INTERESTING CASE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume I, Issue 287, 24 March 1877, Page 4

INTERESTING CASE.

Ail interesting point of law has been •jtddecl, because » point of law which will '*l aftet the wiKingoesa of every honest man to give evidence in a Court of Justice. Mr. NetnercKft, the expert in handimtinf»» had affirmed in * particular Probate case that he believed a given signature to be a forgery, and had apparently repeated hi* conviction even when confronted with other evidence proving conclusively to the mtnd of the Judge of the Probate Court that he had made a blunder. For this over-confidence in his particular test, Sir James fiannen rebuked nfrn Subsequently, on another case of forgery, Mr. Ketherclift, when summoned ae 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 he had, the counsel safr down without further crossexamining him, nor does it appear that the counsel for the party on whoae side he appeared aa a witness made any re-exami-nation 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. Netaerclift asked 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 he was indicted for slander, and as far as the jury's verdict on the facts went, found guilty; but the point of law as to the liability of a witness lor any statement given bwutjkte 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 then the Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment of the lower Court, deciding that Mr. Ketherehft's speech was a fair reply to the implied discredit thrown on hi* evidence by the opposite counsel, and that witnesses who do not go beyond what is relevant tt> the drift of their evidence, must clearly be held exempt from all penal liabilities for what they any. This is a fortunate decision. J&ad tt gone the other way, it would have closed the mouths of hundreds of disinterested witnesses.