An interesting point of law was decided on Thursday, because
apoint of law which will affect the willingnesa of every honest man tcr.give evidence in a Court of justice. Mr. Netherelift, the expert in..handwritings, had affirmed in a particular Probate case that he believed a given signature to be a forgery, and had appar- edly repeated- his conviction even when confronted with other evidence proving- conclusively to the mind of the Judge of the Probate Court that he bad made a blunder. For this over-con- fidence in his particular test Sir James Hannen rebuked him. Subsequently, on another case of forgery, Mr. Netherclift, when summoned as a witness, was asked by the barrister on the other side whether he had read the observations made by Sir James Hannen, and on his replying that be had, the coun- sel sat down without further cross-examining him ; nor does it appear that the counsel for the party on whose side he appeared as a witness, made any re-examination with the object of eliciting that what he had said as to the alleged forgery, when before the Probate Court, was said in simple good-faith. Hence, when he. found that he was not re-examined, Mr. Netherclift aaked, leave to make a statement, and though discouraged by- the Court, went on to say, "I believe that will to be a, rank forgery, and shall so believe to the day of my death." For this volunteered statement be was indicted for slander, and as far as the jury's verdict on the facts went, found gPty ; but the point of law as to the liability of a witness for any statement given bond fide in the shape of evidence in the witness- box was reserved, and decided in Mr. Netherclift's favour on the first trial. The plaintiffs appealed, and on Thursday the Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment of the lower Court, deciding that.M.r. Netherelift's speech was a fair reply to the implied dis- credit thrown on his evidence by the opposite counsel, and that witnesses who do not go beyond what is relevant to the drift of their evidence, must clearly be held exempt from all penal liabilities for what they say. This is a fortunate decision. Had it gone the other way, it would have closed the months of hundreds of dis- interested witnesses.
Previous page
