Part 3 (2/2)

This judge's reason for releasing a juryman from duty was equally smart.

The juryman in question confessed that he was deaf in one ear. ”Then leave the box before the trial begins,” observed his lords.h.i.+p; ”it is necessary that the jurymen should hear _both_ sides.”

Baron Martin was one of the good-natured judges who from the following story seem to stretch that amiable quality to its fullest extent. In sentencing a man convicted of a petty theft he said: ”Look, I hardly know what to do with you, but you can take six months.”--”I can't take that, my lord,” said the prisoner; ”it's too much. I can't take it; your lords.h.i.+p sees I did not steal very much after all.” The Baron indulged in one of his characteristic chuckling laughs, and said: ”Well that's vera true; ye didn't steal _much_. Well then, ye can tak' _four_. Will that do--four months?”--”No, my lord, but I can't take that neither.”--”Then take _three_.”--”That's nearer the mark, my lord,”

replied the prisoner, ”but I'd rather you'd make it _two_, if you'll be so kind.”--”Very well then, tak' two,” said the judge; ”and don't come again. If you do, I'll give you--well, it'll all depend.”

[Ill.u.s.tration: FREDERICK THESIGER, BARON CHELMSFORD, LORD CHANCELLOR.]

Lord Erskine's punning upon legal terms has already been noticed, but no better quip is recorded than that of Lord Chelmsford, when as Sir Frederick Thesiger, and a leader at the Bar, he took exception to the irregular examination of a witness by a learned serjeant. ”I have a right,” maintained the serjeant, ”to deal with my witness as I please.”--”To that I offer no objection,” retorted Sir Frederick. ”You may _deal_ as you like, but you shan't _lead_.”

On all occasions Samuel Warren, the author of _Ten Thousand a Year_, was given to boasting, at the Bar mess, of his intimacy with members of the peerage. One day he was saying that, while dining lately at the Duke of Leeds, he was surprised at finding no fish of any kind was served. ”That is easily accounted for,” said Thesiger; ”they had probably eaten it all _upstairs_.”

Walking down St. James's Street one day, Lord Chelmsford was accosted by a stranger, who exclaimed, ”Mr. Birch, I believe.”--”If you believe that, sir, you'll believe anything,” replied his lords.h.i.+p as he pa.s.sed on.

[Ill.u.s.tration: SIR ALEXANDER c.o.c.kBURN, BART., LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.]

In the recently published _c.o.c.kburn Family Records_ the following is told of the Chief Justice's ready wit:

”At a certain trial an extremely pretty girl was called as a witness.

The Lord Chief Justice was very particular about her giving her full name and address. Of course he took note. So did the sheriff's officer!

That evening they both arrived at the young lady's door simultaneously, whereupon Sir Alexander tapped the officer on the shoulder, remarking, 'No, no, no, Mr. Sheriff's Officer, judgment first, execution afterwards!'”

There never was a barrister whose rise at the Bar was more rapid or remarkable than that of Sir Alexander c.o.c.kburn, and along with him was his friend and close a.s.sociate as a brother lawyer of the Crown and Bencher of the same Inn, Sir Richard Bethel, who became Lord Chancellor a few years after Sir Alexander was made Chief Justice. Sir Richard once said to his colleague, ”My dear fellow, equity will swallow up your common law.”--”I don't know about that,” said Sir Alexander, ”but you'll find it rather hard of digestion.”

Although the wit of Lord Justice Knight Bruce was somewhat sarcastic it was rarely so severe as that of Lord Westbury. There was always a tone of good humour about it. He had indeed a kind of grave judicial waggery, which is well exemplified in the following judgment in a separation suit between an attorney and his wife. ”The Court has been now for several days occupied in the matrimonial quarrels of a solicitor and his wife.

He was a man not unaccustomed to the ways of the softer s.e.x, for he already had nine children by three successive wives. She, however--herself a widow--was well informed of these antecedents; and it appears did not consider them any objection to their union; and they were married. No sooner were they united, however, than they were unhappily disunited by unhappy disputes as to her property. These disputes disturbed even the period usually dedicated to the softer delights of matrimony, and the honeymoon was occupied by endeavours to induce her to exercise a testamentary power of appointment in his favour. She, however, refused, and so we find that in due course, at the end of the month, he brought home with some disgust his still intestate bride. The disputes continued, until at last they exchanged the irregular quarrels of domestic strife for the more disciplined warfare of Lincoln's Inn and Doctors Commons.”

Of this judge the story is told that a Chancery counsel in a long and dry argument quoted the legal maxim--_expressio unius est exclusio alterius_--p.r.o.nouncing the ”i” in _unius_ as short as possible. This roused his lords.h.i.+p from the drowsiness into which he had been lulled.

”Unyus! Mr. ----? We always p.r.o.nounced that _unius_ at school.”--”Oh yes, my lord,” replied the counsel; ”but some of the poets use it short for the sake of the metre.”--”You forget, Mr. ----,” rejoined the judge, ”that we are prosing here.”

Mr. Justice Willes was a judge of kindly disposition, and when he had to convey a rebuke he did so in some delicate and refined way like this. A young barrister feeling in a hobble, wished to get out of it by saying, ”I throw myself on your lords.h.i.+p's hands.”--”Mr. ----, I decline the burden,” replied the learned judge.

One day in judge's chambers, after being pressed by counsel very strongly against his own views, he said with quaint humour: ”I'm one of the most obstinate men in the world.”--”G.o.d forbid that I should be so rude as to contradict your lords.h.i.+p,” replied the counsel.

Mr. Montague Williams in his _Leaves of a Life_ relates the following story of Mr. Justice Byles. He was once hearing a case in which a woman was charged with causing the death of her child by not giving it proper food, or treating it with the necessary care. Mr. F----, of the Western Circuit, conducted the defence, and while addressing the jury said:

”Gentlemen, it appears to be impossible that the prisoner can have committed this crime. A mother guilty of such conduct to her own child?

Why, it is repugnant to our better feelings”; and then being carried away by his own eloquence, he proceeded: ”Gentlemen, the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, suckle their young, and----”

But at this point the learned judge interrupted him, and said:

<script>