Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 25.pdf/109

This page needs to be proofread.

USELESS BUT ENTERTAINING Railroad Attorney—" You are sure it was our Flier that killed your mule? What makes you so positive?" Rastus—" He dun licked ebry other train on de road."—Puck. We have yet to learn the name of the Ameri can lawyer mentioned by London Law Notes, who lost no opportunity of paying attention to the members of the jury, and on one occa sion, when his voice was drowned by a loud peal of thunder, turned to the jury and said solemnly, "Gentlemen, pardon this unseemly interruption." An Indian judge, when first appointed to his positior, was not well acquainted with Hindu stani. He was trying a case in which a Hindu wascharged with stealinga "nilghai." The judge

did not like to betray his ignorance of what a nilghai was, so he said, "Produce the stolen property." The court was held in an upper room, so that the usher gasped, "Please, your Lordship, it's downstairs." "Then bring it up instantly!" sternly ordered the judge. The official departed, and a minute later a loud bumping was heard, mingled with loud and earnest exhortations. Nearer came the noise, the door was pushed open, and the panting official appeared dragging in the blue bull. The judge was dumbfounded, but only for an instant. "Ah! That will do," said he. "It is always best, when possible, for the judge personally to inspect the stolen property. Remove the stolen property, usher." — Bombay Gazette.

The Legal 3&onthly Analysis of Leading Legal Events The proceedings in the dynamite case at Indianapolis, consuming twelve weeks and including the testimony of more than five hundred witnesses for the prose cution, seem to have been needlessly protracted notwithstanding the magni tude of the case. Clearly Judge Ander son labored to give the defendants a fair trial, and it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that if any error was committed by the Court, it was in giv ing the defendant labor union officials the benefit of too many doubts. But the outcome was a vindication of jus tice. The trial perhaps exhibits the con stant presence, in a democratic society, of menacing symptoms of public opinion, in this case emanating from the labor unions, which compel a court to defer unduly to the power of class prejudice. In a community which prided itself on the efficiency of every department of


its government the courts would have a freer hand and could act with greater dispatch, with less fear of wounding the feelings of social classes. The action taken by the Law Asso ciation of Philadelphia at its annual meeting places the responsibility of re forming the court system of Philadelphia on the shoulders of the legislature, which cannot now evade it. The association had two projects before it, one for the addition of a new judge to each of the five Courts of Common Pleas, the other for a constitutional amendment render ing possible the establishment of a Muni cipal Court on the lines of that of Chicago. The Municipal Court is clearly desirable, the lesser judicial functions at present devolving upon police magis trates who make up a superannuated machinery. The association hesitated to ask the legislature for two distinct measures, fearing that only one could