178
"the colt. He then went to Sloane-street, sold the cab, and then took a cellar in Monmouth-street, where he set up as a dealer in old clothes, where he remained until he was ready to sell himself as a witness; and a glorious day it was for him when he was discovered. From such evidence as this, was the plaintiff's case made up! Fluke said he expected to be paid, because 'does not every man expect to he paid?' He (the Attorney-General) had a great curiosity to know if he did not expect 500l. or 600l., and repeatedly asked him. All he said was 'I do not recollect,' ('non mi ricordo,') repeated at least ten times. He (the Attorney-General) asked him if he had not, within the last 48 hours, said that he expected to make 500l.? He would only say he 'could not recollect." He did recollect that; he got so drunk on taking Mr and Mrs Norton to Lansdowne house, that Mr Norton got on the box and drove the carriage; whereupon he (Fluke) ran to Lansdowne house, and endeavoured to unharness and take away one of the horses, which he said was his own; and his behaviour was so violent that he was taken to the watch house! Would the jury act upon the testimony of such a man—would they hang a dog upon it? If he had not said 'that if there was a verdict he should get 500l.,' he would immediately and positively have denied that he had ever used such words; but he did not dare to give a direct denial; he merely said he 'did not recollect,' and it was not possible to call witnesses to contradict such testimony. He took care to avoid the possibility of being contradicted, or of being indicted for perjury. 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. . . . . Why were not those witnesses who were living in the service when the separation took place, produced before the jury? Not only were they not produced, but those who had been in the service during the years 1834, 1835, and 1836, were kept back. All those persons had been examined out of court; but it appeared that only those who would answer the whip, and had such convenient memories as to be able to recollect things which were said to have taken place years ago,—but had forgot what had occurred within the last 48 hours,—were selected
"There was a charge against two parties, and they should bear this in mind, that neither of them could be called as witnesses. 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 thatwit-
