The Minnesotian. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn. Territory) 1851-1852, 1852-03-20

for telling lies upon oath, it is high time
to put stop to the practice of indulgins
them in lies in peas. Lie not at all, mus
be the new rule Of our courts. for it i.
monstrous to train parties to lalsehood.
IN their written pleadings. And to pun
lsh them for it in their evidence riira voce
The Times we'll observes
We are not surprised at the perjury
that has occurred, because we sincerely
believe that the present system of plead
ing in our courts, in addition TO all its
other defects, has tended to lower the
morality Of litigant parties and to intro
duce system of solemn and authorized
falsehood. 1t is, and always has been. in
the power Of a plaintiff to place on the
flies Of our courts of law and equity
statements under the name of declaration
or bill which may be utterly false, for the
ialsehood Of which he is subject to no
punishment or disgrace, which necessari-
~ entail on his antagonist considerable
expense, and by virtue of which he may
succeed in the suit should the defendant
commit a mistake in his pleading. In
like manner it is allowed to the defendant
soiemnly and deliberately to state as
many false defences as he pleases. and
Tor this NAL practice there is not only no
punishment, but actually reward in the
shape OF delay and vexaton to the plain
tiff. 1t is hardly 10 be expected that
courts which tolerate pleadings mferly
false should be able all al once 10 obtain
from the parties 10 uhom This scandalous
license Of mendacity has been granted, eri-
dence entirely true. To allow, and even
encourage, parties to make false state
ments before the trial, and then to punish
them for supporting the statements at the
trial by their oath, is to tempt men to
crime by the bait of impunity in the frs.
instance. 1t is no long step from telling
a lie to swearing to it. The remedy for
this is clearly to require that all peadings
should be verified by the oath of the par
ties before they can be received, and not
by toleratirg falsehood TO hold out in
ducements to perjury"
In the last report of the commissioners
upon pleading, which prolessed TO en-
brace every consideration ond to consider
every practice 10 which objection could
be made, not a syllable appears on the
subject of pleas manifestly false. The
admission of thc evidence of parties sub
cct to penalties for perjury is, however,
a reform which must cntrain a series Of,
other kindred reformations. 1t drags
truth into court, AID all truth attendants
must follow. We look upon this i'm
provement Of the law as the most impor-
tant Of any change of our time, valuable
in itself, and pregnant with further good.
Already has one judge who had mani
tested strong prejudice against the new
law seen reason 10 acknowledge at least
that it is not without its advantages. In
disposing of the case Martin VS.. Man
gean, which turned on the fact whether
notice had been given of the dishonor of
u bill of exchange, Mr.. Baron Martin
said:
''This case has proved the benefit which
could be derived from the operation of
the new law of evidence. That new law
had acted most beneficially in the present
case; for there had been thousands of in
stances where bona fde holder Of bill
of exchange had given verbal notice tc
a party of the dishonor of bill without,
as in the present instance, his having ia
ken any witness with him. Prior TO this
new law of evidence, the party not be-
ing eligible or admissible as witness
himself, had been without the means of
giving proof Of the dishonor, while here,
the plaintiff having been himself exam
ined, had proved that he had personally
informed the defendant of the on-pay-
ment of the bill.''
This admission, so far as it goes, is
creditable to the candor of the Judge !;
but there still remains some prejudice to
dissipate in the same quarter. A day or
two before, Mr.. Baron Martin had held
forth OH the advantage which clever
knave would have in dressing up his
story over a nervous honest man, embar-
rassed and wanting self-possession. Such
cases may occur occasionally, for there
can be no absolute security against bad
evidence, which passed and imposed un-
der the old law in tn, persons of witness
es, as it may also occasionally pass. and
impose under the new in the persons of
parties. But as De Foe says. truth in
spires nature, and more than that, the
perception of truth is wonderfully served
by instinct in the commonest minds, espe-
cially where there is the immediate COM
parison of truth and unthruth. There is
chemistry in such cases which precipi-
tates the false The organs of self-be-
trayal are indeed marvellous, as we have
had occasion to note in the late inquiry
before Lord Carlisle. The party, Mr..
Ramshay, was present; circumspection
would be the care of every man in such
position, and Mr.. Ramshay had the aid
Of professional experience ana of knowl-
edge of the tactics of defence; but if
there had been the shadow Of doubt
upon the merits of the case, would not
Mr.. Ramshay's conduct in the Court of