions. Other paesages from the letter were then read, ascribing to her Royal Highness, all the; graces.ofsensibility„ and describ distinguished reception gi yen ~to her at various places she had witnessed; and the witness was asked—: Do you remember writing to that effect p--1 'remember often writing to my sister, and speaking of her Royal High ness. • And to that effect ?—I do* not recollect that it was to that effect. . Have you any doubt on the subject you swear that you did not write to that effect?—l will not swear that I have not done so, lieOirse I 'do riot recollect. • Didion not write to your sister--" - You know when the Princess is the subject I 811 i not barren ; consequently my, journal is embellished with the effusions of lay heart, as I ant desirous that the-Princess should ,appear what she really is, and that full justice-should be rendered to ,her.". . Did -You write to this effect might have done so, but•l don't recollect. I will 'not swear, fur lam not rpm's; might write so; for I was' attached to - the- Princess at that time. lam riot sure of it. • Will You swear you did not use the expressions ?-1 . cannot swear. Have you any doubt ?—l.do not recollect I made use of them I wrote frequently to my sister. I do nut remember the expreSiion. Have you not represented your money was beginning to fall slilirt do nut know; I never w'auted money. Have you' not written to your sister, that you wantvl mo ney ?—I may have said it, but I was nes* in wait of money. Have you not told' your sister, Lat she should economize and retrench every supedoity ? 7 —l said she ought to ecu notnize as she had fortune. Have 'you' not said, "'DO von know the pain I feel (Or - not hatin.4++fdo nut recollect whether I wrote thus; - I never wanted money. Did you add, " 140 not think I ever was extravagant, but I havelint - denied' myself many things which were almost useless ?"—How can you wiz h me to recollect what I bare written? . When you have spoken to the House of a double entendre, did you not write to your sister to the following. effect " I have almost forgot toconfide to you what will surprise you as much as it did me. On the 24th of last month I was taking refreshment at my annt Claro's, when I was informed that all unknown person wanted to deliser a letter to me, and Y . would not trust it to any one else. I went down stairs to bil l ' • and desired him to walk into my room , w hen j ud g e my asto nishment on breaking the seal, when I founthit containfa 4 proposition that I should set off immediately for London 00 the pretext of being a Governess, and piknitised me high Ftf e tec4kti" and a b&illiant fortune.in• , a very short time. 1 1 , letter was•withßt sigstatureXut.lo assure ruc of the truth. o ifscontenfst.,Lwas informed that I Night immsaiately dray un t A,BZrkerit" much moneyths I ivistied - ."• The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had been nnwillini to interpose any objection' to'llte 'coarse of pro ceeding adopted by his Learned Friend, but whe o he proceeded to ask questions on the contents of a long letter, he apprehended that he - had $ right to, interfere. The proper way would 4 0 put it into the witness's hand and ask - if she - nd# witted it to be her hanct-writing, but till she had adinitted the letter to be ber's he' was n° t at liberty to examine•her as to its contents. 'Mr. WILLIAMS contended• the course . that, had taken was 'perfectly in order. He 'cross-examination, argue• that, in'cross-examination, he had the Same right to 'prove :a contradiction ill writing, to shake the credit of a Iv itness, that be' had to prove a contradiction in what had beell' state,d in evidence. The.LOnn CHANCELLOR - thoughtit -would ks, tight, that the ,witness should withdraw. The witness then withdrew. Mr: WILLIAMS pursued his argument at cons-` derable length-. lie called on their Lordships t° judge by analogy, from what took. place ,in the Courts below, and not to decide merely on the statements of Counsel on , recollection, wil° might be expected to take that view of. the subject which best suited their .purpose. Oe then referred to a Nisi Prius case tried before Lord Kenyon iu 1802, in . .which the Counse l .for. the' defendant was about to examine a wit'. ness on the subject of what . he hail previously` sworn in an affidavit. Lord. Kenyon then interposed and inquired if the defendant had the affidavit. or an oflice-copy of it, which he held to be tie' cessary, before the 'witness could be examine d on the subject of its contents. The a,ffida , 4it via* not at .hand, and the plaintiff had a Nerdict.