that the poisoning had been done by means of certain cakes, a portion of which was pro duced in court. When the counsel for the prisoner had finished his speech he said, — "And these, gentlemen of the jury, are some of the alleged poisoned cakes. We declare to you, gentlemen of the jury, that these are not poisoned cakes. They are as harmless cakes as ever were made, and in order, gentlemen of the jury, to show you that these cakes are not poisoned, I will eat one of them right here in your presence." And he did eat one. He took good care, however, to leave the room at the earliest opportunity and to make a bee line for an adjoining room, where he had an emetic in readiness and an antidote. But the jury never heard about the emetic or the anti dote until the lawyer's client had been acquitted. On another occasion a witness had been detailing with great minuteness certain con versations which had occurred several years before. Again and again the witness testi fied to names and dates and precise words, and it became necessary for his cross-exam iner to break him up. This was done by a very simple device. While the witness was glibbly rattling on his testimony, the cross examiner handed him a law book and said : "Read aloud a paragraph from that book!" "What for? " inquired the witness. "I will tell you after you have read it," said the lawyer; and the witness accordingly read aloud a paragraph of most uninteresting matter about lands, appurtenances, and here ditaments. Then the lawyer went on and asked him a few more questions about his memory, and the witness was positive that his memory was very good. Suddenly the lawyer said, — "By the way, will you please repeat that paragraph you just read about lands, appur tenances, and hereditaments?" "Why, of course I could not do that," re plied the witness. "You must have a queer memory," re
torted the lawyer, " since you can repeat things that you say occurred year ago, and you cannot repeat what you read a moment ago." The witness was nonplussed, and the jury was obviously amused at his discomfiture. A quick-witted lawyer thinks on full gal lop. Many successful cross-examiners have been men who could keep up a running fire of jokes and comments, and never lose sight of the main point, who could lead a witness along by suavity and politeness and acquies cence and apparent obsequious deference into pitfalls of contradiction. Such men will let a smart witness talk on until he drops some unfortunate expression that subjects him to being pounced upon and demolished at one fell swoop. A leading counsel for the defendant in an accident damage case, where the injury had been occasioned by a jet of steam scalding the complainant's back and neck as he was driving past the defendant's place, argued to the jury that the plaintiff was guilty of con tributory negligence, and should have looked up to avoid the accident The quick-witted counsel for the complainant retorted : "Oh, no; if he had looked up, instead of suing for damage to the back of our head, we should have to charge you for the loss of both eyes." In a trial for burglary the people's witness showed that he was on watch in the hall, when he heard some one fumbling with the lock of the door, and that he then slyly turned the knob so that the thief could come in easily. The glib-tongued lawyer for the prisoner at once said : " Why, your honor, this witness was the real burglar, for it was he and not my client who really opened the door." The result of this timely remark was that the prisoner got off with a light sentence for an attempt at burglary. A good deal of quick work is often re quired of lawyers in the filing of liens on real estate or other property, in cases where the obligations are many and the assets few, and the first comer is the only one who gets service. A good deal of wit is often displayed
