The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-12 00:00:00

LAW OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL.

Lord BROUGHAM moved the second reading of
the Bill to amend the law of evidence. This Bill pro-
posed to admit parties interested in the cause to give
evidence in civil cases. It had been decided by the
courts
,of law that a party was excluded from giving evi-
dence only by having an interest in the event of the suit;
that point had been settled by the decision of the Court
of Common Pleas, when presided over by Chief
Justice Tindal, in the case of Worrell v. Jones. Since
then the evidence of persons having an interest was
admitted under the provisions of Lord Denman's Act,
passed in 1843. The Bill which he now proposed was
merely a corollary of Lord Denman's Act; since that
Act had poked the County Courts Act had passed, and in
every cause tried under that Act the parties to the suit
were examined, and in the majority of instances they
had been examined. He proposed to extend this provi-
sion to all cases. It had been said that this provision
would be an encouragement to perjury—(Hear, hear)
—but the refusal of such an enactment was
a temptation to subornation of perjury, and there were
not a few reasons to show that witnesses tendered by
parties were much more likely to commit perjury than
the parties themselves. No one could be better acquainted
with the case than the parties themselves, and under
cross-examination the perjury of such persons was much
more likely to be discovered than that of a suborned
witness. Again, how many persons were there who
would have a scruple at foreswearing themselves who
would not scruple to suborn others. Again, how often
did not partial witnesses give a colour to transactions
who would not commit the foul crime of perjury.
Again, the man who committed perjury in support of his
own case would make much greater shipwreck of his
character than the man who should give exaggerated
evidence as a zealous partizan. But those who opposed
the principle seemed to forget in how many instances
they already admitted the testimony of parties, both in
affidavits before a court of common law, end in answers
to interrogatories in the Court of Chancery. Ia both
these cases there was far more real danger of false
swearing than in viva voce examinations, and be-
sides there was sure to be concealment of truth—almost
as great a moral crime; for the party swearing was not
sworn to tell " the whole truth," but only that what he
swore was the truth. He considered that it depended
on the principle of the form of the proceeding whether
it was right that the litigant parties should be examined.
Should an action for assault or battery be brought into a
civil court for damages, the plaintiff is not at present ad-
mitted as evidence, whereas, if he happens to be de-
feated in the one court, he can have recourse to the cri-
minal court, and then he alone can give evidence, as the
Crown is the prosecutor; and thus the plaintiff may, on
his own testimony, convict his adversary. He did not
mean that a system that is irreconcileable with one
court should be admitted in another. He should now
refer to the testimony of some very eminent and ex-
perienced men in favour of his opinions. Mr. Ad-
dison who was a judge in the county courts in the north
of Lancashire, a gentleman of some nine or ten years'
experience in those courts, gave it as his testimony, that
there was no apprehension of perjury taking place, and
that it was wrong that an examination of the parties on
the grounds of perjury should take place, as such did not
often occur. He (Mr. Addison) gave several cases dur-
ing his experience, when the defendants did not plead a
denial on oath, and that out of 64 cases, consisting only
of the plaintiff and defendant, that came under his in-
vestigation, 27 were decided in favour of the defendant,
and 37 fur the plaintiff, and such did not occur through
the examination of the parties. Mr. Dowling, chairman
of the county courts, for forming a system for them; Mr.
Childers, another chairman of county courts, and Mr.
Gale, county courts judge of Hampshire; Professor Amos,
of the University of Cambridge, who had been for many
years the Recorder of Oxford, and afterwards of Cam-
bridge, a gentleman distinguished alike for his eru-
dition and legal acumen; all these distinguished lawyers
were strongly in favour of such a mode of proceeding.
He did not think that he need go further, any more
thanthat he thought it unjust and unfair that in the
case of a difference between merchants or other em-
ployers, the proprietor, as plaintiff, would not be per-
mitted,,though his evidence might be most potent in fur-
thering the ends of justice, whilst his servants and others
who could not clearly elucidate the case, were admitted
as evidence, very frequently to the prejudice of their
masters. Ile considered that it would be most invaluable
to admit the testimony of the masters. Now he would
ask, was it not equally right that such plaintiffs should
be heard in the high courts as well as in the county
courts, for he believed that there would be greater secu-
rity in the supreme courts, as the case would be tried
before a jury and an experienced judge, who would di-
rect, instruct, and superintend the jury in cases of diffi-
culty, and he felt assured that there would be no appre-
hension of perjury or bribery before such a tribunal. He
would add that it was much more probable that perjury
would take place in the county courts than in the su-
preme courts. He then moved the second reading.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had no ob-
jection to the second reading of the Bill, but he should
say that he considered that those who knew most of the
proceedings of the supreme courts were the fittest persons
to examine all matters appertaining to such proceedings.
He should say, from his experience, that the Adminis-
tration of justice would be best promoted and facilitated
by the parties being examined.—(Cries of "Hear, hear.")
He looked upon the judges of Westminster-hall as the
most suitable persons to entertain those proceedings, and
not the judges of the county courts, who were not so ca-
pable fur the examination of the litigant parties. He
also thought that it would be judicious that each side
should put interrogatories to the adversary, for fre-
quently the most able counsel would influence a jury;
and, in addition to that, a false witness often deceives a
jury by the manner he details his testimony. He be-
lieved that the Legislature had taken a long stride in
favonr of the Bill. There was another matter which he
looked upon as a very important one, and that was, that
by the present Bill the wife could be coerced to come into
court to give evidence against her husband. Such a
course he looked upon as very unjust, because by it do-
mestic confidence would be risked to a very great extent.
He hoped that their Lordships would not support that
clause of the Bill, and he intended vghon the Bill went
into committee to move the rejection of that clause.
Lord BROUGHAM said that he did not see why the
wife should not be brought into the higher courts as
well as in the county courts, where the wife could
be brought witness against the husband for a sum
under 50/.

