The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-15 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BEN CH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)

AN ATTORNEY STRUCK OFF TILE ROLLS.—IN RE
CHARLES MASSEY WOOD V. PORTARLINGTON.
At the sitting of the Court to-day,
Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case. He
sail—On the first day of the present term an appli-
cation was made to the Court to rescind a rule which

was made absolute last term, directing that Charles
Massey, an attorney of this Court, should be struck
off the rolls, for attempting to suborn a person
named Josiah Wallace, to give false evidence in the
case of " Wood v. the Earl of Portarlington. It was
an action to recover two bills of exchange which had
been drawn upon the defendant, and held by the
plaintiff. The Court had looked into the affidavits
on the part of the prosecution, and also into those on
which they were called upon to rescind the rule.
The Court had thought the fact charged proved, and
though much imputation was cast upon the general
character of Wallace in this proceeding, it appeared
to the Court that Mr. Massey had admitted enough
in his own affidavit to convict him of the offence
with which he was charged. The case was tried at
the Summer assizes held at Lewes last year, and
Wallace was to be called to testify to the
handwriting of the defendant. It appeared that
Messrs. Pyne and Richards had been the defendants'
solicitors, and that Mr. Massey had been employed
by the defendants to conduct this matter. Wallace
was their clerk. The deposition drawn up by Massey
stated that Wallace would state that he was present
when the plaintiff Wood admitted that the bills were
given for losses at play, but the words—" Query 51. !"
appeared in pencil in the margin. This the Court
had thought a bribe given to the witness, for the pur-
pose of inducing him to give false testimony, and
expressed its unhesitating opinion that this was his in-
tention. He swore he did not know what caused him
to write the words : he did not even enter into
a conjecture, nor did his counsel offer any plausible
excuse in palliation of it. He, however, swore he
did not mean to give it as a bribe. With this blot on
his conduct—with his memory still at fault, and with
a distinct admission of the falsehood of the evidence,
the Court was now required to reverse its judgment,
and to allow Mr. Massey to practise as an attorney of
that Court. The affidavits of Mr. Pyne, who had
been struck with paralysis, and who had been unable 1

to attend to his Professional duties during the dis-
cussion of the rule, stated that a person calling him-
self Coin, whom he believed to be Wood, called upon
thefonner,and admitted that the money was lost at play.
Subsequently the deponenti recollected that Wallace
was present at two interviews which he had with this
person, and added that Wood afterwards called and
said he should not proceed, as he had admitted some
time before that the bills were given for gambling
considerations, and that he led Mr. Massey to believe

that Wallace knew these facts. Now there was no
proof that the plaintiff had so called, and it was
strange that the particulars of these interviews, and
the admissions made at them, were not recorded, and
if Wallace had been present the Court could not con-
ceive why his name had not been recorded as a wit-
ness. But Mr. Pyne did not even now distinctly
state that Wallace was present. The Court, there-
fore, upon a careful consideration of the whole of the
facts, had come to the conclusion that Mr. Pyne
never gave Mr. Massey such information as that
stated, and that if Mr. Pyne had been persuaded he
did, that he must have fallen into an error. The
affidavits with respect to the character of Mr. Massey
were not important. The respectable persons who
had pronounced that in their opinion Mr. Massey was
incapable of offering a bribe, would, on the other
hand, have no reasonable doubt if his handwriting
was shown to them that it was his. There was
one affidavit which the Court could not [overlook.
It was one by a person named Francis Ray.
nard, stating that one Frederick Fisher had told
him something. The statement was one merely
ay t
h theeo huagr
thought
to
aside
a ch
whenoeua rr st
teetuet that t a formednLd e awran was
dipt
?Cc eoodup
inncsioeomln ps;
hl eotauenllydd,
not make use of such affidavits, except so far as they
strictly related to the subject under debate
, or as a
means of fixing a date. This affidavit would rather
assist than otherwise to strike Mr. Massey off the
rolls, as it averred that some one had told
the defen-
dant that he (Mr. Massey) had offered 204 to a
person to prove the fact he was desirous to prove, but
that he declined it. The Court believed that Mr.
Massey was guilty of the offence imputed to him.
For the penal consequences which might result to
him he was alone to blame, and the Court hoped that
its decision, with respect to him, would act as a
warning to others. They thought that no one
should practise in that Court who had committed such
an act. Those who thought him worthy of their
confidence might employ him in some subordinate '
capacity, but the Court could not allow him to prac-
tise longer in that court, and to rank with honour-
able men. The Learned Chief Justice was

particularly emphatic at the conclusion of
his address. He added, Mr. Massey's name
was not struck off the rolls when the order
was made. We cannot understand why this was so.
We think upon such occasions that the roll ought to
be brought before us, and that the name of the person
should be struck off in our presence.
The name was then struck off the roll by the
Master.

THE QUEEN V. DOUGLAS.
Captain Douglas, the defendant, was found gulty
in this Court sometime ago of receiving money f om
the Raja of Tangore contrary to the statute and his
duty as an officer in the East India Company's
service. He now appeared on the floor of the
Court ; and

The ATTORNEY•GENER.AL (with whom was Sir
F. Thesiger) prayed the judgment of the Court
upon him.
Sir F. linLY moved arrest of judgment on various