An Irish witness, having been " sworn to the truth " of a statement he had made regarding an attempted murder, afterwards confessed that the major part of it was false. "Did you not swear to the truth of it? " he was asked. , "Yes, begorra! " answered the witness; " but I did n't swear to the loyin part, I 'll take me oath on that, sorr!" An action was brought by- an attorney against a defendant for calling him a thief, a rogue, and a fiend; and as the plaintiff had no proof of any pecuniary special damage, he had to rely on the injury that must necessarily be inflicted on him in his professional capacity by such imputations. In summing up, Sir William Maule said : — "As to the word ' thief,' it is a very ambiguous one. and does not necessarily impute what the law considers an indictable offence. For instance, to steal a man's wife, to steal away the affections of another, to steal a march upon any one, would be no crime in law. Wives, human affections, and such things as marches are not at present the subjects of larceny. ' Rogue ' is different; it might certainly affect the plaintiff professionally, because a rogue ought not to be allowed to practise as an attorney. But the same principle does not apply to the term ' fiend; ' it may not be a complimentary expression, but I do not think to be a fiend dis qualifies a man from being an attorney. If the learned counsel will point out to me any case where the court has refused an application to place a fiend upon the rolls, I shall be happy to consider it." — Bench and Bar.
43
A little darky boy was recently brought be fore the police court of Richmond, Va., charged with some trifling offence. He asked to have his case postponed for one day, so that lie might bring as a witness another darky boy who would ex onerate him. The next morning his friend was in court; but, to the surprise of everybody, his testimony was entirely against the accused boy, and resulted in a conviction. When the prisoner was asked to explain this fact, he remarked philo sophically : " Oh, he done been seen since I sawn him." During a breach of promise case heard in Indi ana recently, the counsel on both sides chattered considerably about the " fire of love," " Cupid's flames," " the burning passion," etc. The jury brought in a verdict that both plaintiff and de fendant were guilty of arson, and recommended them both to the mercy of the court.
A good story, but one rather hard upon the profession, is told of a certain Dean of Ely. At a dinner, just as the cloth was being removed, the subject of discourse happened to be that of extraordinary mortality among lawyers. "We have lost," said a gentleman, " not less than seven eminent barristers in as many months." The Dean, who was very deaf, rose just at the conclusion of these remarks, and gave the company grace : " For this and every other mercy, make us devoutly thankful." A man who had stolen a mirror was imprisoned for theft and fined for drunkenness. He had taken a glass too much.
A sarcastic lawyer, during the trial of a case, remarked : " Cast not your pearls before swine." Subsequently, as he rose to make the argument, the judge said facetiously, — "Be careful, Mr. S , not to cast your pearls before swine." "Don't be alarmed, your Honor! I am about to address the jury, not the court." — Irish Law Times.
A judge of Milesian extraction charged a jury as follows : " Gentlemen of the jury, you must find that the defendant is guilty beyond a reason able doubt. A reasonable doubt is such a doubt as will convince a reasonable man that the defendant is not guilty."
Lawyer. Do you understand the nature of an oath, madam? Witness. Well, I should say I did. My hus band took off the screens yesterday, and is putting up the stovepipes to-day. — The Critic.
While summing up evidence in a case for the opinion of the jury, Lord Eskgrove spoke thus : "And so, gentlemen, having shown you that the argument is utterly impossibil, I shall now proceed to show you that it is extremely improbabil."
