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.