North American. [volume] (Swanton, Vt.) 1839-1841, 1840-11-04

f tnIWFHt Sh'ihN W. CfFhlthnFU III itfr nFtf
session of the House, even II dissolution
should AXE place.
The proofs bto1Q 1T naains, Judge Fou-
cher we're so glazing ard 81 conclusive
'hs, the Governor in Chief could nat do
otherwise than 10 suspend him from his
/ judicial functions till the pleasure Of The
+ Prince Regent could br made known.
| The Legislative Council seeing thni one
Of the public prevsficn,ofs was on ibe eve
of receiving the punishment due fo his
crimes aud misdeameannr, felt quite alarm
ed, and on The lsi of March, passed a series
oil resolutions in which they begged the
Prince Regent not Ia iuhict any punish
Fnent on Jndge Foucher unless the sccu-
sntions brought against him hy the House
al Assembly. were concurtcd IN hy the
Legislative Council To whom they should
previously have been submitted Tor their
decision ADD FINAL judgment. The reader
may firm an opinion Of the impaflialily Of
thai body, when nearly all those who were
eliminated nv the House, were members
! of thr Upper branch and when that body
had already tried TO screen these guilty
lunctinnafirs.
During The proceedings Of the committee
Of inqnes, Of the House Of Assembly to
prove one Of the accusations against Judge
Fou cher, II became necessary to have the
records of the Prolhonoiary Of the Court
NJ Montreal. The officer at the head ri
that department, Mr.. Samuel Wentworth
Monk refused TO obey the summons of the
committee and would not allow his records
Ia be examined. The House Immediately
| ordered this refractory individual To be la
ken into the custody OF the SERGEANT AT
arms and confined in The Quebec iaiI,
where he remained till the close of that
session.
That DOR readers NAV have IN idea Of
the manner in which the administration Of
justice was carried on in Lower Canada al
that period, we shall give them a few items
NJ the accusations which were proved a.
gair.st Judge Fouchet.-lst In a case Of
one of his friends against n Mr.. T.. Du-
| chesDois Of Varennes, he wrote with his
own hand the declaration Of the Plaintiff
aud handed il to his nephew Mr.. Lncroix
who was the Attorney against Mr.. Du-
| chrsnois, although he was sitting in Judge
upon this case.-2d In cause where
Gnilhaut was plaintiff and Barrl defend
ant. judgment was given bv Justice Fou-
cher against the defendant, because his
lawyer Mr.. Porteous had put the question
To one of the witnesses, whether che knew
| both the parties interested in this cause. +"
| He was told by the Judge not to put such
an absurd question. The lawyer insisted,
and the Judge without proceeding any tur-
ther took the case into deliberaton and the
next day he rendered judgment against the
defendant although he had moi heard the
witnesses Of the latter. Sd. In the case
of Susanna Lahaie against Louis Cons
'neau, both parties having been heard.
Judge Fnucher on the 2Slh May, 1914,
condemned The defendant. On the q or
22nd Of June next, Mr.. Bedsrd The law
yer Of the plaintiff called at the Proihono-
iary's Office tn take copy Of The judg-
ment on the records, but To his great as
tonishment he found that nenrly The whole
of it with the exception OF a few words,
had been erased with penknle and re-
placed by another judgment BY Judge Fou-
cher himself.
We could give many more Of such a.
nominations committed in the sanctuary of
holy justice, but we abstain, fearing TO tres
pass TOO long on the patience Of our res-
ders. Suffice il 10 say tina, this iniqpitous
Judge was absolved for all his Offences a.
gainst justice BY few months suspension.
and was reins'aied in his judicial iun~ions
TO the great scandal and derision OF the
whole bar of Montreal Until drsth put an
end to his sacreQious sImisistrsiiou Of
justice.
The proceedings Of The Legislature
during this long and fruitful session which