How long ago was it since you wrote this paper?-About six years. What time of the year was it?-Before the rains. Was it morning or night?-Three or four gurries of the day were remaining. How long were you writing that paper ?---‡ or a gurrey. Are you sure it was so much ?--It was 4 of a gurry. Are you sure it was quite a quarter of a gurry? ---Try me. Did you bring the pen with you?---No: it was in the house. Was the ink-stand there?---Yes; Maha Rajah was sitting in the hall. Did you write in the same room?---Yes. Who brought you to Maha Rajah to write that paper?---Nobody called me. Had you ever wrote in the same room where Maha Rajah was before?--No. How came Maha Rajah to ask you to write? ---1 am a merchant; every body knows I can write. Who was present besides Maha Rajah, Gungabissen, and Mohun Persaud, when you wrote the paper?---Choyton Naut, and another person, a Bramin. Was any one else?---No one else. Who was the other person ?---I do not know. What was his name?---I do not enquire the names of every body I see: I bave heard his name is Sangoo Loll. He knows himself: I do not know. Did Sangoo Loll come about business, or to pay salam ?--I do not know; he came. Was Sangoo Loll a servant of Maha Rajah's? ---I do not know. Were the whole company sitting, or standing?---All sitting together. Did you ever sit in Maha Rajah's presence before this time ?---I always sit in his presence. Did any one write on the paper besides ?--I wrote: they all signed it. Who is all' ?---Choyton Naut and Sangoo Loll. Who wrote first?---Sangoo Loll first, after I had signed it. Who desired, Sangoo Loll to sign it ?---All three of them desired of him; Gungabissen, Mohun Persaud, and Pudmohun Doss. Who desired Choyton Naut to sign?---The three men before mentioned. Did Maha Rajah say any thing ?---Yes: he desired them to witness the paper. Did Maha Rajah desire any of them to sign it ?---Maha Rajah said it was necessary to witness it to make it pukka; and they said so too, and then signed it. Did Maha Rajah desire Pudmohun Doss to sign it?---No: he did not ask Gungabissen, Pudmohun Doss, or Mohun Persaud: he only desired it to be witnessed. Do you ever pay any customs in the course of your trade ?---I never paid any in Calcutta. How came you not to pay customs in Calcutta for long cloth, lead, &c. ?---I bring lead Do you know Mohun Doss ?---I do. What is he?---He is in business; I remem ber he bought some cloths from me when I was servant to Mr. Senior: he told me he had got some salt about a year and a half since. Is he at present a principal merchant?---[ know him very well: he and his brother were formerly deeply concerned. Couns. for Pris. Do you think him a mar of credit, when upon oath ?---A. I do not know what passes in his mind. Is he a man of credit ?---He formerly was. Was bis name hurt, or not? [No answer could be procured.] Do you know any thing of him ?---He is of a good cast: I know his brother is a good man. Sango Loll examined. Did you ever attest a copy of any paper at Maha Rajah Nundocomar's ?---I did attest a copy of a curra nama. Persaud, Who were present ?---Mohun Gungabissen, Pudmohun Doss, Choyton Naut, and Mobun Doss. What do you know of the paper?---What should I know of the paper? I know it is my name at the bottom. Maha Rajah told Mohun Doss to take a copy of a paper; when Mohun Doss had taken a copy, he desired me to be a witness. I asked Pudmohup Doss whether Bollakey Doss's name was to it: he said it was, and then witnessed it. Who witnessed the paper besides Mohun Doss P-Choyton Naut. What became of the original after it was copied ?---I know nothing of the original: I know we three were witnesses to the copy: what do I know of the original? Did you compare the copy with the original? --No, I did not. Did you read the one or the other?---No, I did not: Pudmohun Doss said they were the same. Q. to Mohun Doss. Did you compare the original with the copy after you wrote it?--A. What words I did not understand, Padmehun Doss explained: after making the copy I read it, and the words that were wrong I altered. Sango Loll cross-examined. Did not you read the words over your name, which are," I, Sango Loll, bave examined the original, and attested this copy?"--I could not read it: I did not read it: I could not compare the paper: I cannot read it. Could you read it at that time? Could you read the original paper?---I cannot read others | hand-writing, though I can read my own. could not read the original. Did he sign his name in Nagree or Bengal? I-In Bengal. What time of the day was it?---There were four gurries remaining when he began to write; and it was evening when he had done. Was he four gurries in writing it ?---I cannot say whether it was four gurries, or 44 gurries; he began a very little time to write after I arrived. Was he four gurries writing it ?---I do not know how many gurries of the day it was when I went four gurries remained when he began to write: it was the evening before he finished. Did you see him write the whole ?---Yes. Did all the people who were present when he he began, sit by him till he finished?---Every body. Who are you?---I am a Bramin and a merchant. How long have you been a merchant ?---I have been ten years in this town. Where do you live?---In the Burra Buzar. What trade do you carry on ?