choicest.

iflpunruisb’

CHARLOTTETOWN, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1852.

VOL. 22.

Ientslatttir ittcorrrctuuo.

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY. Faroav, Feb. I3. MORNING SI'I"I‘ll\'G. Surrav.

Hon. Mr. POPE moved. that it may be made an order of the day, for to-morrow for the House to go into Committee of Supply. Ordered accordingly.

Esrrstsrcs.

Hon. Mr. WARBURTON laid before the House the Esti-

mates for 1852.

Counsssrrorv ro Eiiizcrao 'I‘i:rurN-rs.

Hon. Mr. COLES introduced a llill to provide Compensa- tion to ejected Tenants for their improverrtents. The Bill was read a first time, and its second reading ordered for to-morrow.

Sanucrtoir or Furnace.

On motion of Mr. Palmer, the Bill to provide a summary remedy for females seduced, was read a second time, and there- upon siibmitted to a Committee of the whole House. Mr. CLARK in the Chiir.

Mr. PALMER in explaining the principles ofthe Bill said,

it doubtless was kriowir to hon. members, that by the law as it existed at present, the party aggrieved has a remedy by action in the Supreme Coitrt, brought by either the master or I|t'I’ parents for the loss of service. as it is tetincd, though so laid, It is for tire benefit of tho sedured, who by her own evidence can substantiate her case. But the formalities of the law, when the action is thus brouglit,are such as to excludes rt-:nt.-- d_v oftentimes when tin injury of this nature is intlictcrl; for shoufd it happen, as indeed it too frequently do.-s. that the se- duced has neither parents nor |.'lJIf(Ili-tn! to look to for protec- tion, or having either. happens to be se luccd at a time wh -n not living in their service, or under their actual care, she is, in fact, without remedy. however pitialvle or aggravated her case may be; and thiii l’)'('.a|I89 she cannot complv with the legal form of alleging and provinx some pi-tty or im'nrilerial loss of service: thus the yamuily is not witltin the reach of those who being so situated, rnoct ncedfnlly require its application. The Bill was. therefore. intended to remove these technical tlilll- culties: and to allow the action to be brought iiniler arty cir- cum-itanccs, in the name ofthe woman herself. and at the same time to give her the benefit of her own testimony, although a party to the record. It dispenses with the necessity of shew- ing loss of service, or any pecttniary loss, and simplifies in a material degree. the pleading: in t'ie cause. he ltlll was at the siimc time, he feared. not strlficicntly guarded to pr.-vent its provisions being abused: It left the crcdibilitv of the pliiintifi”it testimony wholly with the jury. who. notwithstand- ing such testimony, were not bound in law to find even nomi- rial dainaircs. if they thought proper. It enrbled the judge to place the damages recovered in the hands of a trustee for the plsintilf. if he thought it for her interest; and the llill itself was only to cxtcnl tti actions when the damages claimed did not nxqsgd ops hundred pounds. Hit douhte-l not. therefore. that it would meet the support of the Committee. lt-was cer- tainly high time, that some alteration in the law was made on the subject ; as a professional man, he could sav many cases had cortie to his knowled ze. exree-linxly distressing in their cir- cllm!’lllt‘e8, owing to the present state ofthe law. (Tire hon. mcinbcr ‘ ‘ ' sum-.‘ "....: . ‘ ‘i ‘ suffering brou;-lit upon young and unprotected women, and where their scducers. although able to alleviate it. rather mocked than attempted to relieve their misery.) The evil, too. he aildel, appeared to be air the increase, and in his opinion, cillcil louilly for a remedy.

Hon. Mr. COl.l-IS was of opinion,tltat the Small Debts Court ought to be made available to the augvrioveil parties, he- cztusc if redress was to be nhtsitt--d in the Supreme Coirrt only, starvation nii5lit happen, bclorc the sitting of the latter catue

rolllll .

