The Minnesotian. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn. Territory) 1851-1852, 1852-03-20
From the London Examiner.
THE NEW ENGLISH LAW OF EVIDENCE,

From the London Examiner.
THE NEW ENGLISH LAW OF EVIDENCE
The opponents of the new law of eyi.
dence objected that it would induce the
commission of perjury, arid they now tri.
umphantly cry, sec the realization of our
predictions in the prosecutions already
commenced. We see no such thing. The
new law has not caused perjury, but it
has caused the discovery Of perjury, and
will cause its punishment and repression.
Under the old law of debtor and creditor.
how many perjuries passed umo,iced.-
Plaintiffs swore to their debts to take out
writs, and how many of those oaths were
false. But no matter how groundless or
knavish the claim, nothing was ever
heard or thought in those days of the per-
jury in the preliminary proceeding. A
man capable Of committing perjury is ca
pablc, we may be certain, Of subornation
of perjury; indeed there are many who
will not scruple TO procure the commits
sion of the offence though they would
shrink from it in their own persons, and
perjuries of this class have abounded in
our courts and passed without punishment.
But the effect Of the new law will be TO
convert the snborner into the periurcr, to
fix him with the guilt which he has hith-
erto sought TO shift TO another, and also
with the punishment. This is no in
crease, but really diminution of pcriu-
ry. When A gets B to perjure himself
for bribe, there are two parties TO the
perjury, two involved in the sin and
crime, and the law which compels A to
give evidence, and drives him 10 the al
tentative of speaking truly. or foreswear-
ing himself with his own tongue, narrows
the motives for subornation. Many a
knave will say, Why should l pay anoth-
er for what | may do myself? Or if he
shrinks from the perjury, he will not in
troduce contradiction in his case by
suborning witness to make statements
which his own testimony must disprove.
But the example of the punishment o.
perjury at the fountain head will be an
incstimable benefit. What is the differ
ence between the cases of the man who
robs another of his purse OH the highway
by the pistol, and one who robs in court
of law by false claim supported by false
evidence !? But hitherto The latter and
greater villain has escaped any punish
ment, for we cannot give the name of
punishment to Gusts and the mere disap-
pointment Of the booty. Take for exam
PIE the remarkable case that occurred
some six or seven years ago, Trucman
and Dupuis. DR.. Trueman, who had the
implicit confidence Of Mrs. Dupuis, a
widow lady, rendered her the little ser
vice of receiving her dividends for her,
saving her the trouble which ladies are
glad TO avoid. After time he suggest
ed that it would be more convenient that
the stock should stand in his name, and
that then Mrs. Dupuis would receive the
interest TO the day, without even the
trouble of putting pen TO paper. She
acceded, and the stock was transfer
red. The next half year the dividend
was not handed to Mrs. Dupuis at the
usual time. After some interval, Mrs.
Dupuis wrote to the doctor, gently re-
minding him of his omission. The ans
wer was that she knew not what he
meant, or to what payment she alluded.
She replied, assuming some strange mis-
take, and specified the dividend. The
doctors rejoinder was curtly and cava-
lierly that he had no money Of hers. The
villainy then came out. He pretended
that the stock had been transferred to pay
a sum of money he had lent to Mrs. Du-
'puis. The poor lady had then the horror
of finding herself threatened with double
ruin-ruin of fortune and ruin Of char
acter; for if the DOCTORS account was to
be credited, she had attempted to rob him
in requital of a service. One of the two
parties in the case was clearly thief Of
the blackest dye. The matter came be-
fore Sir Knight Bruce in Chancery, who,
in a very lucid and mastery judgment,
put together the improbablities of DR..
Trueman's averments, so as to make them
amount to impossibility. He alleged that
he had lent the sum of some thousands to
Mrs. Dupuis in notes, which he had KEEP!
in the house, without keeping a single
number of them, or any trace of whence
he had them. Mrs. Dupuis had a judg-
ment In her lavor, restoring her little for
tune, and cleared her character. The
doctor walked out of Court disappointed
of his booty, and Infamous. But should
this have been all, or would it be all, in a
similar case in court of law under the
new act, admitting the evidence of the
parties How satisfactory it would be
to justice. and to public morality, to see a
DR.. Trueman not only baked of his vii
lainy, and proved guilty Of the fraud he
had imputed to the injured party, but
committed to his trial for perjury, and to
suffer a substantive penalty for his trial
for perjury, and to suffer substantive
penalty tor his attrocious false testimony.
and attempt at the worst robbery by the
worst means.
A fraudulent plaintiff or defendant is a
rohbor of tho rpoef fanoerOuS sort m