---1 am a shopkeeper, and sell goods. How long have you known Maha Rajah ?--Ten years. Are you well acquainted with him?---Very well. Do you go often to visit him?---I do. How came you to be there at that time ?---I went to pay salam. Did Mohun Doss copy it from the paper before him?---Mohun Doss copied it from seeing the original, but when he did not understand, he asked Pudmobun Doss. What things do you deal in ?---1 sell China goods, sometimes fruit, and what I can get two rupees by. Is your shop full of goods?--Yes. Did you go to fetch Mohun Doss, or Mohun Doss go to fetch you?---Mohun Doss did not call me; I went to make salam. Choyton Naut examined. [The last witness says that this is the man.] Were you a witness to a paper with this man? [pointing to the last witness.]---I was. In what characters did you sign your name? --In Bengal. Do you understand Nagree?---No. Do Did hear the Nagree paper, that you you are a witness to, read?---Yes. Who explained it to you in Bengally?--- ́ Pudmohun Doss. Kissen Juan Doss examined. [An account marked Q. is shewn him, found by him among the papers deposited in the court.] Do you know that paper?---This account was written by me, and is signed by Pudmobun Doss and Mohun Persaud. What does that account contain ?---This account is not entered in the book, but was drawn out in a hurry to be delivered to the Adawlet. What Adawlet?---The former Adawlet, not this. Was there any account previous to this delivered into the Mayor's court?---There was an account given into the Mayor's court, of which this is a continuation. Is the balance of that former account carried into this?---The balance that remained due in the former account, is brought over into this. Who wrote the former Nagree account?---1 did. What is the reason Mohun Persaud returned What is the value of them?---They may be to sign the account delivered into the Mayor's worth about 5 or 600 rupees. court ?--After the coufinement of Pudmohun Doss and Gungabissen, Pudmohun Doss set about drawing accounts preceding. This was at that time drawn out: after that, when Gungabissen was released, Gungabissen, Pudiohun Doss, and Mohun Persaud, met at the house of the late Bollakey Doss; and they Ma-jointly wrote out this account. Were you ever in any other way of business? why do you call yourself a merchant ?---I never have been a merchant; I never made any great sum in Calcutta, to be called a merchant. Can you write?---I can a little in my own business. Did you ever attest any other paper at ha Rajah's?--No. Do you know Choyton Naut ?---Yes. Pudmohun Doss desired Mohun Persaud to sign it. Mohun Persaud, in answer, desired Pudmohun Doss first, and then Mohun Persaud. Mohun Doss delivered in the Nagree paper [exhibit M.] which he had been copying, and Do you know where he came from ?--Iit appeared that he had been one hour and a know he lives in Calcutta now. half in copying it. EXHIBIT Q. 38,854 10 2 5,500 one bond Mr. Loose, 2,000 Mr. Hare. Persaud. 1,924 9 1 Pudmohun Doss. 23,817 5 Cr. Paid to different people as per following particulars, current rupees. 5,800 paid to Mohun Persaud, balance of 11,262 8, which was to be paid as follows, 10,862 8, C. R. by order of Bollakey Doss, and 400 at different times in the lifetime of B. D. after the execution of the power of attorney, Dr. 20,400 6,947 2 2,000 334 Ct. Rs. borrowed from Coja Petruse, for which a bond was written, dated 7th May English, and for which the following things were pawned. Purchase deeds of house, two bonds of Mr. Gulver, one for 7,639 4, one for 5,000. 2,000 Cr. out of which 10,862 85,462 8, was paid in the lifetime of B. D. Account sales of allum be longing to Mohun Persand, brought to bis credit on the house at Moorsbedabad, and paid him here. One receipt of Magal Calustry, 29,164 2 2 Paid to Lewis Callustry, attor for 5,000. Paid by Allumchund Cuttry, for which one bond was written, dated 7th May English, for current rupees. A debt discharged by Mr. Gulver, for current rupees. Paid by Lewis Calustry, the balance of accounts current rupees. 666 13 1 Sales of a sloop and Mussagur cloth, 140 arc. rups. four pieces of Mussagur at 35 rups. 1,913 550 Ct.rups, sale of sloop. 11 3 1 Batta on the 140 arc. 159 6 2 The supposed amount sales of things from the house at Patna. 40 14 8 2 Brass pot, in weight ney to Mr. Sparks, the attorney agreeable to a decree of the Mayor's court. 21,850 Principal. 6,059 8 1 Interest, 1,254 10 1 Exps. audawlet. Matta, two strings. 2,484 10 2 9p. 11ct. at 1 per 70 209 C. R. 500 Gurreeb Doss Pottock. 400 Moolychund, by the hands of Ruttun Chund. 1,000 Kissen Juan Doss. Goodun Doss acct. sloop expences from 17 May, to 2d of Baadoes. 5 S Audawlet expences. 4,665 1 1 For the expences of house, ser vants, &c. 600 11 1 Acct. profit and loss, as by Par tar in the books. copies. If they are produced in court, the Court will oblige the party to inform the Court of the matter proposed to be read, and will not allow it, except they see that it, is applicable to the cause. I wish you to inform the governor general and council of what is now said, and let them know that we wish to accommodate our practice as far as possible to the convenience of the East India Company; we wish Mr. John Stewart called in, to produce the likewise that you would remind the governor books of the Council. Have you brought the books you were required to bring ?