Crooks v. Purnell

The fact proposed to be proved by Mr. Moore, does not partake in any degree of the character of a confidential communication between counsel and client which it is the policy of the law to regard as such, and to prevent him from disclosing it. On the contrary, as a communication merely, it was made by him to the other party in the suit. It was, however, rather an act done, or a step taken in the cause by the counsel for the plaintiff, than a communication to any one of any fact, knowledge, or information in relation to it. Besides, it might in practice be attended with some unnecessary inconvenience to hold that an attorney in a cause, is an incompetent witness to prove a demand and refusal merely, whilst there is nothing in the reason of the rule referred to which requires that the seal of secrecy and confidence should be imposed upon it. The objection is, therefore, overruled.