A DIP INTO MY LAW BOOKS.
OLD Hooker has been pleased to describe law as the mother of peace and joy. I fear, however, that many of her offspring have had reason to lament their maternal inheritance, and to complain that what they derived ex parte maternâ was, in the phraseology of the lawyers, damnosa hœreditas,—an injurious inheritance. A very clever satirical writer (G. A. Stevens), after proposing to consider the law, because our laws are very considerable both in bulk and numbers, proceeds thus: "Law is law" (which is perhaps the best definition that can be given of it). "Law is like a country dance,—people are led up and down it till they are tired. Law is like a book of surgery,—there are a great many terrible cases in it. It is also like physic,—they who take the least of it are best off. Law is like a homely gentle-woman,—very well to follow. Law is like a scolding wife,—very bad when it follows us. Law is like a new fashion,—people are bewitched to get into it. It is also like bad weather,—most people are glad when they get out of it." We may add that law is like a battle,—they are safest who are farthest off from it. But notwithstanding all these objections to law, people will run into it; and the numerous battles that have been fought by them are recorded in the Law Reports, into which we intend to look for a few minutes' amusement.
It is actionable to call a counsellor a daffy-down-dilly, or to say of an attorney that "he hath no more law than Mr. C.'s bull," even although Mr. C. actually have no bull at the time; for if that be the fact, said the judge who tried the case, the scandal is greater. And it is quite clear that to say that a lawyer has "no more law than a goose" is actionable; but to say of a man that he has as much sense as a pig is not actionable, because the pig may be a learned pig, and possess a deal of sense; and there is no imputation that the man has not more sense than the pig. To say of a man, "You enchanted my bull," or "Thou art a witch," or that a person "bewitched my husband to death," has been decided as actionable; but it is still unsettled whether an action can be brought against a man for saying to or of a young lady, "You enchanted me," or "She enchanted me;" or, as the case may be, "She enchanted my brother, my dog," etc.; or "She's a bewitching creature;" or, to put the more exact point, "She has quite bewitched poor Charlie."
On the other hand, you may, if you please, say of another that "he is a great rogue, and deserves to be hanged as well as G., who was hanged at Newgate;" because this is a mere expression of opinion, and perhaps you might think that "G." did not deserve hanging. . . . Judge Twisden said he recollected a case in which a shoemaker brought an action against a man for saying he was a cobbler; and this was held good in Chief-Justice Glyn's time. One said of a Justice of the Peace, "He is a logger-headed, a slouchheaded, and a burden-bellied hound." These words were held not actionable. But if I say of another that he smells of brimstone, I am guilty of slander and must abide the consequences.
Some humorous cases have arisen out of wills and testaments. Lord Chancellor Eldon held that the trust of real and personal estate for the purpose of establishing a botanical garden was void, because the testator expressed in his will a hope that it would be for the public benefit (these words bring ing it within the statute of mortmain). A bequest for the dissemination of Baxter's "Call to the Unconverted" was declared void. So was a legacy given to a person on condition of his drinking up all the water in the sea, as it was solemnly decided that the condition could not be performed.
Some of our old law books abound in extraordinary actions, brought for what would
