The sun., 1893-07-09

| rights OF the detonOant, Dut Jo buielu tho
plaintiff from any retributivo measures on
the part Of tho defendant or OF the Public
Prosecutor. Is clear from tho tenor and
working Of tho change In rule OF court
then made conjontly by the Lord CHIEF
Justice and Mr. Justice CAVE Tho now rule,
whose existence remained for many months
unknown. oven to eminent members OF the
English bar. and whose motive was unsus-
pected until May, 1892, ran as follows:
"Impounded documents rhich arc IN the GUS
tody Of the court arc MOTTO be parted rith. and
are not 10 be inspected, ercept on a ,rritten or
der signed bp the Judge on rhose order they
rere impo,mded. and by the President of the
dirision IL: rhich they are impounded."
that is To say, in this case. by the
Lord Chief Justice. It was In pursu-
nnco OF this new rulo that Mr.. HURL-
nERT's legal representatives were through
out the summer OF 1891. and nre to this day.
donicd an opportunity OF inspecting and
copying the papers impoundcd at his TO-
quest But the effect IL not the motive, of
tho rule was not confined to paralyzing the
sclf-vindicatory measures planned by the
defendant. This rule. which shut the door
in Mr.. HURLBERT's face. was framed to
leave 1t wide open to en- applicant who
would promise to assail him.
| Let us see now. how. by means OF this
rule. pressure was put upon tho Public Pros
| ecutor. From tho time when tho verdict
was rendered In tho breach OF promise case
there had been an outcry from section OF
the London press, an outcry repeated In
Parliament. for the punishment OF the per-
jury which, ON one side or the other. had
plainly been committed in the trial. This
outcry grew louder and seemingly irresisti-
bio after the verdict had been affirmed by
the Court OF Appeals, member OF that
court declaring from the bench that one or
the other OF the parties had boon guilty OF
rank perjury. One would think he might
have added that. on tho face OF tho evil
dencc. and in Wow OF the verdict Of the
jury. the guilty party was presumably the
plaintiff. At oil events. tho Public Prose-
cutor. Sir A. X. STEPHENSON. deemed it
incumbent ON him to take some action
in the matter. and accordingly. on June %.
q few days after the Court Of Appeals had
affirmed the verdict in the breach Of prom
ise case, he requested the proper officer of
the royal courts to obtain for him per-
mission from tho Queens Bench Division
that the documents impounded in the case
be handed to him. In reply, he was in
formed that. under a rule which had beon
recently madc. tho documents could not
leave tho court for any purpose. Tho
writer added that he was "also to ask, be-
fore any order for even the inspection OF
the documents here is made. for what pur-
pose this is required" Naturally. the Public
Prosecutor was puzzled by this answer. for.
with regard to documents Of which he
knew nothing, he could have no purpose
but the obvious one OF inspecting them i'm
partially with q view to determining what
course they might impose on him. He
consequently replied that he must await
the directions OF tho Attorney-General
before designating tho purpose for which
an inspection Of the documents was de-
sired. Three days later. having meanwhile
consulted the Attorney-General, he writes
that he proposes to confer with counsel as
to the particular documents with respect
to which itmay be advisable to obtain the
evidence of IN expert in handwriting. and.
when this had been done. to ask permission
to attend with the expert. for the purpose
OF making the necessary inspection and
comparisons Of documents.
This statement Of intentions was alto
gether too ambiguous to suit the Lord
Chief Justice: for manifesty. the inspec-
ton contemplated might result in prose-
cution of the plaintiff. Therefore. the GUS
todian OF the letters makes the following an
swcr to the Public Prosecutors request:
II am to say that you do not mention ~ao Be ia.
ojeo Of this proposed prosecution And that both tho
Judges whose consent will be necessary for the produc
tion of the documents lord CoLERrpcE and Mr. Justice
CAvEl strongly of opinion that they should not In
the present state of the case aud unless there owl
dence before tho Public Prosecutor OF which they
no. give without much consideration any (aeil
ahs for ns p'o.,rufio" II The p,afntG"
II tho Public Prosecutor had been per-
picked before. he may well have been as
founded now. So strong. however. is the
habit OF Difference to Lord Chief Justice
that the answer to the letter just quoted
moekly explains that. while originally. he.
the Prosecutor had contemplated an i'm
partial inquiry Us to whether either OF both
tho parties to the suit could be indicted for
perjury with reasonable probability OF
obtaining conviction. nevertheless. the
opinion Of their Lordships that one of
the parties could not. or should not,
be indicted. would have tho greatest pos
sble weight with him. Therefore. before
renewing his application for an inspection
OF the documents, he would. he said. confer
with the Solicitor General. to whom he had
been referred by tho Attorney General.
who. having acted rs private counsel for
the defendant. felt himself debarred from
giving an opinion In regard to tho prosecu-
ton. Eleven days later the Public Prose-
cutor forwardsa copy Of a lettor from the
Solicltor-General. in which he is instructed |
to say that the object Of inspecting tho |
documents is to "obtain material to be |
laid before counsel. in order that the
Prosecutor may be advised as to tho |
institution OF n prosecution against Mr.. |
HURLDERT." Even now. six weeks elapsed |
before the Prosecutor aud his expert wero
permitted to see the papers: the custodian
cxcusinG the delay on the ground that so |
strict view is taken by the Judges asto
the custody OF impounded documents that I |