Mr. Pr\I.\IEll said. it was his int -ntion to introduce ti Bill on Bruin-dy before the cloiiiiip of the Sossion. which would ampowr-r the mother to atfilizite the child before a Justice of the Peac- previously to confinement, as in England ; this Bill would more itnmeilistely meet the extreme cases slluitrd ti; by the Hon. Mr. Col-i-, but would op-rats inilependant ofthe one now un-let cotisderation. w iic‘i latter wooll be available to womcti in tiny cl..ss of life. Ile, (Mr. i’) expected many cases would occur. where parties might be in circutnatanis-s sullicicntly easy to deter them from seeking a remedy intended only for the destitute, but who. nevertheless. looked more to the injury to their reputation ; thtiuglit the law should provide a rem.-dy, which the present Bill would enable them to do. and at the same time, would be a law which would apply to all. The Bill its intended to introduce respecting llastardy, wou be a mers Il'MtIt‘.|'lpt from the law ot Nova Scotti. which as it hid been lately revised, he had no doubt, had been found to work well.

Alter a few remarks from Mr. Montgomery and the Hon. Mr. Coles. tlte Bill was reported agreed to, and ordered to be engrossed.

Btu. ro hirtrn -rua Law or Evinnrcr.

This Bill. on motion of Mr. Havilanil. was read a second time. who there-ipon explained its principle: It was. he said, framed from a British Statute, of which Lord Campbell was the author. and intended to be a great saving in causes tried in the Supreme Court. It had been found that where parties were obstinate. and would not produce evidence required by the plaitttitl, Chancery must be resorted to. to compel them. whereby much expense ‘vas incurred : tllil VII 000 think ill! Bill would rsmcdy. Another was, that masters of vessels should produce their Registers in any Court. without the delay and expense of rhsps having to send thousands of miles. Another cause o sxpcnsc intended to be reincilitd. VII when a party had been tried and acquitted, and a second indictment was brought against him. he should not be bound to be put to

s expense of producing all the proceedings had in the first indistinont, as is now the case. hsn any book or original document was uired in Court. the Bill priividsd that a cer-

tified copy slioul be substituted, lnasrnticlt that the book or other document may be wanted in several places at one and the sates time. Any person or person! found guilty of certifying falss documents, to be considered as liavin committed a mis- demeanor. and ltsld liable to be prosecute . And if a seal is flhillitl. to b;'e’onaldcri-d felony. h | ' Ml d i’- said he did not. r it . com etc a crstan tbs 3lll:Is‘An',wfinIs be approved orxoutelupans orit. bat should like it “"5 5010': will after the word boolt was struck out.

Mr. PALIIBB to inform the hon. tnember Iis iicsd be only contemplated public books. to show the

be’ as vsiid as the original. He might addict many a mints, take for instance this simple one. from the Col. Secretary's ollics; he might not Iltts to loss in custody. than no a he incurred in calling spsn him to produce the book in can. A than documents tiilgbt be required a sac cases. and it may be necessary to go to gross expobs in calling w Ilia nditansn to prove the tiisrs cessation of each document. it sens sssss tbs parties may not require this. but sdutit tbssigiiatssc; sn tbsstbsr hand. some ins bs shtlnsts and would not scnssn hbsat and mt. Iltsrhzfors. to pay the expense sftbsk vssstlsn. Law-

i .3.

sismbsr. ll ’ pvssnstiig ‘i'=°-""i':.~:r%:-.,..~*-"5?-f.I‘-'-".:'.1~:.-*c+..~....“ .---::'°'=

E-'31"

:\ 1 r

Mr. FRASER had known copies of deeds admitted in evidence. Mr. IIAVILAND reminded the hou. member that that must have happened when the or’ ina_l was lost.

r. DAVIES a r with the hon. member Mr. Fraser, he did not approve of son tug to England for copies of deeds, tlisy may say the copies are genuine. and yrt_ they may be sixty years n . nbouIl.tlIb0Ci:rt l't|).:'I.keTl“l'l:lI‘l'I.llII‘.e.l“°|‘ll.tI“;9lI“In::Il'i°d mm! and

~ . nconvcurence and annoyed. y llon. r r. COLES did not up rovc of copies of deeds or other documents from Englttnd. in the slrrnd not so. because if tiny sup- po error.th 'ilcldt b I )III.

Mr. HAVllIA"N' ":3." hilt wucddzfletoothg ‘Hill, bht was tnorally t(:pr'tain. tho‘; ifit bccamcalétw ithvvonld be fountjn gicut benefit to the .oony.sn wass ris tt o 't' h I: , h r. ri..ir...., Mr. o..s.'.'f”.. r...'.'r c.°...,.'i.'L'i'i"..'.°r,'.'a.‘.’...Z.r°.i.‘$"s!.?$iL,"1.i£Z

was a rent Liberal.

