date

Procedure Enquiry Mode Reform
Procedure

Enquiry Mode

Reform

[...?] Lawyers

Times 23 d June 1803

Court of King's Bench Tuesday JUne 22 d

Sham Pleading

It was formerly observed, that the Court ordered an Attorney to shew cause why a sham plea, which he pleaded, should not be struck out, and why he should not pay the costs.

Mr Burrough shewed cause agains the Rule. He lamented that sham pleas had ever found their way into the records of that Court, or of any Court of Justice: but they had been used for a great number of years, and no Gentleman ever refused to sign a plea, merely because it was a sham plea. He thought, therefore, it would be too much to visit this Attorney with costs for doing that which was extremely common in the profession.

Lord Ellenborough observed, that the only business of Counsel, when they looked at pleas, was to see that they were legal and proper, supposing the facts to be true, and to be satisfied they were not scandalous in matter. It was not to be supposed they could know whether they were true or false. But the Attornies who used these Pleas, must know whether they were true or false; & they must understand, that whenever they did use them, they did it at the risk of costs, when an application was made to the Court for that purpose. If they were not to make the Attorney pay the costs, the Court would stop short in a duty which they were bound to discharge to the Public.

Morning Post Oct r 29 1803

Hick's Hall Clerkenwell Oct r 29

Louis Jacks, an Attorney, was indicted for wilful & corrupt perjury, committed in an affidavit made in a cause pending in the Common Pleas.

Mr Gurney, stated, that the present Chief Justice had declared, it was the bounden duty of every Advocate to avail himself of all objections in favor of his Client, & that if the Client himself was willing to waive formal objections, & stand upon the merits of his case, that his Counsel ought not to suffer him to do it.
Similar Items
  • Title: [7 June 1803 Evidence Times]
    Description: 7 June 1803

    Evidence

    Times 6 June 1803

    Court of King's Bench, June 4, Sittings before Lord Ellenborough and Special Juries. Pybus and others v. Dunel.

    Mr Gibbs stated that this action was brought by the Plaintiffs, who are Bauliers in London, against the Defendant, who was surety for Mr Wonson[?], who was a Banker at Pontefrait, to recover the amount of a Bond for ,500 which was given so long ago as the year 1785. The Defendant had pleaded this bond was not his deed, although in his answer in Chancery (for this business was in that Court) he had fully admitted it. There were two subscribing witnesses to this bond, but they could not be found, and therefor Mr Gibbs proposed to read the defendant's answer in Chancery, in order to prove the bond was executed by him. He said every search had been made after the subscribing witnesses, and they had not been able to find them.

    After some evidence had been produced, it appeared that due diligence had not been [...?] to find out these witnesses, and Lord Ellenborough observed, that unless they were dead, or residing in some foreign country, he could not dispence with their absence. A subscribing witness might prove fifty things; he might prove the Defendant was drunk when he executed the bond, which would answer to the action on a plea of non est factum.

    Plaintiff nonsuited
  • Title: [12 June 1805 Evidence Note]
    Description: 12 June 1805

    Evidence

    Note continued

    Introd.

    Ch. Procedure Natural

    ''. Confront. Object n to [...?]

    Note ( ) to p.2. continued

    In proof of the property[?] and unvexatiousness of such personal attendance, were an argument to that effect presented to the English Judge, what answer would he have to make? The class of men to which I have the honour to belong as a class of men who only now and then mean what they say, and to whose word it is [...?] prudent to give evidence. The paper was signed by me[?] it is true, but like so many other papers which I am in the habit of signing like so many other [...?] which I am in the habit of making [...?] by solemn signature it is all /a [...?] of/ a falsehood from beginning to end. The King knew nothing of /about/ the matter: I myself knew as little: were the Defendant to come to me (in Court or out of Court - at that time or at another) I should refuse to hear him: were he not to come he would not suffer the penalty of ,100 or any other [...?] penalty: he would be [...?] and [...?] in an inexplicable[?] variety of other ways. What I mind he should do was to employ an Attorney, but the business might come before me, through the medium of my learned friends, in a regular way; a fact which any man may easily [...?] himself about, where [...?] he has [...?] to understood that my [...?] ends I am sure that fit to be believed. Therefore as the Attorney came instead of Client: act this[?] the Attorney himself were he to attend at the time and place at which I have thus commanded attendance to be paid; would be spoken to or suffered to speak any more than his client.
  • Title: [25 April 1807 Letter V VI Bail]
    Description: 25 April 1807

    Letter V

    VI Bail-baiting

    II. Facienda

    /Confined even/ Even of this small grace my expectations are further from being sanguine than Your Lordship will easily conceive. From Your Lordships learned adviser consent is altogether helpless. Examination in full Court as well as open Court: subandito[?] not Attorney only but Counsel fixd as in Westminster Hall for opposing and examining said Bail. But in Westminster Hall as Counsel is found necessary for opposing Bail, so on the other side is Counsel for justifying Bail. i.e. for moving[?] that Bail may justify. In the Westminster Courts before a single Judge, sitting in his Chambers, Counsel are not commonly employed: altercation is confined to the Attornies. Were the business turned down to a Lord Ordinary, his Outer House thus filled would shew itself as standing on a level than the chambers of an English Judge.