Broad v Pitt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 1828 |
| Date | 26 June 1828 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 528
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
[518] court of common pleas. Sitting at Westminster, after Trinity Term, 1828, before Lord Chief Justice Best. June 26th, 1828. broad v. pitt. (No communications made to an attorney are privileged, but such as are made for the purpose of the attorney's either commencing or defending a suit.) [S. C. Mood. & M 233 Referred to, Dwyer v. Collins, 1852, 21 L J Ex 225.] Replevin. In the course of the cause, a witness was called, who had been attorney for the defendant. He was asked as to some conversation which took place between the defendant and him, when the former executed a deed which the latter had prepared for him as his professional adviser. Wilde, Serjt., contended, that the conversation was confidential, and could not be received in evidence He cited Cromack v Heathcote (a). Russell, Serjt., contra, referred to Williams v. Mundie (b). Wilde, Serjt.-If we apply the doctrine in Williams v [519] Mundie to the present case, we shall see at once the inexpediency of the rule which is there laid down. The party goes to advise with an attorney, and the attorney may recommend an action, or whatever else he thinks right: and how is the communication of the whole of the circumstances to be made safely, if it is not privileged ? Best, C. M.-I am disposed to agree with my Lord Tenterden, in excepting only communications made for the purpose of bringing or defending actions I think this confidence in the case of attormes is a great anomaly in the law. The privilege does not apply to clergymen, since the decision the other day, in the case of Gilham (Carr. (a) 2 B. & Bing. 4 , reported also, 4 J. B. Moore, 357. That case is said to have decided that communications made by a party to an attorney are confidential, although tkey do not relate to a cause existing, or in progress, at the time they were made ; and therefore, that, where an attorney was applied to by a father to prepare a deal, by which his property was to be assigned to his sons, and stated that there was no consideration for the assignment, on whieh the attorney refused to prepare it, and it wag afterwards drawn by another ; the attorney was precluded from giving evidence f that fact in an action brought by the son, in which the validity of the deed was attempted to be disputed, although he was not employed in the cause. (6) R. & M. 34. That case decides that the privilege of not being examined as to facts communicated to an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Ebanks (KF)
...Television Ltd., [1981] A.C. 1096; [1981] 1 All E.R. 917, dicta of Lord Wilberforce applied. (3) Broad v. PittENR(1828), 3 C. & P. 518; 172 E.R. 528, applied. (4) Gruenke v. R.UNK, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263; (1991), 67 C.C.C. (3d) 289; sub nom. R. v. Fosty, [1991] 6 W.W.R. 673; 8 C.R. (4th) 368, ......
-
R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Zaharia, (1987) 18 O.A.C. 321 (CA)
...237]. R. v. Gilham (1828), 1 Moody C.C. 186; 168 E.R. 1235 (C.C.C.R.), refd to. [para. 237]. Broad v. Pitt (1828), 5 Car. & P. 518; 172 E.R. 528 (C.P.), refd to. [para. Greenlaw v. King (1838), 1 Beav. 137; 48 E.R. 891 (Rolls Ct.), refd to. [para. 237]. Russell v. Jackson (1851), 9 Hare......
- Commissioner of Taxation v Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd
-
R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 SCR 263
...RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; Cloutier v. Langlois, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158; Broad v. Pitt (1828), 3 Car. & P. 518, 172 E.R. 528; Garnet's Trial (1606), 2 How. St. Tr. 218; Wheeler v. Le Marchant (1881), 17 Ch. 675; R. v. Hay (1860), 2 F. & F. 4, 175 E.R. 933; Gil......