The Editor's Bag the law is. Wen he's in a case you don't need any charge from the (hic) Court. "There's George N.; .he's 'n this case. Every man, woman and child in F. County knows George (hic) N. He's bin Prosecutin' 'torney two terms, an' bin 'torney-General an' Supreme Judge, an' he knows the law, too. You don't need any charge of the (hic) Court when George N. is one of the (hic) 'torneys 'n a case. "An' my old friend Judge W.—a tenacious though not (hic) brilliant lawyer—he's in the case. He's been on the wool shack an' knows how it is (hic) himself. Gen-l-men of jury, you don't need any charge about the law when Judge W.'s in a case. "An' there's Bob M., he's the Prosecutin' 'torney an' Robert knows the (hic) law. When he's prosecutin' a case the jury don't need any law from the (hic) Court. "Take the case, gen-l-men of the (hic) jury." And then, with consciousness of duty well done, his Honor retired to the bar below and the jury took care of the interests of the accused.
MEDICO-LEGAL NOTE "Down in Texas," said Judge Sam Cowan of that state, according to the Saturday Evening Post, "we had a case in one of the minor courts where a lawyer was trying to collect a bill he claimed was owed to the late husband of his client. "'He didn't pay no money to the diseased,' said the lawyer. 'He didn't get the money, the diseased didn't. He didn't receive one cent, the diseased didn't.' "'Diseased?' inquired the judge. 'What was this person you are speak ing about diseased of?' "'May it please your honor,' said the lawyer, 'he was diseased of death.'" We do not know that it has ever been ruled, in medical jurisprudence, that death cannot be a disease, and the evident conviction of the Texas lawyer, that it is to be so regarded,
41
should be treated with due seriousness, and we see no occasion for any criticism of his use of the English language.
MURDER JUSTIFIABLE, COM MITTED BY MURDERER TO PROVE INNOCENCE? The criminal law is lenient toward those who commit homicide in selfdefense. Its policy is also to afford accused persons every possible means of proving their innocence. If these two propositions are put together, it would seem that an accused person might kill an attorney whose services were clearly injurious to his cause and of whom he could not otherwise rid himself, that being a case of justifiable homicide. While the point may never have been decided, it also seems to us that in the case of a prisoner accused of murder who commits murder during the progress of the trial, the rule forbidding selfincrimination should protect the pris oner from having the second murder brought to the attention of the public prosecutor, as such a murder is simply committed in pursuance of his common law right to withhold injurious testmony, and it is the withholding of selfincriminating evidence, rather than the taking of life, which is of the essence of the murderous act. This principle is suggested by the following incident re corded by one of our exchanges :— A man arrested for murder was assigned a shyster whose crude appearance caused the unfortunate prisoner to ask the judge:— "Is this my lawyer?" "Yes," replied his Honor. "Is he going to defend me?" "Yes." "If he should die, could I have another?" "Yes." "Can I see him alone in the back room for a few minutes?"
