INTERESTING CASE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 781, 6 April 1877, Page 3

INTERESTING CASE.

An interesting point of law lias been decided, because a point of law which will affect the willb'gness of every honest man to give evidence m a Court of Justice. Mr Netherc'iffc, tlie expert in handwritings, had affirmed in a particular probate case that ho believed a given signature to be a forgery, and had apparently repeated his conviction even when confronted wi hj other evidence proving conclusively to the mind of the Judge of the Probate Court ttiat he had made a blunder. For this over-confi-dence in bis particular test, Sir James Hannen rebuked him. Subsequently, on another case of forgery, Mr Nethovclift, when summoned as a witness, was asked by the barrister on the other side whether he had read the observations made by Sir Janies Hannen, and on replying that he had, tho counsel sat down without further cross-ex-amining him, nor does it appear that tho counsel for the party on whose side he appeared as witness made any,e examination with the object of eliciting that what he had said as to tho allege 1 forgery, when before the Probate Court, was said in simple good faith. Hence, when he found that he was not re-examined, Mr Netherclift asked leave to make a statement, and thongk discouraged by the Court, went on to say, “ I believe that will to he a rank forgery, and shall so believe to the day of my death.” For this volunteered statement ho was indicted for slander, and as far as tho jury’s verdict on the facts went, found guilty ; but the point of law as to the liability or a wit. ness for any statement given bona pile in the shape of evidence in tire witness-box was reserved, and decided in Mr Netherclift’s favor on the first trial Tlie plaintiffs appealed and then the Court of Appeal eonfit med tho judgment of the lower Court, decidhrg that .Mr Neiherclift’s speech was a fair reply to the implied discredit thrown on his evidence by the opposite counsel, and that witnesses who do not go beyond what is reveknt to the drift of their evidence, must clearly bo held exempt for all penal liabilities for what they say. ibis is a fortunate decision. Had ic gone the other way, it would have closed the mouths of hundreds of disinterested witnesses.