The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-26 00:00:00

imposed upon parties what it is unreasonable for them
to do, it would be right that the equitable jurisdiction
should be, in that respect, abridged ; but we know not
any one branch of that jurisdiction, which is not ab-
solutely essential to the purposes of justice. The plain-
tiff; for instance, has a right to the defendant's- answer
upon oath, to all the matters which constitute the subject
of dispute. The defendant, however, refuses to answer.
What is to be done ? Is the plaintiff to be deprived of his
right by the obstinacy of a defendant ? Or, out of regard to
this obstinacy, is the whole principle.of the law to be alter-
ed ? And is anew doctrine to be introduced, that a defend-
ant need not answer, except he pleases ? To delay giving
an answer is often of immense importance to a defendant.
An executor or trustee has in his hands trust property to a
large amount, which he is employing in his own trade,
and, for his own profit, exposing to risk. lie knows that
if he puts in an answer he must either commit perjury or
state the amoinif of the funds which he so retains in his
possession ; and that, if he state their amount, he will be
ordered immediately to pay the sum into Court. To de-
fer, therefore, tho day of retribution as long as he can, he
will not put in an answer till he is compelled by the dread
of the process of the Court. Take away that process, and
justice would be left in a _ state of 'the most contemptible
weakness. But it is said, that " any man who pleases to
file a bill against a person in obscure life and humble' cir-
cumstances, may get him incarcerated on pretence of his
refusing to answer, when his only offence may have been
a perfect ignorance of the forms of equity, or an inability to
pay the enormous expense of getting an,attorney to prepare
and put in an answer to the false allegations of his persecu-
tor.' We can conceive no means of making it impossible for
a rich wicked man to harass s poor man in a Court of Equity,
or in any other Court : for the former has, in a legal proceed-
, ing, money; and, consequently, the same advantages over the
latter that he would possess in any other transaction: But
this is a possible evil inseparahle from the co-existence of
poverty and riches : it springs from the nature of man ;
and it is in vain to expect that any human institution can
guard. completely against it. An innocent man may be
punished. Are penal laws, therefore, to be abolished ? A
Court of Equity cannot render it impossible for the opu-
lent to vex the poor With .Oppreisive litigation ' • but it
affords them no advantages for that purpose. lle who files
a vexatious bill against a rich man is' sure to pay dearly for
the experiment; he who files such a bill against a poor
man must be actuated by a wanton lore of mischief, and
will be brought to a severe account, the moment that his
conduct is developed to the Court. In matters of this
kind, it is mere waste of words to talk about possibilities.
Let us look, - not to what may happen, but to what does
happen. The rule has hitherto been, that rich and poor
are the same in the view of a Court of Justice ; that a
poor man must answer a bill as well as a rich man; and
that the former, if he neither answers the bill, nor assigns
a satisfactory reason for his omission, is amenable to the
same process as the latter. Where . are the instances in
which this rule has been abused? And even if it had been
perverted in hundreds of instances, what inference could
thence be drawn against the rule itself? Not a year
passes in which juries do not return scores of verdicts
contrary to the truth. Would any man in his senses pro-
pose, on that account, to abolish trial by Jury ?—New
Times.