The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1807-06-06 00:00:00

CHURCH R. •ARCLAT.

This was an argument upon a Demurrer. The
Plaintiff filed his bill in this Court against the De-
fendant, a quaker banker, praying a discovery of
evidence, and relief Against a verdia obtained
against him in an action of Ejeftntent, tried in Cam-
bridgeshire. in which he claimed certain premises,
called Cambridge Heath, as a freehold. The bill
charged, that the Defendant bad obtained a verdict
on the trial, by fraud, in gross and criminal, as
amounted to forgery, perjury, and subornation of
perjury, as Mr. Hart, one of the Defendant's
Counsel, contended the charges of the bill amount-
ed to ; he therefore trusted the Court would not
interpose its authority in a case stated :o be so fla-
grant, as amounted to incredibilt!yr
Mr HA RT contended, that if his client had Iwo-
cured false or fotred deeds, and evidence at the
trial, it was a crime at common law, and there pu-
nishable only. That if the Steward of the Manor
had produced. on the trial, a forged copy of a
Court Roll, to chew that the premises were not free-
hold, but copyhold, which could not be recovered
by ejeßmenr, th-a Steward was suhjeft to an in-
diftment at law, and that the proper mode for the
Plaintiff to proceed, was by a motion for a new
trial in a Court of Common Law ; he contended,
that it was not the praftice of the Court to interfere
with other jurisdictions, as appeared in the case of
Johnson, the bankrupt, a few days ago, where the
Court refuse:l4o interpose in his arrest during his at-
tendance on the Commissioners. It was contended,
likewise, for the Defendant, that this was not like
the case of an unfair verchet, obtained under an
issue dire fled from this Court, where it will always
grant relief; and in some cases even against the
most fair and impartial verdift. if a party injured
shall discover material evidence,. subsequent to the
trial ; as where a party found the receipt of his ad-
versary for the identical demand recovered against
him, by the verdiet, or books containing a clear ac-
count of such payment. It Teas finally submitted
to the Court, that the eminent attorneys, Messrs.
Lockart and Smith, concerned for the Defendant in
this cause, would not lend their names to any unfair
proceeding.
The LORD CH AsceLcnte stated, that the bill con-
tained sufficient matter of equity for relief and dis,
covery, although, on his first perusal of it he bad
a doubt ; and even if it had not contained such
matter, he would grant liberty to amend it, in a
case where it appeared that forged and false evi-
dence was procured to pass a copyhold upon the
Judge and Jury instead of a. freehold, to the injury
of the Plaintiff, who not only suffered, by the Ter-
did agrinstliim, the loss of the land in question,
but likewise damages in an aflion for the mean
rates: under another instance of the same fraud,
it appeased. that different lands were desig-
nated by the evidence thus procured. from the
lands comprised in th• declaration of ejectment.
It was clear, said the Chaneeller, that the charges
in the hareem true, as the Defend int had demurred
to. instead answering it t the demurrer admitting
the fads demurred to be true. The Defendant
did not appear at first to support his demurrer. but,
by favour of the Court. was let in to re-argne it.
Hie Lordiddip dissdiewird tfre simustrrer. area &roared
the Rill to bk answered.