Judge (to Witness). Do you know the nature of an oath?
Witness. Sah?
Judge. Do you understand what you are to swear to?
Witness. Yes, sah; I'm to swar to tell de truf.
Judge. And what will happen if you do not tell it?
Witness. I spects our side 'll win de case, sah.—Albany Express.
An action was brought in a Wisconsin court, some years since, for shooting the plaintiff's goose and gander. The defendants admitted the killing, but claimed that it was accidental. After hearing the evidence, the court delivered the following able and lucid opinion:—
"It is always best not to be too severe on damages, and yet it is best to give damages to the amount of the plaintiff's claim, and inasmuch as the killing of those geese was wrong by the boys. It is the opinion of the court that the two geese were worth two dollars apiece in the spring of the year, and in all probabilities they would have had twelve goslings, and probably about one half of them would have lived and the other half would have died; and it would not have cost the plaintiff much to keep them until fall, and the goslings would then be worth one dollar apiece, which would be six dollars, and the two old ones two dollars, which would make ten dollars, which is the judgment of the court."
A divorce case being called on in one of our Western courts, the judge, addressing the plaintiffs counsel, said, "I don't think people ought to be compelled to live together when they don't want to do so. I will decree a divorce in this case;" and the parties concerned were thereupon declared to be no longer man and wife. Presently the defendant's lawyer appeared, and was not a little surprised to find that all was settled—that the judge had decided without hearing one side, much less both. He protested against such over-hasty proceedings, and appealed to the court to redress the wrong it had committed. The court not being inclined to own itself in fault, he was informed that it was too late to raise objections, the decree had been pronounced; but if he wanted to argue the case "right bad," the court would marry the parties again, and give him a chance to air his eloquence.
The celebrated John Randolph met a personal enemy in the street one day who refused to give him half of the sidewalk, saying that he never turned out for a rascal.
"I do," said Randolph, stepping aside and politely raising his hat; "pass on!"
Judge Hoar was trying a case at New Bedford where the witnesses all bore the name of Cash, and all appeared badly on the witness-stand. As the district attorney called his fifth witness "John Cash," the judge leaned forward, and said: "I suppose you call your witnesses Cash because they are no credit to anybody."
Another good story is told of Mr. Hoar. A case was once given to a jury in which he had been one of the advocates, and the jury was told to retire with the sheriff and make up a verdict. When the officer reached the jury-room, he found he had but eleven jurymen. Returning to the court-room, he found the twelfth man sitting composedly in his seat, and told him he must go out with his associates, and help make up the verdict. His reply was: "My verdict is already made up, Squire. Hoar says it is so and so, and it must be so."
Spectator (to Defendant). Well, I guess the jury will find for you. The judge's charge was certainly very much in your favor. Don't you think so?
Defendant (moodily). Oh, I knew all along that the judge's charge would be all right. It's the lawyer's charge that's worryin' me.—Detroit Free Press.
A lawyer and a physician, having a dispute about precedence, referred it to Diogenes, who decided it in favor of the lawyer in these terms: "Let the thief go before, and the executioner follow."
A man was on trial for stealing a pig. The owner testified to finding a similar pig, taking it home, and setting it loose in the presence of the bereaved porcine ancestress.
"Well," said the solicitor (for the State), "how did the sow receive it?"
"With outstretched arms, sir!" triumphantly replied the witness.
