The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-04-08

Held by tie court, that II this State, nm attorney
Is received asa competent witness in court for his
client, although England and In some ofthe United
the crosse Examination Of the witness, he stated,
that the defendant denied he was bound to pay the
libellants wages, as he had never shipped him, and
because he deserted the ship Immediately on her
arrival in portthat the witness told the defendant
the circumstances did not protect him from his
liability to the ibellant, and read authorities to
him, to prove it was so, and therefore the defend
ant made the premise. lie irst INSISTED the witness
should 90 to his lawyer for the money, which wit
ness refused, and then defendant engaged to pay IT
on beard the ship The court held that the testi-
mony Of an attorney or proctor swearing LOT ms
trust when not corroborated by any other evidences;
and more particularly when he swears to admissions
made to him by the adversary party IL affords
opportunity for great injustice. 1t is dangerous
position for the parties to hold in cause, ana
courts will always discourage that species OF evil
dence. Still the law admits the evidence as legai,
and when the witness is every way credible, reason
able weight must be given it: Held, that though
in SO far as the rights of his client personally
concerned the evidence may have effect, yet in the
matter Of costs, resting wholly in the discretion OF
admiralty courts the proctor ought not. in princ-
Piles Of policy to be permitted to recover costs upon
his own evidence alone Decree for SIG, without
costs.
Samuel c. Nilsson rs. Thomas Ben and others
This application to set aside, vacate and
annul the proceedings upon the libel filed January
49, 1851 and the ORDER endorsed thereon to hold tho
defendant to bail in $4,000 Notice of the motion
is dated February IL, 1851. On the 18th of January
the defendant applied to the court, on motion, to
discharge the defendant Bell from arrest in this
cause and also that the process Of attachment issu
ed therein be dissolved. This motion was argued
before the court, by counsel for both parties,
and after consideration denied All particu-
lars brought forward in this motion were involved
in the former one, except, the proctor OF the de-
PENDANT had not then discovered that the officer
taking the oath of the libelant to the libel, had
omitted to afix his name to the jurat. The Court
held that it was not allowable for party TO bring
into discussion and review the same matters by
means Of succession of motions lie is bound, on
his first application to bring before the Court all
the particulars known to him, which by reasona-
bic diligence he could know, applicable to his case;
and the decision rendered upon the motion becomes
conclusive upon all matters properly involved in it.
Held that AN oath is duly administered by conf
petent officer, libel is thereby legally verified
without his signature to the jurat. The signature
does not constitute the oath; it is no more than
priam facie evidence that such oath was taken. 1t
may be disproved trial. the taking Of the oath
may be established by evidence aliu,lia the urat.
Here the objection is strictly technical the clerk
swears he duly administered the oath, and SO in
formed the Court before this motion was made, and
that his signature to it was casually omitted. If o.
motion is made, founded upon an affidavit not hay
ing the jurat signed, objection may be made to its
formal insufciency; but when the motion i ground
ed on that defect, it may be defeated by showing the
affidavit was in fact properly attested. Motion de-
Eied with costs