Lord CAMPBELL said that ho wished to see the
maxim always upheld, namely, that the wife should Lot
be examined against the husband. As it was in clramon
law so should it be in Chancery. It was a disgrace to
the administration of justice that parties should now go
to the Court of Chancery in quest of having their
claims sanctioned, while before that could be done they
were sent back to the courts of equity, and had to go
through an interminable course of litigation, so that in
many cases years rolled on before their case was decided.
He considered that the measure now proposed was a
movement in the right direction, and, while he objected
to some of its details, he must give his support to the
second reading of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord CR ANWORTH also supported the second
reading of the Bill, and confessed that, in his opinion,
Jeremy Bentham was right when ho said that, were
the wife examined in cases affecting her husband, in
five cases out of six no other witnesses would be re-
quired.
After a few words from Lord BROUGHAM, the Bill
was read a second time.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COALIIONS, April 11.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The followinc, Bills were read a third time and passed:
Argerstein'sbßranch Railway.
Bristol and Exeter Railway.
Commercial Docks Improvemont.
Wiveliscjmbe Turnpike Road.
PETITIONS.

Mr. CAYLEY presented several petitions from dif-
ferent places in Yorkshire, complaining of the malt-tax
and other imposts on the agricultural interest.
Mr. B. WALL presented a petition from several
tradesmen in different parts of the metropolis against
the Sunday Trading Bill.
A great number of petitions were presented against
the Papal aggression.

• OYAL ASSENT.
Mr. Pulman, the Deputy- Usher of the Black Rod, ap-
peared at the bur of the House, and summoned the
Speaker to attend in the House of Lords to hear the
Royal assent given to certaiu 'Bills (for which see
Lords' report).
The SPEAKER returned, and the House resumed.
Mr. ROEBUCK presented petitions from Sheffield, for
and against the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill.
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from St. Luke's,
praying for the repeal of wiadow duties and iIaCQUIC•ifiX.