The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-11-07 00:00:00

LAW I.NTELLIGENCE.

MK:II,VMM AS TERM.
Yesterday being the first day of lichaelmnsTerni,
the several Judges, together with his Honour the
Master of the Rolls, instead of the Lord Chancel.
lor, entered Westminster Hall in procession, soon
after twelve o'clock, and after haying attali(loa,
a.
usual, the Exchequer Chamber, thry proc:‘,.,:letl to
thAr particular Courts. The Lord Chancellor was
absent on ^remit of ill health but it is expected
that lie will be sufficiently well on Monday ucxt to
enable hint to attend in Court.

••

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, No►. 6.
The attention of Mr. Jude 1.3.t1L1:v was occupied
for tome time previously to the arrival of his Bro-
ther Judges, in the justification of hail, 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 for them about the kingdom.
They were read, and ordered to be filed.
CHANCERY DEPOSITIONS. w lIENILit EVIDENCE
Olt NOT?
CASSENNO V. V.VLIGIIAN.

Mr. PARK apulied for a rule, to shew cause why a'
new trial should not be granted in this case: it was
a case respecting insurances, and had been tried at
the Sitting after last Trinity Term, before Lord El-
lenborough ; but the ground on which he rested his
.application was, that the evidence admitted on that
occasion was inadmissible in a Court of Law. It
would therefore be seen, that the question was strictly
owe of practice. The case which had been tried at
the Sittings In Guildhall, bad gone before a Jury, in
consequence of the directions of the Lord Chancel-
'or, and the evidence adduced on the trial, by the
Plaintiff, consisted Of depositions on a bill in the
Giurt- of Chancery, to which no answer had been
filed. Now, it had been held in numerous cases,
that depositions could not be adduced as evidence in
a Court 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 depositions
bad not sten been cross-examined.
Lord ELLENDOROUGH.—" Did that fact appear on
the trial ?"
Mr. PARK stated that it did • and that the Defen-
dant had not subsequently had an opportunity of
crosvexamining, for the examined had left town the
turning after his examination.
Sir W. GA RRow begged leave just to state, that it
appeared on the trial, that the adverse party hadan.
opportunity of cross-exara;ning the iudividual ho
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, bat I
failed to do so. Copies of the necessary vipers were
at the same time forwarded to them, therefore suf-
Meld notice had given them the opportunity of at-
tending the examination.
Mr. Pane persisted in his statement ; and con-
tended, that depositions under such circulastauces
could not be received in law as evidence. In support
of this opinion, the Learned Gentleman cited Gil-
bert's Law of Evidence, p. 56, . where it was laid
down, that depositions taken in the Court of Chan-
cery could not be received in a Court of Law as evi-
dence, where no answer had been put in, and where
there was no contempt. If the adverse party were
is contempt, then the depositions were admissible in
a Court of Law.

Lord ELLExsottounn said, the question was, whe-
ther the complaining party bad an opportunity of '
cross-examining. A bill had been filed to examine,
de benc esse, certain witnesses whose evidence was
deemed necessary, they being about to quit the
country. All parties, it had appeared, had been
apprised that such an examination *was to take place
on the evening of the 15th of Blaf,:by copies of
the chief interrogatories being delivered to the ad-
verse party. On the evening of the 15th, the ex.!
amination took place, though there was no cross-
eaamitiation ; and on the morning of the 16th, the
examined had proceeded to Harwich, where he re-
niained till the 20th. Then was there no oppor-
tunity ?
Mr. PARK submitted that there was not ; therefore
did he Contend for the instability of the evidence.
Paulett's case, noted in Sir T. Raymond, also proved I
that depositions could be evidence in law, if there I
had been no evidence and no contempt. In that case
they were produced, but rejected. in Howard v.'
Trueman, a similar opinion was held, for no depo- '
sition would there received, there having been no
alswer to the bill. A similar doctrine had also been I
held in Piercy v. Piercy, in Sir T. Jones's Reporis.
The Learned Gentleman therefore submitted, that to
receive evidence under such circumstances was not
only evilest law, but in the very teeth of many pre.
eiously decided cases ; besides, to admit evidence
under such circumstances, where no cross-examina-
tion had taken place, would lead to the most danger-
ous consequences, considering how those depositions
were taken.
Lord &LT.:4Bwpmu observed, that the Court
certainly could not take half a witness—that they ,
could not admit only one side of the case. If there
had not been opportunity, certainly the depositions,
did not constitute evidence in law; but he had re-
ceived the depositions on the trial, in consequence
of having understood that the adverse party had the
opportunity of cross-examining.
Mr. Judge amer said, that the words of all the
cases which Mr. Park had. quoted were with his
Client ; but the meaning was, that all parties ought
to have a fair opportunity of examining the wit-
nesses, when their evidence was taken by deposi-
tion. If Mr. Client had received a fair op-
portunity of cross-examining, then serious conse-
quences might result from not allowing Atte deposi-
tions to be received as evidence, although no an-
swer had been filed.

The Court granted the Rule Nisi.
HABEAS CORPUS. •
An application wa% made on the part of mkett,
now a prisoner in Newgate, for a writ of habeas
Corpus, to bring his body into Court, for the pur-
pose of enabling him to give bail.
Mr. ANDREWS was the Counsel. He stated, that
his Client had been committed on a charge of having
robbed the Brighton mail on the sth of February
last, of one thousand notes. •The Prisoner, in his
allidalit, stated the circumstances attendant upon