--I have no authority to carry books out of the office, or to produce them without order. I acquainted the board with the subpœna: the board desired me to acquaint the Court in their name, that they conceive it to be liable to many inconveniences and ill consequences to exhibit the proceedings of the council in an open court of justice, especially as they may sometimes contain secrets of the utmost importance to the interest, and even to the safety of the state, and as they conceive that if it was allowable in one instance, it would be a rule in all. general and council, how anxious we are that they should make application to the Court to have such of their officers excused from serving offices cannot be dispensed with, without detrion juries, whose attendances in their several time of the application to us from the different ment to the affairs of the Company. At the servants to be excused from serving on juries, we mentioned how impossible it was for us to and whom not. That we might err on the judge whom it might be necessary to excuse, right side, and not prejudice the affairs of the Company, we were obliged to be liberal in allowing the excuses made; but we have since. found that several of the persons excused have since owned, that there was little or no excuse for them, and that they did not expect it, but thought, when they saw others excused, they might put in their claim: we cannot do this in future, and therefore are very solicitous to be informed by the governor general and council, what servants they wish to have exempted from serving on juries, that neither the business of the Court, nor that of the Company, may suffer. The purpose for which the books were desired to be produced was to discredit Shaik Ear Mahomed, who, as the counsel for the crown stated, had been guilty of perjury before the council, and had been by them censured for the same. The Court was of opinion, that the evidence was not admissible, it being a particular fact, and not to general reputation; and that no perjury* could be committed, in swear Court. In this, as well as in every other instance, we should consult the interest and convenience of the Company as much as possible. We are not surprised that the governor general and council should be desirous to prevent their books being examined, which might tend to the consequences they mention: it would be highly improper that their books should be wantonly subjected to curious and impertinent eyes; but, at the same time, it is a matter of justice, that if they contain evidence material to the parties in civil suits, that they may have an opportunity of availing themselves of it. Humanity requires it should be produced, when in favour of a criminal, justice when against him. The papers and records of all the public companies in England, of the Bank, South Sea House, and the East India House, are liable to be called for, where justice shall require copies of the records and proceedings, from the highest court of judicature, down to the court of PiePowder, and continually given in evidence, When it is necessary they should be produced, the Court will take care they are not made an improper use of. To wish the council to be "It seems to be clearly agreed, that all such put to the least inconvenience possible, we wish false oaths, as are taken before those who they would consider whether they think the are any ways intrusted with the administration inconvenience of the production of their books of public justice, in relation to any matter beand proceedings, or the granting copies of such fore them in debate, are properly perjuries; parts as may be required to be given in evi- and it seems to have been holden by some, that dence, may be the least liable to objection. all such false oaths as are taken before persons The bringing the books and papers may subject authorised by the king to examine witnesses in them to the hazard of being lost, and may im- relation to any matter whatsoever, wherein his pede the business. On the other hand, if co- honour or interest are concerned, are also pies are granted, the Court cannot hold so punishable as perjuries. And surely there can strict a hand over impertinent curiosity as they be no offence of this nature which will not can, if the books and papers are produced injustly deserve a public prosecution, inasmuch the open court: if copies are taken not relevant to the cause, the Court would most certainly censure the party offending therein; but the mischief might be done by having taken the VOL. XX. *"Perjury, by the common law, seemeth to be a wilful false oath, by one who being lawfully required to depose the truth in any proceeding in a course of justice, swears absolutely in a matter of some consequence to the point in question, whether be be believed or not. as if it should once prevail, it would make it impossible to have any law whatsoever duly executed, and expose the lives, liberties, and properties, of the most innocent, to the mercy 3 Y ing before the governor general and council, who do not constitute a court of record: if they were a court of record, the only proper evidence would have been a record of the conviction for the perjury; the books were therefore not desired to be produced. [The Counsel for