Mr. IAVILAND uiovcd that the House go into is Committee of the whole.

Mr. FR.-\SER. in amendment, moved that the House go into Committee this day six weeks.--The House divided: _;4v:s-—IIon. Mr. Pope, and Messrs. Fraser. Laird and M‘Nci|l

Nave .

'l‘_hs House then went into Committec—llIr. BEATON in the Chair. And the House being resumed,

The lion. SPEAKER said he must make it few remarks; any thing relative to deeds. he consitlercil ought to be looked at with a jealous eye. Mortgages might be tilfecled in England and not known here. and the land sold again, and the purchaser in ignorance ofthe mortgage errintiug, and he may lose his purchase. He should be

hid to tree expenses saved, if danger did not cottic in.

Mr. IIAVILAND reminded the lion. Speaker thrrt if the Mort- grrgee did not register his deeds, then he could not take advantage ofthe puro rise.

Mr. §PEA KER knew the proprietors would not do so. After it short ttrrie spent in Cotflrnittee. t e Chairinan reported progrees, asked for and obtained leave to sit ttgttitt.

r\Ii_iss.-tge from the Legislative Council, by C. Desbrisriy. F..sq.. in. forining the House that the Council had passed the following Bills without amendment :—

The llill to regulate the Sale of Arsenic and other Poisons.

The Bill to regulate the Public Advcrtiiieriients, and also it Bill to incorporate the Diocesan Society, to which they desire the concur- rence ofthe Ilousc.

llon. Mr. COLBS presented it petition frotn the Rev. Dr. Jenkins, relative to the last Bill, srid then moved that the Bill be read it first titne, which being done, its second reading was ordered forlo-

rnoru ow.

‘lion. Mr. COLES moved that said Bill be referred to the Com- mittee on Private Bills, to report thereon, and it was referred ac- cordingly.

Btu. -ro rrtconroan-rr: rrru: GRAND Drvrsrotv or Till orvs or 'l‘s:ssn:itarvcs:. On motion of Mr. Palmer, this Bill was read it third time and

pass , I Mr. WARBURTON laid before the House the Blue Books or Adjourned till 3 o'clock. APPERNOON SITTING. Law or Evrnlxrcn.

llounn rrr Coausrr--rs'.: on Mu. IIavrr..utn‘s Bru..—.\Ir. EATON in the Chair.

Mr. IIAVILAND moved. that the Bill for amending the Law of Evrtl-ence be now committed to n Corntnittec of the whole House. At this stage of the Bill, he believed it was his duty to cxplriin to the House. the lending features of the measure he bird introduced; the principal clauses thersiir contnineil, were extracted from the Act carried through the Itiipcriiil Pnrliiirrient lnirt Session , by that nblc Luw Reformer Lord Brougham. 'I‘lie first clrtuitc of the proposed Ilill,

,' ,' ' 3 ‘ “ r " ,Il-- ----M power ofordering inspection ofllecdi-, Books, Docuiiietilii. &c. as in at present ext-r. ciscd by the Court ofClinncery.nnd which clause. if it should become Law. will prove at great saving of time rind unneceiiitriry expense to Snitnrs. 'l'lic Bill also prtipttses, tn nrake Certificate of llegiiitry of British Vessels iIlIlIlI7|r|II.)II€ its priinrl frtcie evidence of their con- tcnts. wttlsnut oof of the signature ofthe ollicirr signing the rtninc. Another clrruse ofthe Bill is so frittrtcil. us to make a Ciertilicirte. under the lirtnd ofllre Clerk of n Court of Justice, sitllicictit evi- dence of the acquittal or conviction of a person charged with it crittie, witlitiut producing the whole Record. It is ttlsn provided by the Bill. Ih:it if nny Public Uliicer certifies a false llocument, he shall be guilty ofa Misdettreaiicr. And if any prirty to an Ac- tion nlinll tender in evidence, any Deed or other Document, know- ing the some tobc forged or false, he shrill be guilty of I~‘i.-lorry. The last clause to the Bill has been drafted for the purpose of saving expense to Suiturs in proving cedar, and other written Ill- strurncnlii, where the attesting witnesses tltereto are not witltin the Jurisdiction ofthe Courts of this Islrrnd. Mr. Ilsiviland. believ- ed, that he lrnd stated to the House, on Bpitntiie of the principal contents of the proposed Evidence Bill, and he ll:ttI little doubt. that if the satire should become the Law of the I.nniI, it would prove a great benefit to all parties concerned in the due Adiiriuis- trntion of Justice.

