The Sun.
London, England, 1851-11-19 00:00:00

Mr. Lee—l appeal to your Honour in reply to
your observations.
interruptingheheardAilnr.reLpleye);
IT hbegeCyone cue:
pardon,isst oNeny (again
onshall
not
I beg you will sit down. Mr. Lee resumed his seat.
[The following has been handed to us by Mr.
Charles Lee, the official assignee, as the remarks he
intended to make when he was ordered by the Com-
missioner to sit down :—I am desirous of explaining
to the profession and the public my position in the
matter nowibefore the Court. So impbrtant is the
office I have the honour to hold considered by the
Legislature to be, that clauses in the Act of Parlia•
ment, and rules and orders, have been specially
framed for the guidance of the official assignees in the
discharge of their responsible duties. In strict ac-
cordance then with these rules and orders, I made out
end sent a debtor and creditor account to the solicitor
to the assignees. I paid the percentage to the chief
registrar's account, and the audit paper was in every
respect complete and ready at the meeting of the 7th.
That paper was examined, approved, and signed as
correct, by the solicitor to the assignees, the vouchers
were ticketed by the registrar, and I was sworn to
it, as is the usual practice in this court. I submit
most respectfully that it was the bounden duty of
your Honour to have passed that audit on the 7th;
and if the creditors are prevented for the present from
receiving their dividends, it is from no &lilt or neg-
lect of mine, but with your Honour will the respon-
sibility rest.]
The Coetens.siorien having explained to Mr. Heelis
the letters which he had placed on the various papers
which he was about to forwoarfbdeHbtoareitnhgefieni Lords Justices,
k Mr. Ileelizieunpsteaheeiersdi,opirttuhracwptislwas satisfactory to him to
now that this letter corresponded with that of the
papers which he had sent to London on the previous
thebeforeeyenninr evening,
hmefs
to the
the Commissioner and
re-
presented, to have the matter brought point as
expeditiously as might be, gt
satisfaction
wt ht 1 le
ote, m
both matter
at
undertte
to
and to a
on the previous even-
ing, therefore, he had sent the papers to London.
The COMMISSIONER said that jar, Heelis had done
quite right; and if there was an thing else which he
might wish to have, he (the I
gentleman
Commissioner) would
have great pleasure in furnishing_him with it, and do-
ing all he could to facilitate the settlement of the
question.
The matter then dropped.--Ma
nchester Gum.'
TH"

