Attorney General v Alexander Davison, Esq., et e Contra
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 1825 |
| Date | 07 February 1825 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 148 E.R. 366
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
[160] in the exchequer chamber. (before the whole court.) the attorney general v. alexander davison, esq., et e contra. February 7th, 1825.-By an act of parliament, commissioners were appointed to investigate certain public accounts, and they were directed to take a prescribed oath, and were authorized to summon witnesses and to examine them on oath, and persons giving false testimony were subjected to the penalties for perjury. The commissioners examined witnesses, and took down their depositions in writing, and afterwards communicated the effect of them to the party sought to be affected by the proceedings, but who had no opportunity of being present at the examination, or of cross-examining the witnesses. On a subsequent reference to arbitration of these accounts, the Court held, that the arbitrators could not receive as evidence, the depositions taken before the commissioners.-In order to render depositions taken under any judicial proceedings evidence against a party, M'CtE. as TO. Ml* THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. DAYISON 367 he must have had an opportunity to be present at the examination, and to cross-examine the witnesses.-Arbitrators are bound by those rules of evidence which govern the Courts of law. In Michaelmas Term, 1811, an information was filed by His Majesty's Attorney General against the defendant, Alexander Davison, esquire, in relation to certain contracts between him and General De Lancey, barrack master general, for the supply of stores for the barrack department, between the years 1795 and 1804 ; alleging a considerable balance to be due from the defendant; calling for his accounts, and seeking to charge him with interest on money, stated to have been advanced to him prematurely, or to have remained in his hands improperly. The defendant put in an answer to the information, by which he claimed a balance of 17,0001. and upwards, to be due to him. And in Trinity Term, 1812, filed his bill against the Attorney-General, praying (among other things) that he might be allowed in his account, several sums of money therein mentioned, and which were thereby alleged to have been improperly surcharged and disallowed by the commissioners of barrack-accounts, appointed by the act 47 Geo. III., s. 3, c. 1, and claiming a balance to be due to him on such accounts. Both causes came on for hearing on the 19th of May, 1824, when they were raferred, by consent, to the award of [161] the commissioners for auditing the public accounts, whose award was to be final, and subject to no appeal. The order of reference, beside various other regulations and directions, provided, that the arbitrators should be at liberty to apply to the Court for directions on any points that might arise pending the reference, as they might think necessary; and either party was to be at liberty to read before the arbitrators the depositions of any witness examined in the said causes, or either of them, if the said arbitrators should think proper to receive the same as evidence. The commissioners for auditing the public accounts proceeded in the reference, but a question arising as to the admissibility of certain evidence, proposed to be read before them, they, in pursuance of the provision contained in the order, stated the point in the shape of u certificate, or case for the opinion of the Court. By this certificate, dated 20th January, 1825, the commissioners stated, that they had examined witnesses, some of whom had been before examined before the commissioners of barrack-accounts, in the manner thereinafter described, in support of certain disallowances made by the commissioners, which were objected to by Mr. Davison, and formed part of the subject matter of the suit instituted by him against the Attorney General; that, in the course of the reference, it had been proposed, on the part of the Attorney General, to read, in support of the disallowances: made by the commissioners of barrack-accounts, certain depositions of witnesses, examined by the said commissioners, under the provisions of the statute 47 Geo. III., by which they were authorized to send for books, papers, &c., and to summon, and examine upon oath, all persons whom they should find occasion to call before them, touching all matters necessary for the execution of the trusts reposed in them by the statute; and which statute rendered persons giving false evidence before them, liable to the penalties of [162] perjury. That the counsel for Mr. Davison objected to the reading of such depositions, on the ground of their not being evidence: that, upon enquiry into the mode of taking these depositiotis, and into the course of proceeding adopted by the barrack commissioners, with regard to the examination of witnesses, they (the auditors of the public accounts) understood it to have been their practice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Teo Wai Cheong v Crédit Industriel et Commercial
...of the discovery obligations were passed on to any in the corporation who might have been affected by it: at [48].] AG, The v Davison (1825) M'Cle & Yo 160; 148 ER 366 (refd) Chainchal Singh v Emperor AIR 1946 PC 1 (refd) Crédit Industriel et Commercial v Teo Wai Cheong [2010] 3 SLR 1149 (r......
-
Re Enoch and Zaretzky, Bock & Company 's Arbitration
...2 Q. B. 316, commented on. Arbitrators are bound to observe the rules of evidence no less than judges. Attorney-General v. Davison, (1825) M'Cl. & Y. 160, considered. In re Keighley, Maxsted & Co. and Bryan Durant & Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 405, APPEAL from a decision of a Divisional Court (Darl......