Penny London Morning Advertiser (Newspaper) - March 2, 1844, London, Middlesex London Morning From td March 1744 ijj Continuation of the Trial between the Hon. James the Right Hon. Richard 0/ the from what has come out of the Mouth when on the it appears that he was Attorney for the Earl of and we will fay no more to Point till hear what the Council for Plaintiff will fay to and bag Leave to - we of Council for the defendant fay that the Attorney ought not to demur to any asked 1 for the to the Point now Before the Mr. Serjeant the My thg ion to be to whe ther the lately on the Table flialt be he being formerly an Attorney the Earl of in other my the on his Examination denied on his Oath that he had any Expectation of being employed by the Earl of the of the Plaintiff when the we only produced the to examine him to the he had with the relative to the Right to the Matter now wherein the is not therefore 4here is no Secret in that he not being employed as an Attorney or as rhs for the Murder that was to the Life of a it is lawful to and does not intervene with the Oath of an Attorney as the Ceuncil of the Defendant would and the was long before that Faft Another Ceuncil for the My I do admit that an Attorney not be Evidence in a Caufe he and came to the Knowledge of that Matter as Attorney in the but if any Matter comes to his though an and yet not c as an Attorney in that nor doth the Matter come to his Knowledge as Attorney in that the Attorney in that Cafe be examined as a And is now the Cafe be- fore the Court it be faid or imagined that an Attorney once by a that the Attorney's Mouth be up for that it is when the Matter comes to his Knowledge not as an Another Council for the My the Cafes urged by the Council for the Defendant that Attorney was Attorney in that and the Merits came to his Knowledge barely as Attorney in the and if the Rules hid down by the Council for the Defendant were to be it would totally Truth and and hide the aud My Lords if an of Parliament was made mar an Attorney not be a in any Caufe it would be the Divine Laws of muff not be My Lord our examining this is only as to the and his Declarations of Right to the Lands in to the for the My if an Attorney receives from his Client any which would overthrow in that Cafe Court give the Privilege tc the Attorney not to be nor can any be given by to prevent of mortal My if an Attorney was at a Trial for and the at the Bar call upon the Attorney tp Be examined as a not on the Table be obliged to give Evidence I am fure the Court would examine and not give him a and in that Cafe the Attorney might give Examination of the Bribery his that from what Hath been urged by the Gentlemen who on the fame Side with he hoped the be called and examined to the Matter of the and the Defendant's relative to the of the Plaintiff's and then f to the Opinion of the Court 1 Gentlemen of the Council for the you are to and may go the Plaintiff's Council having to the Opinion of the as to the Point now Council for the Defendant then Mr. Serjeant My notwithstanding what has been offered by the Plaintiff that the Mr. ought to be I lhall offer my to the it appears from the Mouth of the laid that he was Attorney for the Earl of now Defendant in this in from the Year 1722 to the 174.1, and that there was mutual Confidence between My if a CHent any Thing to his Attorney no way relative to the Thing in or wherein he was concerned as that Attorney ought not to from the mutual Confidence and Relation between them 3--and if it was not from that Confidence no fitch very probably would have between them and that the between the faid and the Defendant is relative tothe now and mentioned the Caufe of Say and My an Attorney ought not to any tho' the Suit is determined in any other Matter that comes to his Knowledge during the of that and he ought nor to be for if that was admitted it might be in the Power of Attorney or if they be bale enough to do to ruin any As to an Attorney's Obligation to the or to his it is a prior Engagement yet if he be retained to ought not to his My I will put this Cafe If a Man kills and is indicted for the and no can prove bur by what the Man his by him that lie killed the Man j yet from the and Confidence between the Attorney the Attorney ought not to get and or give Evidence of that and compared that Cafe to the Matter now upon the before the Mr. Attorney My who is to be is not a competent my the fame of the Law that gives Privilege to a to employ Council and at the fame Time gives the Privilege of not what came to their their and the of Say and Say { and it is not much Matter the whether this be exa- mined or for from what he from the Confidence his Client in he hoped the Jury would hot credit Another Council for the My Lords the Privilege of an Attorney is to keep the Secrets of his and not And whether this was or it is the fame Thing from the in and of his being afterwards in that very faid he no Cafe wherein a Client waved the Benefit of the Privilege that his Attorney not be examined as but in the Cafe of a where the have his Attorney a In that the Client waves the Privilege he might if he had not been a the Client in that Cafe making it that his be on to prove the Execution tho' he was Attorney for the Party at the Time of the Execution of the Another Council for the My if a Was filed the Defendant to this Matter relative to the Trial for the he would not be obliged to it. then the Defendant's Attorney not under the and Confidence in him relative to that Matter it. And the Defendant cart on that and not fuffer him to j and the is in the of this from the Di covery of. Confidence between the Attorney and his hoped this not be before the Court has been fully to by the Council on the Court muff give their in order that this Trial may proceeded Lord Chief Every Cafe muff upon its own and relative to general The here whether the came to the Knowledge of what he has by being The Policy of the Law muft be complied with 5 that to retain the Attorney j but when the Client to his any Secret as a he depends on him under that And this Court has nothing to do in this for it was in the Option of the Party not to but here this is not the Suit not being As to the Cafe mentioned in is ail relative to came to the Attorney's when as Attorney in the As to the Cafe of Say and that was upon a common and a Deed to declare the Ules of the and no proper to the And then his mentioned a Gate in where Mr. in Attorney and infilled on his Privilege not to be he came the Knowledge of the Matter by being Attorney therein ' But faid his is not the Cafe now before the and I am of Opinion the be Mr Baron From the and Cafes laid down by the Defendant's cil makes them j fame beine the Confidence as that - A Man's that he would Ten to have a Man is no innocent and muff Matter never be ( To to } }