_E NEW LAW OF EVIDENCE.
It is only a fortnight since the Act of Parliament
icr admitting the evidence of parties in civil
suits has
come into operation, and though the time has been
too short and the number of cases tried too small to
admit of any very satisfactory inferences as to its
probable working, we rally at any rate conclude that
this law is destined to exercise, for good or for evil,
a most important influence on the future administra-
tion of justice in this country. Hardly an action leas
been tried in which one or both of the parties have
not been examined, and the summings up of judges
and verdicts of juries clearly show that the testimony
of the parties has a tendency to throw into the shade
the evidence of all other witnesses, to bring out the
points in dispute with the greatest clearness and pre-
cision, and to concentrate attention on the conflicting
statements of those best informed and most interested,
instead of suffering it to wander over the evidence of
a large number of less completely informed persons.
The problem which the jury have to solve is made
eitupler and more comprehensible by being thus con-
tracted into a smaller compass, though the decision
may be more painful and the responsibility more
heavy. Having carefully watched every case to
which the new law has been applied, we are bound to
say that we can find no instance in which the jury
seem to have been misled in their estimate of the re-
lative weight of testimony or been drawn into a
faulty conclusion by the artful misstatement of
parties. The interest of such witnesses is admitted
and allowed for, and their conflicting statements have
as yet presented no question which the common
sense of our national tribunal has been unable to
solve. In one respect, however, it is probable that
the first working of the Act may have disappointed
some of its more sanguine advocates. it cannot be
doubted that the amount of perjury already com-
mitted under it has been considerable, and two
learned judges have with great propriety directed
prosecutions against two plaintiffs for statements
flatly contradicted by the respective defendants and
their witnesses, and disbelieved by the juries who
tried the case. We have little doubt that if this
virzorous method of treating such delinquents be per-
severed in the evil will be speedily abated, and that
by discharging themselves the office of public prose-
cutor the judges will effectually put down this odious
crime. Hitherto punishment of witnesses for perjury
nos in a great measure been left to the discretion of
private prosecutors, who have often used this power
rather as a means of extorting terms from an adver-
eery than of furthering the ends of public justice.
We trust that judges will awake to the necessity of
guarding the purity of our courts, by taking upon
themselves the responsibility of sending before juries
any cases in which they may be satisfied that perjury
has been committed ; and it will not be the least
among the benefits of the new Act if it shall be the
means of initiating so desirable a practice.
As regards the cases of perjury in question, we
neither consider them as impeaching the policy of the
Act, nor are we surprised at their occurrence. It is
the business of a Court of Justice to neglect no
honourable or reasonable means of ascertaining the
truth, and all rules of evidence which prevent its
having recourse to such means are so many bulwarks
to the wrongdoer and oppressor. But it is no part of
the duty of a Court to avoid leading persons into
temptation ; nay, it must prosecute every investiga-
tion of importance with a fall knowledge that by
its inquiries it is holding out strong inducements to
perjury, to forgery and subornation. Such things,
unhappily,must be; but rights must not be with-
held nor wrongs unredressed because there are men
whose consciences cannot pass through the searching
ordeal with impunity. Abusus non tollit usum. A
contrary doctrine would, if carried out logically, de-
stroy the possibility of proof, and, in order to spare
the irresolute villain from temptation, would give full
impunity to every species of fraud and violence.
Perjury may be committed by ordinary wit-
nesses as well as by parties, and the danger of its
occurrence is compensated by a far better in-
sight into the merits in the latter case than in the
former. When it was shown that juries are con-
stantly deceived by these false statements, we admit
that something will have been Made out against the
law, but so long as they do not deceive, but only bring
down punishment on those who make them, they
rather serve to show the excellence of a system which
is able to unveil and counteract such resolute attempts
at delusion.
We have said we are not surprised at the perjury
that has occurred, because we sincerely believe that
the present system of pleading in our courts in addi-
tion to all the other defects, has tendered to lower the
morality of litigant parties, and to introduce a sys-
tem of solemn and authorized falsehood. It is, and
always: has been, in the power of a plaintiff to place
on the tiles of our courts of law and equity statements
under the name of declaration or bill which may be
utterly false, for the falsehood of which he is subject to
no punishment or disgrace, which necessarily entail on
his antagonist considerable expense, and by virtue
of which Ile may succeed in the suit should the
ali defendantnkde dmec,
manner
ractioetml
deliberately
is
allowed
commit
state
teemd
ai
sattoamkaetnhyei nfthl
fsieesiel enfeatudscionelgse . In
mnly
s he
pp
ul ena
sehs
i.anntd,
butf or thise tuma al
yl p
ar malpracticea
reward
e is
thnet shalpe of
delay and vexation to the plaintiff. It is hardly to
expectedalse thatsshould be
e ucourts
ablewhicha
lat
l tolerateonee pleadings ut-
tbtie rly false
to whom this scandalous license
dacity has been granted evidence entirely true. To
allow, and even encourage, parties to make false state-
ments before the trial, and then to punish them for
supporting the statements at the trial by their oath,
is to tempt men to crime by the bait of impunity in
the first instance. It is no long step from telling a
sb toaofi nn from
eon n
lie to swearing to it. The remedy for this is clearlyh
to require o
equf i r
tehteh that
parties
es pleadingsbefo rethy sheoucladhbiemvrerifieivdedby,
andnt
inducements
not by tolerating falsehood to hold out uceme
to perjury.
thethe
theAinnoe
Another cause
criminal prevalence l
law.
. perjuryA
pa r
tiys
wilfully, and corruptly, and yet if
may swear falsely,
technically termed " ma-
his evidence be not what is
ion involved in much technicality. ; this IS the
te ofo
f
leastt of the evil. Such a doctrine really preaches
feria]," he cannot be convicted. Thusbis
tthepro.secu-
the most scandalous immorality. It tells the witness
that the law sees no objection to the violation of the
obligation of an oath, however wilful, however ma-
licious, however calculated to influence the result,
provided such false swearing does not come within
certain technical rules. Who can expect a high tone
of veracity in witnesses when the law itself thus
preaches impunity to crime ? Abolish the absurd
and most immoral distinction. and punish all wilful
and corrupt false swearing alike. Something should
also be done to make punishment more prompt. Why,
when the judge is satisfied that perjury has been
committed, should he not have the power, after the
verdict in the civil case has been given, of calling upon
the witness for his defence, and leaving the question
of his guilt to the jury which has heard the perjury
committed, s that punishment may immediately
follow the transgression ? Such a power would
forcibly remind men of the responsibility under which
they speak, and, if discreetly exercised, would tend to
sweep away much of the corruption which our faulty
prosecution has engendered.—
system of pleading and
, Times.

HULL, Nov. 17.—The Vesta, from Newcastle to
Hamburg)), foundered at the mouth of the Humber last
night; crew caved.