The Daily Nashville true Whig. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1851-1855, 1855-08-08
Legal Privilegss-slandsr at Bar not ActiOnable

Legal Privieges-slandera at the Bar not Actionable
In one of the Milwaukee courts an action for
SANDER was recently brought against James
H. Payne, a lawyer Of that city, for words
spoken in arguing a case before the q. S. Com
missioner. 1t was in evidence that Payne,
acting as counsel for an opposing client, &C.
cused the plaintiff with coming into Court
with "black perjury on his SOUL" After
hearing argument on the case, Judge Larabee
ordered a non-suit to be entered on the plea
that "though the accusation was false and
malicious, the defendant was protected by his
privileges, he at the time acting as COUNSEL"
On this statement of the case, the Baltimore
American very aptly and pertinently remarks:
Now, it strikes US that, though this may be law,
it is far from justice any thing which can well
be imagined We can see no difference, morally
speaking between a SANDER uttered in the public
streets in the heat of passion, and one proclaimed
in public Court, delivered with the intense earn.
estness and the apparent conviction Of its truth,
which skiIlful lawyers know 80 well bow to assume
excep; that the latter is the more henous Of the
two In our opinion, there is nothing in the sci.
ence of law which entities its professors to shelter
themselves from the consequences of a libel by set
ting up privileges which are denied to every other
class of men. Nor can see upon what ground
they claim a charter TO browbeat Witnesses 60 in
suit with sneers and inuendoes those whose test.
mony they cannot shake, or to charge them finally,
in their argument, with having knowingly uttered
a falaehood after they had solemnly appealed to God
for the truth of their testimony.
The science Of law is noble one, and its pro-
fessors presumed 10 be gentlemen but is it the
province of true gentleman 20 attempt TO preju-
dice just cause by villfying those who testify in
favor OF the right! Is it the duty of counsel to seek
20 avert judgment against his client by resorting
20 arguments which he knows 20 be sophistical, or
allegations which he must be conscious are libel
lous? Does witness dvest himself of the right to
call upon the law 10 protect him from SANDER, be-
cause that SANDER originates in court Of Law? If
he is privileged to protect his good name from evil
tongues outside the halls Of justice, under what
statute does he forfeit that privilege when he comes
before a tribunal whose province is TO protect him.
with rigid impartiality, in all his rightsg
There eminent jurists who are famous for
their skill in extracting evil out of good; who can
give to the plainest testimony the most equivoca
Of meanings who can find black falsehoods cloth
ed in the most transparent words; who can covert
the strictly honest man into the most hypocritical
of rogues, aud, 10y nod, or grimace, shrug, or
sheer, convey TO a susceptible jury perceptions Of
meaning utterly the reverse OF what the witness in
tended should DO understood.
This intellectual gladiatorship being Altogether in
favor of the lawyer, privileged say what he pleas.
es, and justified even in abuse and calumny, is il
any wonder that timid men, uuaccustomed 20 such
weapons, should regard witness box as a sort of
terrestrial limbo, and opposing counsel as harpies
legally authorized to bait, and worry aud torture
them, TO the utmost OF their inclinings, commensu.
rate with the extent OF their ability
In all this license there Is great wrong Custom
m sanction IL and law ailOw lint 4 il a yrronc
nevertheless aud the sooner such privileges and
immunties are swept away, the less defective our
Judicial proceedings will become, and the more
likely the community will be hear the truth spo.
ken from the witness boz, and obtain righteous de.
cisions from the bench.