The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-06-10 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

LONDON LAW REPORT.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Tuesnavi
NORTON V. LORD MELBOURNE.
On Friday last a rule nisi was granted to show cause why a
• commission should not be granted for the examination of a
witness in Ireland.
The Attorney-General to-day showed cause against the rule.
He observed that a rule had been granted to show cause why a
commission should not be granted to take the deposition of a
• person named William Manse! to be used at the trial. The
learned counsel's ground of opposition was, that in granting the
application a delay might take place in hearing the trial, and,
- further, the witnesses would not be examined viva voce. He
would not then enter into the merits of the case, but in ab-
staining from doing so he hoped he did not depart from his duty
when he said that he was most anxious that the trial should
• take place with as little delay as possible. The application
made by his learned friend on the other side was founded upon
, the 4th section of William IV., cap. 52, whereby it is enacted,
" that it shall be lawful for each of the Courts of Westminster
r to order witnesses to be examined by interrogatories, and to or-
der (this is the latter part of the section) a commission to issue
- for the examination of witnesses out of the jurisdiction of the
court. The section subsequently ordered the court to give
the most prompt'directions to facilitate the trial consistent with
. the claims of justice. The only section of the act to which it is
material to draw the attention of the court is the 10th, by which
it was ordered, " that no examination or deposition shall be
read in evidence upon any trial without the consent of the party
against whom the same shall be offered, unless it did appear
that the witness was out of the jurisdiction, or dead, or unable
from illness to attend at the time, in all which cases the ex-
• amination or deposition, certified under the hand of the coin-
missioner, shall and may, without proof of the signature, be re-
• ceived and taken in evidence, &c. The court had by the 4th
section a discretional v power to grant an issue, and to give
such directions• as. shall appear to them just and reasonable.
By the 10th section, if a commission is granted and the witness
examined under that commission, his deposition must be re-
ceived if he is out of the jurisdiction of the court. He would
then read the affidavit on which this application was Made. It
was the affidavit of the plaintiff's attorney, and it stated that
William Mansell was a material witness, and that the plaintiff
could not safely proceed to trial without his testimony. It went
on to state that ;Mansell resided with Earl Mulgrave in 'lreland,
out of the jurisdiction of this court; arid that he (the deponent)
believed that he would not he within the jurisdiction of the court
before or on the trial of the cause, which would probably take
place on or about the 18th June inst. What he suggested was that
upon such an application in such a case the affidavit was not suf.-
cient. Their lordships were aware that it did not appear upon
the affidavit that it was an action for criminal conversation.
It was in the nature of a criminal charg'. Their lordships were
aware that the 43d statute of the reign of George ill. was an
Act_passed to allow to witnesses in all criminal cases in what-
ever part of the kingdom, to be subpoenaed as witnesses in any
part of the United Kingdom. Thereby showing an anxiety in
the Legislature that witnesses should attend in their proper per-
sons for the purpose of submitting to all species of exarnina-.
tion direct, as well as cross-examinations. The statute did not
apply to civil causes. Then came the act of William IV., cap.
22, which gave, by the 4th section, a discretionary power to is-
sue a commission to examine witnesses not residing within the
jurisdiction of the court. And what he the learned Attorney-
General 'contended was, that by the affidavit, it must appear
that every'effort was made to procure the attendance of the
witness. In the present case the witness resided in Dublin ;
he might be then as he was in the service of Lord Mulgrave,
and without any difficulty for the ends of justice, his attend-
ance might be procured. The affidavit was silent as to his re-
fusal to attend; it did not appear that any application • had been
made to him. If there was One made the presumption was that
his attendance could have been easily procured. He meant not
to impute censure to any party in the Conducting of this case,
but he must say that it was a dangerous precedent to establish
that, plaintiff's attorney to enter court, and upon affidavit to
postpthe a trial which involved such- interest upon the ground
