THE LONDON COURTS Sometimes these friendly debates in an English Court of Appeal are witty, and they are often rather amusing. In a case recently argued, the defendant appealed from a judgment for £300 against him for wrongfully evicting plaintiff and putting his sick wife and furniture out upon the
499
to the effect that the control of the language used was a matter of discretion for the court below and could not be examined by the Appellate Court. Both of the associate Lord Justices concurred, but one proceeded to give quite different reasons, with the preliminary words: "Speaking only for
A JURY TRIAL
sidewalk in the rain. There was not much to be said in his favor upon the merits of his act, but his counsel argued that plaintiff's advocate had used inflammatory language in his speech to the jury. The judgment was immediately affirmed, the Lord Chancellor delivering an opinion
myself, but not for his Lordship," and with a slight inclination of the head towards the Lord Chancellor, he said he was for affirm ing for an entirely different reason — not because he could not examine the language used below, but rather because he had done so. He then proceeded to rehearse the
