New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-02-13
THE PRIVILEGES OF THE BAR.

Court Of Common Pleas, Of WOrcester County,
Mas, of falsely pretending to be civil officer,
and as sucb arrestiDg one Putnam for debt Of
four dollars There was no proof on the trial thss
the defendant said he was sheriff, deputy sheriff,
or constable; but 1t was proved that Putnam said
to one of his neghbors, in the presence of Carpen
ter, who did not contradict him, am in pretty
fx-the sheriff of East Brook6eld has arrested
me. Carpenter also said, am authorized to col
lect the debt or take you to Worcester, and, I
have the authority to do so in my pocket, and to
another witness, You must not think hard of me
I only fulfill my Office. Upon this evidence the
Jury, under the instruction of the Court found
the defendant guilty; and we have no fault to
find either with the Courts instructions or the
Jury's verdict.
Another case occurring by curious concI-
dence tina! very same week, before the Court Of
Common Pleas in the adjoining County OF Middle
sex, Judge Hoar presiding, goes very far to show
what mate rial difference there is, in the estima-
ton of Courts between false pretenses by lay
man for the purpose of collecting debt and false
pretenses by lawyer for the purpose of putting
costs into bis pocket to which he never had
shadow of claim.
This Middlesex counterpart to the Worcester
case was as follows: A certain attorney Of the
County having brought an action before Justice
of the Peace to recover = disputed claim of FIVE
or six dollars and having obtained decision for
the plaintiff, and vexed at the di,alowance of
certain costs which he had incurred through
blunder Of his own in summoning witnesses to
attend on wrong dsy, he retorted to the follow
ing fnes,e to make up, in part, for the loss:
Though he had neither testi6ed nor been sworn,
he yet signed certificate of having himself at
tended az Q witness in the case, and insisted on
his fees az such. Previous to the trial, he had
inquired, it setms, of the defendant whether he
intended to dispute the performance of the o..
legged service, to recover payment for which the
action had been brought. The defendant had
said No; nor did he, on the trial. dispute it; but,
says Mr. Attorney, if he bad disputed 1t, here
was ready to have sworn to his confessions
Under this e1temporaneous pretense he signed a
certificate Of having attended as Witness aud this
certificate being signed-not by . mere common
individual but by an attorney and counselor
leaned in the law-the Justice thought himself
bound to allow il, and he taxed the costs accord
ingly.
Now, this attOrney-sO, at least, the defendant
In the case alleged-knew perfectly well that all
this was mere false pretense for spOnging the
defendant out Of fifty-four cents. He knew per-
fectly well-that is, if he knew anything Of law,
and Of the decisions Of the Supreme Court Of
Massachusetts-that even if he had testified
under the circumstances stated, (Which he did
not do. he would not have been entitled to fees
Court, not a. . witness, but as an attorney. But
be also knew, equally well, that the only remedy
for the defendant against this extortion, would be
an appeal, of which he, the defendant, would, in
any event, be obliged to pay all the costs; so that
to escape being thus sponged out Of ffty-four
cents, he must niece ssarily subject himself to an
expense at least hundred times as great.
The defendant, however, not choosing to sub
init to this sponging process, did take an appeal
not only for the sake of having the judgment Of
the Justice Tectifed as TO the costs but also in
order to have an opportunity Of bringing to the
notice of the Court the conduct of the attorney in
having signed thisfalse certificate. Judge Hoar,
before whom the matter WAS heard, had not the
least hesitation in deciding that the attorneys
claim to be paid as witness was totally without
foundation. Al to the complaint against the At
torney for malpractice, he dismissed that, on the
ground that the facts upon which the claim of
witness fees had been made having been openly
stated at the time he could not say that the GER
tifcate had been falsely and frsudulently signed,
especially - no e1torton had actually been per-
petrated, the allowance of costs by the Justice
being still open to revision.
Not content to stop here, which, If he had
done, the case would never have attracted our
notice, the Judge must needs Try his own hand,
A. Judges are very apt to do, at 3 little of the
same sort of legal fiction which, in the Justices
Court, had been played of BY the attorney. The
deliberately signing false certificate for the sake
of making ffty four cents by it, he chose to rep
recent - only little mistake o. to the law such
% even the nost eminent Judges are liable at
times to fall inte and he added that Ii lawyers
were to be thrown over for little errors of that
sort, he feared that the Mddlesex bar would soon
be very much thinned out.
UDquestiopably the Judge 10 well asqusinted
with the character and practices Of the Middlessx
bar, of which lately he was himself leading
member. A. to that point, he 10 entitled to tho
credit Of an expert yet it does seem to rs that