Summary

Caroline Norton English laws for women in the nineteenth century… (1854)

I say, I might say I was going after my fellow-servant as a witness."
"Might you not have said you were employed to fish up evidence, although you do not recollect it?" "No, I do not recollect it."
"But you might have said so? " "I might have said so; but I do not think I have said so."
"Did you not say to Sly, that you had been suffering a good deal of late years, and that you thought this matter would make you amends?" "No; I only said I had been out of place two years. I was obliged to work at mending shoes. Of course a man must work if he means to get a bit of bread.
Source: Wikisource

Caroline Norton English laws for women in the nineteenth century… (1854)

This was the expedient of a deceitful and artful witness; but he would ask the jury if they had any doubt that he did say so; aye, twenty times! Coupling this answer, 'that he did not recollect,' with his swindling, drunkenness, and history, could the jury place the smallest reliance on his testimony? Why did they send him to Wonersh? For six weeks he had been disporting himself at Wonersh, fishing, and talking over his evidence with Mrs Comyns, and considering how he should secure ease for the remainder of his life. . . . .
Source: Wikisource

Caroline Norton English laws for women in the nineteenth century… (1854)

Lord Melbourne could not, because he was the defendant—Mrs Norton could not, because she was the wife of the plaintiff. Therefore it was impossible, if any witness could come forward and say that he had seen a fact, when no persons except those two were present, that that witness could be contradicted. They could only, in such a case, look to the character of the witness, the probability of the story, and the credit to which it was entitled.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature