in the other; and we have in the old law books criminal cases where men have been acquitted on the ground that the indictment charged them with stealing "a field of hay," whereas it was grass they stole, not having been dried into hay; of others getting off upon a charge of stealing a sheep, which be ing taken from a butcher's shop after being skinned was only a part of a sheep; and also a case of larceny of a dog where it was proved that the stolen animal had been docked of its tail and was only part of a dog. In the same manner we have, on the civil side, records of " Nisi Prius " being ad judged null and void, because the declara tion omitted the words Anno Domini, or the "scientia," — that is, the expression " which he well knew," — or the plea called the plain tiff "Jones " instead of "Jonas." All these frivolous objections are done away with now, and the judge can, at the trial, amend all proceedings to an unlimited extent, and counsel have to contend against legal deduction in place of contending against written matter, the former being in its very nature (save as it is now mixed up with equity) unchangeable. Notwithstanding all this, there is room enough and to spare, even now, for counsel to win wondrous verdicts on behalf of their clients by exercising acuteness and ingenu ity. Of the moral aspect of the cases the reader will form his own conclusions. The great Irish advocate, Curran, was once applied to by a humble yeoman who was in much distress and difficulty. He had deposited with a neighbor .£ioo to keep for him until he required it. On applying some time after for the money, his dishonest friend disclaimed all knowledge of having received it. Curran, after abusing the poor farmer some time for his carelessness in not taking a receipt, advised him to wait a week or two, and then try to scrape together a second £1oo and deposit it with the same neighbor, but to be very careful to take a receipt for it. This apparently absurd suggestion was fol lowed. The money was with difficulty bor
rowed, deposited with the surprised neigh bor, and a receipt duly taken. A few weeks later Curran instructed his client to demand back his second £1oo, but to retain the re ceipt. The unsuspecting neighbor, knowing that he had given a receipt for the money, at once handed it back. The depositor had now a receipt for £10o in his possession, which very soon after, under his sagacious counsel's advice, he produced, threatening legal proceedings if the money was not re funded, p*rofessing utter ignorance of ever having deposited, or received back again, the second £100, which his receipt represented. We remember an audacious trick by which a living ex-judge, then Sergeant B., once obtained a verdict for .£1,000 on no evidence or materials at all. He informed the jury that the case was a short undefended one, — an action on a bond for .£1,000 given by Messrs. Cubitt, the great builders, for the completion of some houses within a certain time, and that, there being some mistake in the specification, the houses had never been commenced, and the bond was therefore for feited. The learned counsel then called for his witness to prove the execution of the bond, but again addressing the jury, said that the bond (holding up a paper) carried interest at five per cent, which they would not press for, though it amounted to £250, but would go simply for the,£ 1,000. This unexpected speech surprised and aroused the very excitable Sergeant C, who defended, and who immediately started up and said that " he feared that they could not contest the bond, it was a mere question of interest, and as that had been given up they would take a verdict by consent for the .£1,000 without any proof of the bond." This was done; the two Sergeants met in the robingroom. "Brother," said Sergeant C, "you sold your client nicely!" "How so?" quoth Sergeant B.; "I am not accustomed to sell my client, though I sometimes sell counsel on the opposite side." " But why didn't you go in for the,£250 interest? You must have got it if you had read your