--A This, lie thought, made it clear; that if this af' 'fidavit had been produced, the Counsel! might have asked the witness all the questions that 1 0 was desirous of *putting. :But the affidavit 11 0 being there, to 'examine On it 'Would have beal Waste 'of time. • Why ?„ Because the Learn e Counsel had no means ,of givim, - evidence on th e `.' subject of its contents, such as. the Conit could' receive. The AttorneyrGeneral,,'assurning thst, he had the letter,- and that its contents wef' true,. contendedAhat he had no right tolexard o ' . on it till he - had -Put it' , into the witness's bawl and obtained froin her , admission" cif. it,. Wl' 'with a witness pOsSessea of the acnteness of.tb e i , person now untler.exarnivation, to do .alat woll l°. 'be as useless as to pia into' her hand 'a: :Nisi Prito Report.. - He, chew ed that '.a decision similar 'that for which , he contended had beam tomeio a Nisi•PriusCOUrt at the 'last yori Assizes, fOre-Mr. Justice -Bailey. lie,. however, did 1 0 ..1 consider the objection the Attorney-Gene r !; to :be . : captious; far froM it, . for Ate kneW Learned Friend`was now ghting:::pro Iris et Pc' s ' He- held . it t,o' be a sensible objection, but he < 11 ; sidered tha t t he bad even the authority of *Law. Officers of the Crown in , favour of the Course he was" taking, as' they ,ha 4 allowed_ to pursue it for two hours by the wittn, offering any - opposition-to it, and file now app o ed to their Lordships if he . tnight' not perseve le l . for a short time now, in that course which be been allowed to take for a long tit De before NOP out objection. Mr. BROUGHAM sustained-the strgument of - Learned Friend, by Minutely describing the eta cumstances under which the decistrion referred at the last York Assizes had been given. , The ATTORNEY-GENERAL 601 itght. he. rai-t i dismiss the argument on the Nisi Prius case, reminding, their Lordships of wha , t' his Lea r l' e d, Friend (Mr. Williams) had ,sait l l of cases 411 9 t i, on recollection : that the Counsel who br ol To , theni forward were apt to take that. - view of i ll which suited their own purpose....lt :was his auto in the present. case,. to see that the exgrnivat i l, were conducted according to the revs a t r Upon. in the ordinary Courts of Justice. ic t maintained that before the examination proceed, the letter ought to be p.ut into the ), ness's hand, for the purpose .or , obtain' fog at“:if mission or.a, del - dal - of its being in the witrt ew- oer hand-writing. That letter might be a truse n t but their .Lordships had no right to k P 01( 4 %4 thing of it but from the letter itself. Ile "to' obliged to his Learned Friend:for ref orri.' 3 ; - 0 0.- the Nisi Prius case tried before • Lord , ell o p In that case it 'was said the affidavit or aiL o r. 'lice copy'of it must he produced. That :: 10 %hlr the purpose of its being read preparator t ° l for witness being examined on it; and there 1 1 1 r decision come to With respect to it, mad ‘v I}}ot: your of his objection instead of against it. he had not interfered before, was no reas Pe lla l l i e he shoUld not -make his objection now, l'l the must therefore submit to their Lordships, t h` ht 0 ,0 course which his Learned Friend had tak 9 3 irregular and illegal. be 6t , Lord ERSKINE - was of opinion, that ti -- lc and proper Mode of examination was, to ?f ° ' her the letter; and ask the witness whether it li c ' D oT hand-writing or . not. Ifshe denies it, or 41 ' 3 ' 1 01 6 then other persons should. be called to pr a 9 0..1" fact. He thought there Would' be danger lowing any cither courie. Witness might hi lifi:tteri of the contents, and - admit that she had ; 1 '4 1 5 De' something to•that effect ; but afterwards,ol that ing produced, she might deny having writ 10 letter. he rolf The Lorin CHAScEaor. thought, if t " t teo'; of evidence bad not i been-altered since he n ot ilLfr ed the Courts'in which viva voce eviden 111' 'l l be received,. the course.to be pursue ) ,t view of shaking the 'credit of , a witness tll' the first instance, to obtain an. admisE ,Livitoels^ such or such words had been •USed by th , %` to 11 01 ‘ The same .rule held good with r espec thing that might' have been stated i ll ^ j : e ocl e ;; In such case, the, letter or paper,he,apr, - I r 7 c a `` a f i o , must be shewn to the witness, and a': r t i o u is or no" whether that letter or superscr +1 ti in hi s 'fight 1 qPdit st rove L e aefe submi t li t the a tette, 4 Peet `'ere Then. t(bUli . t °Pci tho , a it s dou