that a witness resided in Dublin, in the service of a nobleman.
He (the learned Attorney• General) under such circumstances,
contended that the attorney was bound to show that he did
everything in his power to procure the personal attendance of
the witness in question, and it was only in default the court
ought to grant a commission to examine witnesses upon inter-
rogatories, or to take depositions. It was not necessary for
him to remind their tordships,of the infinite importance of` wit-
nesses being submitted to cross-examinations and particularly
in a case like the present. The great boast of the trial by jury
was the witnessing the influence which the test of truth had on
the asp"t of the witness. The ground upon which the present
applicition was made was the absence of a most material wit-
ness. He would say, was it not hard upon the noble defendant
to be deprived of the cross-examination of such a witness ? Was
it not.dangerous to all the ends ofjustice? He took those ob-
jections in discharge of his duty.
Mr. Justice Park asked for the rule, which was accordingly
handed up.
The Attorney-General resumed.—He would ask, was it stat-
ed in the affidavit that any inconvenience would arise from the
witness in question being subjected to a iilva voce examination?
The affidavit stated that at the commencement of the action he
was in Dublin. It was not stated that he was not in London.
It merely stated that the attorney for the plaintiff did not be-
lieve that he would be in the jurisdiction of the court before or
on the trial; and that was all. There was no allegation that he
would not attend the trial. Under such circumstances, he sub-
mitted whether it would be just or reasonable for the court to ex-
ercise their jurisdiction in granting a commission on such an
affidavit ?
The Lord Chief Justice (without seeing Mr. Bayley) said—l
believe this affidavit is in the usual shape in which such affida-
vits are brought before the court ; it would therefore be very
difficult to establish one rule in a rule of this sort, which is a
civil suit, different from all others. Though it appears that
this action relates to crime, strictly and properly speaking, yet,
in all its circumstances, it is a civil action, and therefore the
usual course has been adopted, viz., to swear that the party is at
the time out of the jurisdiction of the court, and cannot be ex-
amined within it. I do not find that any restriction can be
made upon the exercise of a jurisdiction which is necessary for
the furtheiance of the ends of justice. It is clear that if the
witness comes within the jurisdiction before the day of trial, all
that shall have previously taken place will be useless. He will
be examined if he comes;_ but if not, it was only fair and just
that an opportunity should be afforded of taking his deposition,
as otherwise there would be a necessity of' postponiug the trial,
he being sworn to be a necessary witness.
Mr. Justice Parke said, that every judge who was in the
habit of sitting in chambers knew that such affidavits as the one
in this case were of every day occurrence. He never saw an
affidavit containing what the Attorney-Generalseemed to think
material. Though this case was in the nature of a crime, mo-
rally speaking, and a very high one, it was still but a civil action,
and therefore they could not vary the usual rule. There seemed
to him to be no inconvenience in this case, as the witness would
be examined vita voce if he returned into the kingdom before
the trial.
Mr. Justice Gaselee was of the same opinion.
Mr. Justice Vaughan was also of the same opinion. The
object of the act of parliament was to obviate delay ; if they
were unable to compel the witness to attend personally it was
supposed! that there was no proof, nor application made to the
party. He thought that sufficient had been stated to induce the
court too make the rule absolute, as if a commission were not
granted what security would there be for the party's attend
ance, or what remedy if he did not appear ? The great object '
was to procure the attendance of the party ; and it that could
not be done there must be a commission, which the party was
entitled to upon stating that the witness was out of the juris-
diction of the court.
Mr. Bayley hoped to be allowed to say that his client was
exceedingly anxious that the cause should come on to be tried
at the earliest possible Period, and that every witness should be
examined viva voce. He would merely add that the cause had
been set down to be heard for as early a day as possible.
The Attorney-General—l hope there will be no delay.
Rule made absolute.
The on flit about Westminster was that it was not likely that
this interesting trial would come on until November. What
gave foundation to such a report we cannot conjecture.

