THE LIGHTER SIDE legal proceedings, relates the following with reference to an Irishman who was being ex amined as to his knowledge of a certain shoot ing affair: "Did you," asked the presiding magistrate of the witness, " did you see the shot fired?" "Oi did not, sir," responded the Celt, " but Oi heard it foired." "That evidence is not satisfactory," re plied the magistrate, sternly; " you may step down." The witness left the box. No sooner had he turned his back on the judge than he gave vent to a somewhat derisive laugh. Enraged at this contempt of court, the magistrate called the Irishman back to the witness box. "How dare you laugh in that manner in court? " demanded the judge, angrily. "Did you see me laugh, Your Honor?" asked the Irishman. "No, but I distinctly heard you laugh," came from the irate judge. "Such evidence is not satisfactory," re joined the Celt, quietly, a twinkle coming into his eye. "Whereupon," says Senator Proctor, "every one in court laughed, including the judge." — Boston Herald. Alas, Poor Lawyers! — In Florida, after the land and timber litigation between those two new and rapidly increasing classes known as "turpentiners " and " phosphaters," and the older squatter population, or " natiw s," there is no richer single source of fees and business to young attorneys than the easy cattle-thieving in this sparsely settled, freerange state. When the round-ups come, it is so hard not to bring in other calves besides your own for the branding. Crimination and recrimination, therefore, between cattlemen is an every-day matter here, forming a regular item in the lawyer's forecasted revenues. For this reason it strikes many of our pro fession with a sense of actual loss to read, in a late issue of a prominent Florida journal, that at the recent convention of the Cattle men's Association, some man with an apti tude for calling a spade a spade, arose and proposed the following unique resolution: Resolved, that we quit stealing one another's •cows. To the credit of the Association —
259
though the discomfiture of the legal profes sion in these parts — it is added that the resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority, and in absolutely sound faith! From a Rural District. — Squire Bellows. — What's your business? Witness. — Actor. Squire Bellows. — Actor! Why those fel lers never tell the truth. Witness. — My father had a worse job. Squire Bellows. — Inherited prevarication. What did your father do? Witness. — Lawyer. They were not Joined by the Almighty. — One of the witnesses called in a Chicago divorce case last year was a highly respected clergyman in the Windy City. According to one of the counsel in the case, the following conversation took place between the judge and the minister. Said his Honor: "Doctor Blank, if you were on the Bench in my stead, and were acquainted with all the circumstances of this case, would you grant this divorce?" "Assuredly I would, your Honor," replied the clergyman, without the least hesitation. "But," said the judge, " how do you recon cile this assertion with the injunction of Scrip ture, ' Whom God has joined let no man put asunder? '" "Your Honor," responded the minister, with convincing gravity, " I am quite satisfied that the Almighty never joined this couple." — Harper's Weekly. Rats! — The disgust of a layman with legal phraseology was shown in the will of Elphonzo Youngs, filed here yesterday. Mr. Youngs was a dignified, well-to-do gentle man, best known for thirty years as a deacon in one of the largest Congregational churches in Washington. He wrote his will himself, evidently starting out to copy from some book form, which set the example in this wise: "Being by the Grace of God in sound mind and body, and mindful of the uncer tainty of human life," etc. Then suddenly on the written page there appears a wild dash of ink and the following: "Rats! This is too formal. All there is about it is this — at my death, I want my