the Prisoner informed the Court that the Prisoner had something to say.] Court. By all means; let us hear it but would it not be more proper for you to ask him what it is, that you may judge of what he has to say? Counsel. I know it is not improper. of the greatest villains. And therefore it hath been holden, that not only such persons are indictable for perjury, who take a false oath in a court of record, upon an issue therein joined, but also all those who forswear themselves in a matter judicially depending before any court of equity, or spiritual court, or any other lawful court, whether the proceedings therein be of record or not, or whether they concern the interest of the king or subject. And it is said to be no way material, whether such false oath be taken in the face of a court, or persons authorised by it to examine a matter, the knowledge whereof is necessary for the right determination of a cause; and therefore, that a false oath before a sheriff, upon a writ of enquiry of damages, is as much punishable as if it were taken before the Court on a trial of the cause. "Also it seemeth, that any false oath is punishable, as perjury, which tends to mislead the Court in any of their proceedings relating to a matter judicially before them, though it no way affect the principal judgment which is to be given in the cause; as where a person who offers himself to be bail for another, knowingly and wilfully swears that his substance is greater than it is. Also it hath been resolved, That not only such oaths as are taken upon judicial proceedings, but also all such as. any way tend to abuse the administration of justice, are properly perjuries; as where one takes a false oath before a justice of peace, in order to induce him to compel another to find sureties for the peace, &c. or where a person forswears himself before commissioners appointed by the king to enquire of the forfeitures of his tenants estates, &c. whereby he makes them liable to be seized by exchequer process. Also it hath been said, that a false oath is punishable as perjury, in some cases, wherein the king's honour or interest is concerned, though it do not concern the administration of justice; as where one swears a false oath concerning the possession of lauds, before commissioners appointed by the king to inquire of such persons whose titles to the lands in their possession are defective, and want the supply of the king's patents. "It seemeth clear, that no oath whatsoever taken before persons acting merely in a private capacity, or before those who take upon them Court. What is it?---A. The Maha Rajah desires that Kissen Juan Doss may be asked further as to the Curra Nama. Court. Has he any thing else to say?--4. Nothing else. Court. Do you choose to ask the question? You had better ask them.] or that Maha Rajah should ask them himself? Kissen Juan Doss examined. Did you ever explain the Curra Nama you spoke of to Mohun Persaud ?---Mohun Persaud went in his palanquin to the house of Maha Rajab, and I followed after. I do not know what conversation passed between Maba Rajah and Mohun Persaud: Maha Rajah sent for the Curra Nama to his own house: Mobun Persaud was present when I read it. The Curra Nama was afterwards shewn to Pudmohun Doss. When you shewed the Curra Nama to Mobun Persaud, what did he say?-He said nothing. to administer oaths of a public nature, without legal authority for their so doing, or before those who are legally authorised to administer some kinds of oaths, but not those which happen to be taken before them, or even before those who take upon them to administer justice by virtue of an authority seemingly colourable, but in truth unwarranted and merely void, can ever amount to perjuries in the eye of the law, because they are of no manner of force, but are altogether idle. "And from the same ground it seemeth also clearly to follow, That no false oath in an affi davit, made before persons falsely pretending to be authorized by a court of justice to take affidavits in relation to matters depending before such court, can properly be called perjury, because no affidavit is any way regarded, unless it be made before persons legally intrusted with a power to take it, as being both of sufficient ability to ask all proper questions of the party who shall make such affidavit, and also of such integrity as not to suffer any thing to be inserted therein, to the truth whereof the party bath not sworn. And though it may be said, that an affidavit taken before persons falsely pretending to be commissioned for such purpose by the courts of justice, doth directly tend to impose upon such courts, and may possibly happen through surprize to be read, and may also in its own nature be altogether heinous, as if it had been made before persons regularly impowered to take it; yet inasmuch as it is of itself of no manner of validity, and is no otherwise regarded, than as it hath the appearance of being sworn before persons legally commissioned, without which it would have no manner of credit, it seemeth that offences of this nature are most properly punished by severely chastising those who usurp such an authority of administering of oaths, without any legal warrant." Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, vol 1, p. 318, et seq. See, also, vol. 19, p. 1175. |