SPEECH OF THE REV. JOHN ANGEL. JAMES, OF
BIRMINGHAM, ON PRESENTING THE SILVER
MEDAL TO MR. LIVESEY.

The Rev. J. A. James, in coming forward to present, in the
name of the committee of the Birmingham Temperance Society,
a silver medal to Mr. Livesey, said—" Respected friends, the
object of my appearing before you this evening on this platform
is to give you an opportunity of expressing with emphasis the
sense you entertain of the value of those services which have
been rendered by the able speaker who has occupied so well
your attention this evening; and this is to be done by my pre-
senting to that gentleman, in the name of the committee, a sil-
ver medal. (Loud cheers.) This, sir, is an honour which I
value, and the recollection of which I shall long cherish as
among the most precious of the kind with which my humble
history has been attended. It is not necessary lam sure that
I should here express to you the importance of a cause which
you so much better understand than myself; and I should feel
that I was disqualified to meet you on these boards, and address
you on this subject, did I not appear before you in the character
of a tee-totaller.. (Immense cheering.) Not, sir, that I have
actually given a written pledge to that effect—not perhaps that
i should be prepared now to enter into the question as to the
physical effects of the use of wine on the human frame; but. as
a minister of religion I have thought this a portion of my public
duty, inthe4ope that my.e.72ample may have „some weight on those
ministrations whicli it has ever been my honour and happiness to
conduct.— (Enthusiastic cheering.) Some time ago I was
deeply struck with the force of a remark I heard as 1 left one
evening a meeting of the Temperance Society. An individual
within my hearing said, as 1 passed away, ' It may he very well
for gentlemen to proscribe the use of ale to the poor, when they
can yo home and regale themselves with their wine.' I was af-
fected With the observation, and determined to try whether I
could not do without the use of all stimulating drinks whatever.
Iput my resolution in practice; and for nearly ten months that
I -hive tried it, I have found that good beef and mutton have
dotie me more'good than. the best wine I could drink. (Cheers.)
And you see that, although a water-drinker, I-am not altogether
a shadow. (Much laughter.) Tee-totalism has not quite worn
ine down to that, nor am I yctquite incapable of exertion; and
after so many months' trial I feel authorized, in justice to my
family and myself, to go on and be still a tee-totaller. (Loud
clifers.) Therefore, as a minister of religion, (addressing Mr.
Liyesey,) I
,hail yon as a coadjutor in the great cause of reform-
ing the manners and habits of society. Far from thinking this
cause a sole
.meaus,olconvertiug sinners from the errors of their
ways, we deem it to be but an auxiliary in the great cause Of
• religious truth; it. is intended not to supersede, but to make way
for other. means; for if we would fill our meeting-houses, our
churches, and our chapels, we must empty the ale-houses and the
yin-shops. (Loud applause.) The drunkard is not the man
likely to be found at places of public worship; or, if he be there,
is he the man likely to derive benefit from the instructions and
admonitions of the pulpit ? Has not that vice brutalized the
exterior of the man, and (1 was going to say) demonized the
interior, too? And what hope, let me ask, is there fur such an
individual? At least, it is not to be expected that he will gain
much benefit, though I have sometimes known instances of the
poor drunkard being reclaimed by the ministrations of the
word; Therefore (turning towards Mr. Li'vesey) I have only
to express my earnest hope that those, energies with which God
has endowed you (and I will not attempt to sully the principle
that moves them -by words of tulogium)—may those energies
long continue—may God spare your life and strength to con-
tinue your- exertions in this cause—may you be enabled to go
• on; followed in•your career, as you doulitless are, by the tears
• of gratitude and smiles of joy of reclaimed drunkards and re-
claitned drunkards,' wives and children; followed by, whati am
7111:Q you will always value, the blessings of society,, the approv-
ing testimony of. your own conscience, and the smile of an ,
approving world." (Enthusiastic cheers followed the close of
the reverend gentleman's address.)

Bort MOT OF' 'DR. BuowN.—The celehtated Dr. Brown
courted a lady for many years, bnt unsuccessfully; during
:which time it had been •liis -custom to drink' the lady's health
before that of any other. • -But_being observed one evening to
omit it, a gentleman•reminded him of it, and said, "Come, doc-
tor, drink the lady your toast." The doctor replied, "I have
toasted her many years, and I can't make her Brown, so I'll
toast her no longer."

