not punish for contempt, hence those bringing cases before him may be as behigerent as they please In the case of Ketchum versus the State of Cahfornia, before Mr Haverstick of Los Angeles, among the attornej's on either side were Mr Gould for plaintiff and R. M. Widney for the defense. Ketchum himself was on the stand, and Gould was examining him ; both sides indulged freely in invective.
"What became of Lachenais ?'" asked Gould of the witness.
" He was hanged by Widney and others."
Widney rose from his seat, and drawing from his pocket a pistol, and holding his hand down, as one draws and holds a handkerchief, thus addressed the witness:
"You say I murdered a man, you lie, you perjured villain. I was not present when Lachenais was hanged, and knew nothing about it. If you and your party are armed to assassinate me, as I have been informed is your avowed intention, now is your opportunity."
" We are not armed," said Mr Gould.
"Then I will put away my weapon," replied Widney. "And in continuing the case this afternoon. I wish to have it distinctly understood whether we come together armed or unarmed."
Mr Llaverstick ruled that the case was to be continued by unarmed disputants.
A case came up in the district court cf San Francisco in September 1852, which shows how widely separated are justice and the jury in many suits at law. It illustrates at the same time how impatient of forms and technical restraint is the material composing our juries, and how utterly foolish and fickle are jurymen sometimes, and how farcical are many of our jury trials. Suit was brought by Green against Minturn for certain improvements on leased land, which improvements had been valued by an appraiser at