Cliiurte to provide that the Parties and the Persons in wlioss be- half any Suit or Action may be brought or defended, shall be com- pclled and be com ellnble to give Evidence.

Hon Mr. \VlIl:.l.AN wished to know. whether the honorable and learned member who htid brought in the Bill, intended to in- troducc into it a clause similar to that in the English Statute, of which the Bill is a transcript. to ituthorizc the cxiiuiinrition. by Courts. ofbcth plnintitI'and defendant. and, if not, what reasons or coniiitlerulions had in uced hitn to omit it. Ile (.\Ir. Wlielan) wire of opinion. that its introduction would rather provs conducive thnn prejudicial. to the ends of justice.

Mr. IIAVILAND. Ilc btid oiirrtted it because he was afraid. that its tidoption might frequently prove too strong it temptation to tlis crime of perjury‘.

Mr. PALM!-‘. was glad. that the clause had been omitted. It would be better to wait. until the experiment had it f.iir triitl at home; when, should it .. I0 been found to be really serviceable. in t e slicitingoftruth and determining the course of justice, it might easily and safely be adopted hers. It was by no means generally adintttsd at borne to be good policy; and the Judges ditfered in opinion with respect to it. In cases of seduction, the propriety of its admissibility seemed to be vcr questionable : for wliers par- ties httd proved to n lsr amount 0 damages. on tltc evidence of

the pltrintitf. the deft: ant came in. and swore pniiit blank. that he had not been the ssduccr. and was not the firtlicr of the child. Such cases had can the Judges to ditfnr in opinion as to its po- licy. They had come to a conclusion to examine both parties on oath as the law directs; but to give credence to the part whose evidence was most strongly corroborated by the evidence of others, and to charge the jury accordingly. Nevertheless, the principlo,wns he thought, a very dangerous one, and ofl'ercd too grctita temptation

so

u ur . I oii. bit. Will-ELAN. The principle livid been r niscd as a just one in the Small Debts Bill; why should it not be told to be equally just with respect to the Supreme Court! on. Mr. POPE. Ila uitdornood. when it was admitted into the Small Debts Bill. that its adoption was to be general with respect to all the Courts. What been stated. by the honorable moni- bsr for Charlottetown, with respect to the practice of the English Judges. afliirdcd, instead ofan iirgnmcut itgiiinst the principle, a proof that its admissioit, when duly regulated. could not tend to the obstruction of justice. In the case of alleged sctlnction, in wliic the plaintilmigbt be a woman of abandoned character, and the defendant. a man whose general reputation was good. it would be perfectly in accordance with the principles ofjllsttcc for the Court to receive his testimony In his own favour, and for the Judge. in his summing up. to show what . with reference to previous - ructer. ore credit were due to the defendant or to the plaintlfl’. The credibility n pn.rt1 in any snub cuss. would depend a

previous tattoo; a lbs princi . in bi o&i.nion, was there ore as sdutlssib pad dsfsnsbln. on t part of defendant. as in that sftbs Tbs fsnndsd

tl. be . was s rsusss,jut"ls.:asd sqsityt sndltwosldlm. I'svsr.bsstbsr-

wise than that corroborative evidence would aid the Court and the Jury in determining on which side the truth and justice ‘lay._ . Th House had been ultnost unrtnirnous in allowing the admissibility of the principle in the Small Debts’ Courts; and he could see no rea- son why it should be excluded from the higher Courts. The House had the determination of the British Purlittrnsiit for their gutt.I_s; and although the English judges might not all concur in opinion with reitpect to the policy of the principle. there was no reason to think that it had met with disfuvour from the pa ' \Vhen it will tllfl practice to receive the personal evidence of the plaintilf only, there could be no doubt, many a respectirblc man had been declared guil- ty of a crime of which he wits perfectly innocent. no one else would move the adoption of the principle in the Bill before the Committee, he would take the sense of the House upon it.