OLIVE OIL AND SPRING RICE

TO THE RIGHT HON. THOMAS SPRING RICE, CHANCELLOft OF

THE EXCHEQUER, &C., &C

SIR,—In the customs' bill of July, 1834, an important alter-
ation in the duty on olive oil was made. Froni £8 Bs. per tun,'
by that bill it was reduced to £4 45., excepting olive oil of the
produce of the kingdoms of the two Sicilies, upon Which the
duty was to be charged E 8 Bs..per tun, until proof was made
that Naples had reduced its duties upon British fish and iron,
when, by an order in council, the duty on oil might be reduced
to £4 4s. per tun.
Your reported speech upon the budget, in August, 1835,
represents the consumption of olive oil, from the reduCtion of
duty, to have increased considerably, and consequently to have
produced great benefit to the woollen manufacture. You stated
that in one year the increase of consumption was from 1,483,00)
gallons to the extent of 2,077,000 gallons ; indeed, so important
was this Considered, that the subject formed the leading article,
the prominent topic of that speech occupying nearly a column
in the report of it.
It might have been expected that in May, 1836, you would
have bestowed some slight notice upon what in 1835 w4s con-
sidered of so much importance. From your usual candour, we
expected you would have 'explained the continued expansion of
this branch of trade, as connected with the prosperity of our
woollen manufactures; but we are disappointed, being merely
informed that in some branches of imports there has been a
slight falling off. It would have been particularly gratifying
to find that branch continued to kmprove ; but as this year it has
escaped your observation, the task of explanation devolves
upon me.
It is necessary here to inquire upon what principle England
demands from Naples a reduction of duty upon British fish and
iron ?. Our treaty. stipulates that we shall be placed upon the
footing of the most favoured nations in the two Sicilies. We'
were so treated, and no higher' duty was levied upon British
fish and iron than upon.similar produce imported from any other
country. The demand of a preference is more eictraordinary
when an attempt is made to extort it by a prohibito‘y dutyupon
an'article of export from Naples, supposed to be of vital impor-
tance, and which, by Act of Parliament, is only to be removed
when Naples may please to submit to such demand. In your
speech of August, 1835, you inforined us that Naples had not'
yet relaxed. lam confident that she wiil take no step towards
doing so, until this offensive measure is cancelled. The olive oil
trade front Naples to England is a mere trifle compared with
her exports to other countries. The average import into Eng-
land froth every country is only 6400 tuns per annum, whilst
the annual average from the Two Sicilies to France alone is
21,000 tuns. Whatever duty is charged on oil must be paid by
Ourselvesin advanced prices; for, in this crusade against Naples,
the trifling circumstance has been overldoked, that it is' the only
country upon which we can. depend fora regular supply. Spain,
Turkey,, and Barbary can only spare limited quantities for ex-
port. in particularly productive years, and principally of inferior
quality.
I now proceed to explain the process by which, in 1835, you
arrived at the conclusion that consumption had increased enor-
mously, and trust I shall succeed in proving to your conviction,
that the imposition of an extra duty upon Sicilian oil and
your conclusion, are equally erroneous both in principal'and
practice.
Of course, in your official situation, what is denominated con-
sumption is the amount upon which you receive duty.
In July, 1834, the alteration of duty took effect immediately
upon the act
.passing.' At that time large stocks of Neapolitan
oil were heldan bond, the reduced duty upon other oils (which
could then be sold so much cheaper) had a ruinous effect upon
the stocks of Neapolitan. The parties interested immediately
represented to the treasury and board of trade the injustice of
this law, and claimed au exemption from its operation ; this de-
mand was allowed, and all the Sicilian oils in bond were ad-
mitted at the low duty of £4 4s. per tun. Another difficulty
then arose; many cargoes had been purchased in Naples,
shipped, and 'contracted for, in ignorance- of. any such change
of system. These, after some delay, were also admitted at the
low duty, which was paid the instant a treasury order was ob-
tained.. I 'must here remark, that when the injustice of the mea-
sure was tacitly allowed, by the admission of all oils in bond and
shipped at'the 'date of passing that act, the trade naturally ex-
pected that one general order would have been given to regu-
late the whole: On the contrary, every separate shipment was
the subject of individual application, and so tedious and dilatory
were the proceedings made, that the whole of the oil in bond
was not liberated before January, 1835. •
Now, sir, you will perceive that what you supposed to have
been an increased consumption, was in reality nothing more
than an anticipated receipt of duty upon those oils which sup-
plied the consumption of 1834, 1835, and part of 1836.
I avail myself of the subjoined extract from the circular of an
eminent house in the trade, which tends to illustrate the prac-
tical operation of that measure which was considered so bene-
ficial in 1835. You will remark that the effect has been to re-
duce the average import from 64(10 tons to 2500, and a reference
to the parliamentary report of imports and duties, comparing
the years 1834 and 1835, shows that from the sth January, 1834,
to the sth January, 1835, the import of olive oil was 2,25,227
gallons, amount of duty received £46,679.
From the stti January, 1835, to the sth -January, 1836, im-
ported 569.584 gallons, duty received £9620! ! !
A limited supply has produced the natural consequence of
advanced prices, compelling the consumer to pay in price what
is charged by this destructtve duty upon Sicilian oils and prac-
tically neutralizing all and every benefit proposed to the woollen
manufactures from a reduction of duty.
It is evident that the declaration against Sicilian oils cannot
be withdrawn without some loss of reputation to the author of
it, and as the duty has been reduced to a sum not worth consi-
deration, as a question of finance I respectfully submit to your
consideration the expediency of repealing it altogether.—l
have the honour to subscribe myself, your most obedient servant,
A MERCHANT.