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

1 Mr. Lee—l appeal to your Honour in reply to
your observations.
(agsabinallinnotetrrbuepbtionargdMinr.reLpelye).
—lTbheegeyoorausat
youipsastidoz
down.s
been Mr.b
aLeende resumed s
tuom euds hisby
Mr. scat.
I bEergbyeoufolwloiwllisni a
gtb
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 theg
matter nowbefore the Court. So important 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
and 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
wire 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 fault or neg-
lect of mine, but with your Honour will the respon-
sibility rest.)
The COMMISSIONER having explained to Mr. Heelis
the letters which he had placed on the various papers
which he was about to forward to the Lords Justices,
r. Heelis said that it was satisfactory to him to
know that this letter corresponded with that of the
papers which be had sent to London on the previous
evening, for the
before the superior
the circumstances '
the Commissioner and urpose of bringing the matter
t court. He felt that,
under
would be a satisfaction both to
to the gentleman whom he re-
presented, to have the
matter brought to a point as
expeditiously as might be, and on the previous even-
ing, therefore, he bad sentpapers to London.
The COMMISSIONER said that Mr. Heelis had done
the
quite right; and if there
was
might wish to have, he (the acnything else which he
obmmissioner) would
have great pleasure in furnishing
ing all be could to facilitate lin with it, and do-
question. the settlement of the
The matter then dropped.—Manchester Guardian.
—..„.__„___
____

L H
NPaCrElia.
It isonlyfortnight Parliament
A since rictof
E NEW P ED
Zor admitting the evidence of parties in civil suits
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 may 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 has
been tried in which one or both o f 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
simpler 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
tense 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
(heir witnesses, and disbelieved by the juries who
tried the case. We have little doubt that if this
vigorous 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
has 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-
.ary 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
rheniselv6s the responsibility of sending before juries
any cases in which they may be satisfied that perjury
hes 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 full 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 usurp. 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 resolutec tt -
a mpts
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 files 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 be may succeed in the suit should the
defendant commit a mistake in his pleading. In
like manner it is allowed to the defendant solemnly
and deliberately to state as many false defences as he
pleases, and for this malpractice there is not only no
punishment, but actually a reward in the shape of
delay and vexation to the plaintiff. It is hardl be expected that courts which tolerate P
lead. yto
. pleadings ut-
terly false should be able all at once to oh In
tam from
the parties to whom this scandalous license of men-
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 ofimpunity in
the first instance. It is no long step from telling a
lie to swearing to it. The remedy for this is clearly
to require that all pleadings should be verified by the
oath of the parties before they can be received, and
not by tolerating falsehood to hold out inducements
to perjury.
Another cause of the prevalence of perjury is
the inefficient state of the criminal law. A party
may swear falsely, wilfully, and corruptly, and yet if
his evidence be not what.isechnically termed " ma-
terial," he cannot be convicted.t Thus is the prosecu-
tion involved in much technicality; but this is the
least of the evil. Such a doctrine really preaches
immorality. It tells the witness
the most scandalous
..
to the violationof the
that the law sees no objection.
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, so 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
i to
sweep away much of the corruption which our faulty
system of pleading and prosecution has engendered.—
Times.

HULL, Nov. 17.—The Vesta, from Newcastle to
liamburgh, foundered at the mouth of the Humber lot
night; crew saved.