Hun. Mr. COLI-IS. In his opinion, the practice might. with greater propriety and more safely. be admitted into the Supretne Court, than the Small Debts and other lower Courts; for In the furiner. the vigilance and dexterity of the Judge and the lawyers being ccnstiintly in operation, t'or the protection of truth and the detection of falsehold, by cross-questioning and sifting of evidence, gerjury could not often be successful therein. But, in the lower

cum, in which, Justices and Commissioners were less versed in the art of eliciting the truth and detecting falsehood, pcr'ury was much more likely to effect its object; rind, in the Sinai Debts’ Courts. now that the jurisdiction had been extended to £29, the tcrnpttttiorr to its coriiruiuiiiou might be quite as frequent as In the Supreme Court.

Mr. THORNTON. “fan in firvour oftlte practical adoption of the princi do in the Small Debts’ Courts, because he was persuaded it would rcquenily promote the ends of justice. by making facts clear and rnziriifest, which otherwise, could not have been fairly brought to light or established; and he could not think that any greater danger. with respect to perjury, could be attendant u it its_ in- troduction into the Supreme Court, than would procsc from it in the Small Debts‘ Courts. VVith respect to the prtipricty of allow- ing a tnan of general good character and respectability to rebut, on his oath, the testimony of an abandoned woman to his injury. there could. he thought, be but one opinion, and that quite conclusive in its favour. long as is contrary practice had been allowed to pre- vail. And to shew the advantages which might frequently result from it. in favour of the defentlttnt. in other crises. such as uctions of debt, he would just instance, roin memory. the case ofan Editor ofn Newspaper vs. Sir \rVi||iarn Sotnerville, lately dcteflnilled in

ublin. It appeared. that in an itctton the Editor claimed tllmlll £5000. for services rentlercd the British Government. tlllfllls the time of the irpprehendctl raising in Ireland in '43 : on its own evidence. he utlrnirred linving received about .£'l00;but the evidence of Sir William being udiriitted, he proved by his testimony. corrobo- rated b_v that o Lord Clarendon, and also by a letter from the I’Irrintitl‘lriinselfto Lord John Russell. that he had been paid about £3700 which at once closed the case against the Plaintilf.

Mr. PAl..\IEll. \Vith regard to the difi'crent opinions entertain- ed concerning the principle, be thought, there could not possibly be one more worthy of respect, than that of the English JudgeI._Wh0|° cxjierinnce so well qualified tlieitt to decide, what latitude.it might be an e to give to the evidence ofconflicting parties, when it was quite clear tlrirt that of one party must be faliie. They well know to what iniquitous extent, vicious ttrtd interested witnesses would 50: If sutlicicnt licence were iillowed them: and as a guard against the monstrous injustice which the being allowed to give it might. 93601. they had consulted with one another. and determined to pursue the course which he had indicated. Even grunting that the prin- ciple inight,with propriety. be admitted in the business ofthe Small Debts‘ Court. it did not. from thence follow. even with respect to actions of debt. that it could be safely allowed in the Supreme

‘ourt. In the tint, the highest amount in litigation. Wolllt-I I30 only £l2. and the title to Land was excluded; but. in the latter. the property in dispute might be an entire township, or other property to an ulrtiost illiniitubls antount. The admission of the princi- plc put the good. honest, conscientious man. upon a level with the man, destitute of all correct rnortil feeling, rind void of all consci- eiittous ncruplcs. Neither of the parties might be known either to the Court or Jury; an as it was impossible to dive into the bosotrts of men, and, by so.-ircliirig their hearts. to ascertain the fulsity or correctness oftlicir stnlcrricnts, credence might as likely be given to the man of no conscience. as to the man of IlIIFg(IIy. It would, in his opinion. be much better to rItl.r_v the u'lopiin:r of the principle here. until the wi-izloin of the experiment had been confirmed by the experience of the Law Courts at home.

The Hon. the SI’l'I.-\KI-‘ilt thought, that in itnmc cases, it would tend to the furtherance of justice, that the evidence of the defen- tIt|nl on oath, ahoulil ho ittltnitted: but, tllatt, in others. it would not. Iltiwevcr, as it would not be easy for lrirri to specify either the cases, with regard to which. he thought, the practice might safely be nul- iiiitted. or those in which. he wits ofiipiition, that the admission of it might be prejudicial to truth and justice; rtiid as even if it were in his power clearly to point out till the cases in which it trtigltt be safe. as well as all in wliicli it would be dangerous, to rtilniit it, he could not hope to have the low so frtttned. us clniirly to point out when it ought to be allowed and when it ought not; he woulil vote. with the linuornblo the Treasurer. for the adoption of the clause in the English Act. which establishes the practice.