Then Mr. Justice Technical whispered, and I heard Mr. Justice Doughty say the principle was the same, although there might be some difference of opinion about the facts, which could be argued hereafter. “But what is the misreception of evidence, Mr. Ricochet? I don’t quite see that.”
“With all submission, my lud, evidence was admitted of what the solicitor for the defendant said to the plaintiff.”
“Wait a minute, let me see how that stands,” said Mr. Justice Doughty; “the solicitor for the defendant said something to the plaintiff, I don’t quite follow that.”
Mr. Justice Technical observed that it was quite clear that what is said by the solicitor of one party to the solicitor of another party is not evidence.
“O,” said the learned Pangloss, “so far back as the time of Justinian it was laid down—”
“And that being so,” said the eminent Chancery Judge, Mr. Justice Technical, “I should go so far as to say, that what the solicitor of one party says to the client stands upon the same footing.”
“Precisely,” said Mr. Ricochet
“I think you are entitled to a rule on that point,” remarked Mr. Justice Doughty, “although my brother Pangloss seems to entertain some doubt as to whether there was any such evidence.”
“O, my lud, with all submission, with the greatest possible deference and respect to the learned Judge, I
assure your ludship that it was so, for I have a note of it.”