The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-24 00:00:00

the case could net he taken that day, as the plain-
tiff and some of his witnesses had gone away, but that the
plaintiff was quite willing to try the case on the
d fofellowinan
ndg
day, if the defendant would consent. e et
The
would only consent to this upon condition of having his
costs paid to him. The plaintiff refused to accede to this
demand. The case was tried at the following sittings: whveli
the present defendant was called as a witness. His ei-
dence was most material, and a verdict was found for
.the
plaintiff for 4001. The plaintiff took no proceedings against
the witness for the expenses caused by his neglecting to ap-
pear, but the defendant in the first action, the father of the
witness, demanded payment of the costs of the day
for the
to
record having been withdrawn, which costs were paid
him, and amounted to 271. An action was then brought
against the witness for his non-appearance pursuant to
his subpwna, and the demand claimed consisted of the
271. paid to the opposite party for costs of
the
day, together with the costs of the
plaintiff
sing
out of the record being withdrawn. The particulars
of the demand, consisting of the expenses of the wanes!,
the conduct money, refreshers to counsel, &c., were dFli
vered to the defendant, and the defence and insinuation
against Mr. Robson and his client was, that the record had
in truth been withdrawn, not because the witness was not
present, but because the plaintiff was not ready to proceed,
and that this was a fraudulent attempt to saddle the wit-
ness with costs of the day, when the withdrawal of the
record arose from considerations of his own convenience,
and would have happened whether the witness was there or
not. It was also attempted to be stated that in truth the
witness had arrived before the record was withdrawn : se
that there was in the affidavit an insinuation as if Robson
had got the record withdrawn after the witness had arrived.
The evidence of Mr. Robson went to state that he bad
himself served the witness with a subpoena; that a conversa-
tion occurred between the witness and him, in which the
witness, in answer to a question put to him, informed Mr.
Robson that ho had been subpcened on the other side,
and that he had received a guinea with his subpsene;
on which Robson said that as he (witness) had received a
guinea in the case, he would not require another, and the
witness said, " Certainly not." Mr. Robson thereupon
gave the witness a shilling, and they separated. When the
defendant found that the objection to the withdrawal
of the record could not be supported, he then objected
that a shilling with the subpoena was not a reasonable
sum for the expenses of his attendance. The witness lived
at Camberwell. Robson was examined with very con-
siderable severity with regard to the conversation he deposed
to. He was also cross-examined as to the payment of the
conduct money to the witnesses. The action was described
as a pettifogging action, and Mr. Robson was described as
a most unworthy person for bringing such an action, and
the want of a substantial defence, as was often the case,
was made up for by invective and iiiiinperation against the
attorney. The action was one as properly brought and
conducted as any that had ever appeared in a court of
justice, It was stated on the part of the defendant
that the evidence of the witness Robson with respect
to the conversation • between him and the defendant
t
was altogether a fabrication ; that Robson came i
court not having intended to give evidence of ant
such conversation with the defendant, in which the de-
fendant stated that he received a guinea conduct money ;
but that it arose altogether from his (Robson's) ingenuity
and wickedness, in consequence of the Chief Justice ar
pearing to think that the shilling with the subpoena was net,
enough, and that, thereupon, be (Robson) turned round and
gave evidence of the further payment. Ile case thus went
to the Jury, the Lord Chief Justice summed up the 01'
dence, leaving it to the Jury to say whether Robson was
correct or not, aid stating tot if they discredited Robson
in respect to the statements about the conduct money, that
it was for them to consider how far his testimony could be
relied upon with respect to the conversation when ha
subpoenaed the defendant, and if they did not relY
upon the statement of the conversation, the Court vva°
of opinion that the one shilling tender was not suf.
cient, and the defendant would be entitled to a verdict.
It was then left to the jury to decide whether they would
believe the witnesses for the defendant or Mr. Robson. Th°
jury credited Mr. Robson, and found a verdict for the
plaintiff. He was sure he would have the sanction of the
Lord Chief-Justice's experience, that when an attack was
made upon an attorney, the odds generally were againj
him with a ury, as they conceived that an attornoy Per
sessed a considerable advantage from the nature of his pert
r°„"
fession, and a jury was therefore disposed to hold v
strict hand over the conduct of attorneys. This islas
special jury. His Learned Friend Mr. Platt had mado a°
vigorous a speech as had ever been made against an ator.
ney, and yet the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. The
motion now made was to strike Mr. Robson off the rolls on the
ground of those very facts which a Jury bad alseady dislseliev
thed.
to
The Learned Sergeant then proceeded at great leog
refer to the evidence taken upon the former trials, and con-
tended that there was no ground whatever for the present

motion.
Mr. PLATT was called upon to support the rule, and was
followed by Mr. WILSON on the same side.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE ms of opinion that the rule
must be discharged. The rule called upon Mr. Robson,
an officer of this Court, to answer to a very grave and 50
rious accusation, of having obtained money for private and
corrupt purposes, by means of false and fictitious charge°
of payments made in the progress of a cause, and with thin
addition, that, in order to obtain this money, he put in aft'
davits, for the purpose of making out a case before the pro-
thonotary. In proportion as a charge involved serious conse'
quences, it ought to be supported by pregnant and evident
proofs. He was of opinion that in the present case the proof fails
by one infirmity, inasmuch as not a single person was
brought forward to whom payments were imputed to have
been made to deny such payments, though 10 or 11 we°
stated to have received such payments. The very substancs,
and foundation on which the rule was obtained, was that
such evidence should be brought forward. There was n°
such evidence under all the circumstances. The rule must
be discharged with costs.

SHERIFFS' COURT-(THIS DA

At the opening of the Court this morning, the lAcarn7l
Judge (Arabin) addressed the Bar, and said he observe
there was a case of nuisance set down for trial, which Ile
considered himself incompetent to try, as the enquiry ought
be carried before a superior Court. Supposing he was to 11° °eci
the party against whom the verdict went might turn re Übe
and say the Court was incompetent to try ; and hence
other party would be saddled with' heavy costs by a ne
rt,
litigation. Besides if perjury was committed in this Coue?
how could it be assigned so as to bring the party to justic,'
Mr. RYLAND said he appeared for the defendant, an
the plaintiff, who was most likely aware of the irregularitif
did not appear ; hence it would be a bard case upon tb:
former if the cause was struck out : besides, what was
be done with the writ ? • IA
Mr. Sergeant AnAßlN—That I don't know. It is lig
for me to state that I have no authority to try the eaus,„
Mr. RYLAND—I hope the Court will Wonsan the PO
tiff—he will not be damnified by that.
Mr. Sergeant ARABIN—If I have power to nonsul`,.
have power to try. The cause is struck out. It "
well for this decision to be made public.