Star.
London, England, 1812-11-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
MICIHAELMAS TERM.
Yesterday being the first day of Michaelmas Term,
the several Judges, together with his Honour the
Master of the Rolls, instead of the Lord Chancellor,
entered Westminster Hall in procession, soon after
twelve o'clock ; and after having attended as usual
the Exchequer Chamber, they proceeded to their
particular Courts. The Lord Chancellor was ab-
sent cn account of ill health ; but it is expected that
he will be sufficiently well on Monday next to ena-
ble him to attend in Court.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBERt.
The attention of Mr. Judge BAILEY was occupied
for soma time previously to the arrival of his brother
Judges, in the justification of bail, and in granting
some few motions of course. All the Judges having
arrived, the proper officers presented their periodical
accounts of the state of the convicts at the several
depots fur then about the kingdom. They were read
,apd ordered to be filed.
CHANCERY DEPOSITION% WHETHER EVIDENCE IN LAW ?
CASSENNO V. VAUGHAN.
MT. PARK applied for a Rule, to sheer cause why
:a new trial should not be granted in this case. It
WAS a case respecting insurances, and had been tried
a: the Sitting after last Trinity Term, before my
I•L•ird Ellenborough ; but the ground on which he
tested his application was, that the evidence admit-
ted on that occasion was inadmissible in a Conic of
Law : it would therefore be seen that the question
was strictly one of practice. The case which had
been tried at the Sittings in Guildhall had gone be-
Tore a Jury, in consequence of the directions of the
Lord Chancellor ; anJ the evidence adduced on the
Dial, by the pla:ntiff, consisted of depositions on a
_bill in the Curt of Chancery, to which no answer
had been tiled. Now it bad been held in numerous
. cases, that depositions could not be adduced as evi-
dence in a Ce urt of Law, except an answer to that
,bill had been filed, or in the event of contempt. In
the present case, the individual making the deposi-
, 'ions had not even been cross examined.
Lord ELLENDOROUGII—" Did that fact appear on
the trial ?"
Mr. Panic stated, that it did ; and that the (Wen-
dant had not subsequently had an opportunity of
cross-examining, for the examined had left town the
morning after his examintion. i
Sir W. GARROW begged leave just to state, that it
appeared on the trial that the adverse party had an
opportunity of cross-examining the individual who
I gave evidence by deposition. Notice had been given
to the adverse party that such examination would •
, take place, and that party was invited -to attend, but ,
failed to do so. Copies of the necessary papers were '
at the same.time forwarded to them ; therefore suffi-
cient notice had given themahe opportunity of atten-
ding the examination. , • • , . •
Mr. Panic persisted in his statement, and conten-
ded, that depositions tinder such circumstances could
ant be received in law as evidesice. In support of
this opinion, the Learned Gentleman cited Gilbert's
Law of Evidence, p. 56, where it was laid down,
Jim depositions taken in the Court of Chancery could
not be received in a Court of Law as evidence,
where no answer had been put in, and where there
was no contempt. If the adverse party were in con-
tempt, then the depositions were admissible in a
Court of 1..-i w.
Loud 'ELLEN/3010MM said the question was, whe.
ther the complaining party had an opportunity of
A had been filed to examine,
cruse-examining ? bill
de Lone we, certain witnesses whose evidence was
deemed necessary, they being about to quit the
counts y. All parties, it had appeared, had been ap-;
prized that such an examination was to !eke place.
on the everting of the 15th of May, by copies of the
chief interrogatories being delivered to the adverse
party. On the evening of the 15th the examination.
took place, though there was no cross examination ;
and on the morning of the 16th the examined had
proceeded to Harwich, where he remained till the
20th. Then was there not opportunity ?
Mr. PARK submitted that there was not ; there-
fore did'he contend for the instability of the evidence.
Paulett's case, noted in Sir T. Raymond, also prts.'
red that depositions could be evidence in law, if
there bad been no answer and no contempt. In that'
case they were produced, but rejected. In Howard!
v. Truman, a 'similar opinion was held ; for no de.:
position would there be received, there having been
no answer to the bid. A similar doctrine had also
been held in Piercy v. Piercy, in Sir T. Jones's Re-
ports. The Learned Gentleman therefore submitted,
that to receive evidence, under such circumstances,
was not only against law, but in the very teeth of
many previously-decided CAWS ; besides, to admit
evidence under such circumstances, where no cross-
examination had taken place, would lead to the most
dangerous consequences, considering how these de-
positions were taken.
Lord ELLENBOROGGII observed, that the Court cer-
tainly could not take halt a witftess—that they could
not admit only. one side of the case. If there had not
I been opportunity, certainly the depositions did not
I constitute evidence in law ; but he had received the
1 depositions on the trial, in consequence of having un-
derstood that the adverse party. had the opportunity
of cross-examining.
IMr. Judge BAILEY said, that the words of all the
cases which Mr. Parke had quoted were with his
client ; but the meaning was, that all parties ought to
have a fair opportunity of examining the witnesses,
when their evidence was taken by deposition. If
Mr. PM ke's client had received i fair opportunity of ,
cross-examining, then serious conseyWnces might
result from not allowing the drposi,iuns to be re-
ceived in evidence, although no answer hid been
filed.—The Court granted the Rule Niri. . -,- . •
ROBBERY Ok"IHE RinGtzToN &TAMP» -1' • ' '
Mr. ANDIUSWB moved for a Rule to shevr ,
why a writ of Habeas C.'oryter gir should not bein '
ens*
to bring up a man of the name.Sf Sosephl3irketk'
' now a prisoner in Newgate, into this Court, for tl*
purpose of being bailed. The Learned gains.' stated
that Birkctt was then in custody, on- a charge of
having been concerned in the robbt.ry Of theßright,un
stage coach, on the sth of February 'a'heu notes'
to the amount of 1.3000- were stolen froth it. The
present application was founded on the affidavit' sof
Birkett, his father and mother, and a friend. In his
await he fuUy declared his • innocence, and•
gat in the mutt of MaLeheltabittti time after

own