The Editor's Bag crimes of the most heinous character have many times been set aside solely on account of trivial verbal omissions in the indictment. In Canada they do things differently — and the doing stands to their credit. An indictment there reads like this: "The jurors of our lord the King pre sent that A. B. C. on the tenth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and ten, at the city of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba, murdered D. C." The procedure thus concerns itself with the offense, not with the possibilities of legal sport. A QUESTION OF PROFIT T^HERE is a certain Representative "•• in Congress from Michigan who was once summoned as witness in a case being tried at Saginaw, the sum mons being based on his expert knowl edge of the lumber business. It appears that the whole case hinged on whether or not merchantable lumber had been supplied a certain firm, as set forth in its contract with the party of the second part. Representing the opposition there appeared a very vociferous lawyer who made up in noise what he lacked in argument. He would shout and roar and pound the table in front of him like an auctioneer. "What," demanded counsel in sten torian tones of the witness, "what do you regard as merchantable lumber?" "Lumber that may be sold at a profit," replied the imperturbable witness. The lawyer pounded the table again, strutted about, shouted a good deal more, and finally came back at the witness in this wise: "And what, sir, would you regard as merchantable grain?" "I don't know anything about grain." "Ah, you don't, you don't, eh?"
39
Well, then, what about merchantable fruit?" "Noi fruit. I am a lumberman." "Come now, my dear sir. As to slabs and culls — should you say that they were merchantable?" "They are products of the mills." "Oh, ho!" fairly yelled this lawyer this time. "Can you tell the honorable Court whether you have any ideas at all about any kind of merchantable goods?" "Oh, yes," replied the redoubtable witness. "A lawyer, for example, who tried his case with his brains — I should call him a merchantable lawyer; but the one who tries his case with his mouth and his hands and feet I should call a cull!" That closed the cross-examination. LAWYERS AND CLIENTS NOW and then a lawyer submits himself to the control of his client and goes contrary to his own judgment. The result is, of course, generally un satisfactory to counsel, court, and client. In a case tried before a New York court, the defendant's counsel, an ami able gentleman, allowed his client to persuade him to ask a number of irrele vant questions which the Court, of course, excluded. At last he asked another question so grossly out of place that the judge said, "That is certainly irrelevant." "I know it, your Honor," answered the lawyer, looking up at the ceiling, "but I asked it to gratify my client." "Well, sir," rejoined the judge, blandly, "during the rest of this trial the Court will endeavor to protect you from your client." James T. Brady, of the New York bar, was once employed to argue a doubtful case in the Supreme Court
