The Express.
London, England, 1855-01-30 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER -7AL 29.

11111. Lt

11).1110ai Mil LOAD CDII7 LION AND LIONS
PAW. ALDINNON, AND MARTEL
..-........

OSBORN V. TM-3
LONDO N DOCK COMPANY. - AL]

PILLLIDIS IX THN LONDON DOCKS.
Mr. Wilkie, on the part of the defendants, applied for
leave, under the new Common Law Procedure Act, to
exhibit certain interrogatories in this case and r the follow-
ing circumstances. The action was brought in trover and deti-
nue for 27 pipes of port wine. There wee also a count charging
negligence by the defendants, in the way in which they kept
the said wine. In the bourse of the proceedings it appeared
that the plaintiff's claim had reference to certain wines ia
connexion with which it has been recently stated in the
City article of several journals gross frauds had bees com-
mitted by penoas not yet discovered. Although the parties
were not known, yet it was said that there was no doubt
that large quantities of sour wines, which had been pur-
chased at " rummage sales" of the London Dock Com-
pany, had been deposited in the "East Vault" in
their docks, and then that after the lapse of a
considerable time it had been dvered that the
sour wines had by some unknowiscon means disap-
peared, or bad been converted into either " first clue"
or " sound Port," of which latter description there was
usually a great stock kept ia that vault. The supposition
was that some persons by collusion with the servants of the
dock company had abstracted the " good wise," and filled
up the casks with " sour wine." Under these circum-
stances, the plaintiff had brought his action against the
company,who, in answer, had merely pleaded that the wines
declared upon were not the property of the plaintiff, and
upon the present occasion they applied for leave to exhibit no
fewer than 169 interrogatories to the plaintiff, touching the
time, mode, and place of acquisition, of the said wines de-
tited with them, and his alleged participation in the
fraud said to have been subsequently practised upon them.
The attorney for the plaintiff objected to this last plea, in
the first instance inasmuch that such a line of defence went
to impute that the plaintiff had been guilty of felony or
conspiracy, and, further, that various of the interrogato-
ries were eo framed as to lead to the plaintiff criminating
himself if his answers were made in a certain way. The
attorney had obiected to the right of the defendant to call
upon the plaintiff to answer these particular interrogatories.
The point which was now raised was this, whether such an
affidavit from which these grounds of objection were new
sited as that made by as attorney on behalf of a party to a
muse suggesting an imputation of fraud to his client was
' sufficient to prevent the defendants from exhibiting inter-
rogatories under the power contemplated by the late Com-
mon Law Procedure Act. The learned counsel contended
that the defendants were entitled to have the objection
' raised by the plaintiff himself when he was sworn, when,
' if he should elate that the answer he might give would
' or might have the effect or criminating himself, it might
happen that he would not be urged to give the anuses.
What was intended was that the party must himself make
the objection
acli ==, and that upon oath.
Mr. remarked that the remedy was in the
plaintiff's own halo. A statute said that the interrogatories
were to be before him for ten days, and that he must have
that time to prepare his answers. Sorely it was better
then that the plaintiff should 'newer those interrogation
on paper, than have the questions put to him in open court.
If, however, the plaintiff declined, as he might do, to
answer on paper, then it would be for the court to inquire
whether he should be compelled to be sworn and examined
in court when it might be that his bare objection made on
oath would be sufficient to excuse Dim from answering. At
all events he was bound to pledge his oath to his objection,
for the affidavit of his attorney was insufficient. The rule
must therefore be made absolute.
The other learned barons having concurred in this
opinion,
The rule was made absolute accordingly.

RAILWAY AND OTHER
DBRS BILLS ON STANDING
OR.

Yesterday Wore the examiners the followiog bills
were iodated to law esseplied with the standing orders :
latency sad OM Mike= Railway, Dundalk and Bleak-
's* se ' Dania& Harbor sad Port, Wadhunt Roads,
AAA sail leak Halifax Gas Lipht Company,
Walweimptlen New Weser Supply Works, Torquay Mar-
ket sad Taunton Gas, Nottingham and
Lane Hams Oalealsl las Animas&
ROYAL liwastu.—The bill he this measure to
suable be, Nejsetyli Oseembekmass of Lieutenancy for the
IC2lble Leaden teposiase certain bade and houses for
sere mayealeat sad reguisite beedguarton, hos-
pital, sten-hem% sad Mew amommededsa for the Loc-
i= lkyalmeseelegas= el Artillery Company,
was she aware' le have
Wure Seantheur Manntaaltau.way.—ln this saes the
sisalig wises wine Mimed not to be complied with.