Part 18 (1/2)
A veteran member of the Baltimore Bar tells of an amusing cross-examination in a Court of that city. The witness seemed disposed to dodge the questions of counsel for the defence. ”Sir,” admonished the counsel sternly, ”you need not tell us your impressions. We want facts.
We are quite competent to form our own impressions. Now, sir, answer me categorically.” From that time on he got little more than ”yes” and ”no” from the witness. Presently counsel asked: ”You say that you live next door to the defendant.”--”Yes.”--”To the south of him?”--”No.”--”To the north?”--”No.”--”Well, to the east then?”--”No.”--”Ah,” exclaimed the counsel sarcastically, ”we are likely now to get down to the one real fact. You live to the west of him, do you not?”--”No.”--”How is that, sir?” the astounded counsel asked. ”You say you live next door to the defendant, yet he lives neither north, south, east, or west of you.
What do you mean by that, sir?” Whereupon the witness ”came back.” ”I thought perhaps you were competent to form the impression that we lived in a flat,” said the witness calmly; ”but I see I must inform you that he lives next door above me.”
In the Supreme Court of the United States the President interrupted counsel in the course of a long speech by saying: ”Mr. Jones, you must give this Court credit for knowing _something_.”--”That's all very well,” replied the advocate (who came from a Western State), ”but that's exactly the mistake I made in the Court below.”
In a suit for damages against a grasping railway corporation for killing a cow, the attorney for the plaintiff, addressing the twelve Arkansas good men and true who were sitting in judgment, and on their respective shoulder-blades, said: ”Gentlemen of the jury, if the train had been running as slow as it should have been ran, if the bell had been rung as it 'ort to have been rang, or the whistle had been blown as it 'ort to have been blew, none of which was did, the cow would not have been injured when she was killed.”
Although not strictly a story of either the Bench or the Bar of America, it is so pertinent to the latter that we cannot omit the following told by the Scottish clergyman, the late Dr. Gillespie of Mouswold, in his amusing collection of anecdotes.
A young American lady was his guest at the manse while a young Scottish advocate was spending a holiday in the neighbourhood. He was invited to dine at the manse, and took the young lady in to dinner, and kept teasing her in a lively, good-natured manner about American people and inst.i.tutions, while it may be guessed his neighbour held her own, as most American girls are well able to do. At length the advocate asked, ”Miss ----, have you any lawyers in America?” She knowing what profession he belonged to replied quick as thought, ”Oh yes, Mr. ----, lots of lawyers. I've a brother a lawyer. Whenever we've a member of a family a bigger liar than another, we make him a lawyer.”
A quaint decision was given by Judge Kimmel, of the Supreme Court at St. Louis, in an application for divorce by Mrs. Quan. The judge directed Patrick J. Egan, a policeman, to supervise the domestic affairs of the couple, and to visit their home daily for thirty days. After questioning the wife closely on her att.i.tude towards her husband and his treatment of her, Egan wrote down for the wife's guidance a long array of precepts. Among these were the following:
”Don't remonstrate with your husband when he has been drinking. Wait until next morning. Then give him a cup of coffee for his headache.
Afterwards lead him into the parlour, put your arms about him, and give him a lecture. It will have more weight with him than any number of quarrels.
”If he has to drink, let him have it at home.
”Avoid mothers-in-law. Don't let them live with you or interfere in your affairs.
”If you must have your own way, do not let your husband know you are trying to boss him. Have your own way by letting him think he is having his.
”Dress to suit your husband's taste and income. Husbands usually don't like their wives to wear tight dresses. Consult him on these matters.
”Don't be jealous or give your husband cause for jealousy.
”When your husband is in a bad humour, be in a good humour. It may be difficult, but it will pay.”
The policeman-philosopher's precepts were duly printed, framed, and placed against the wall of the family sitting-room. After paying only fifteen of the thirty visits to the house directed by the judge, the results could not have been more gratifying. Mr. and Mrs. Quan were delighted, and presented the guide to martial bliss with a handsome token of their grat.i.tude in the form of a gold watch.
Many of the droll sayings of the American Bench of past years are attributable to the fact that the judges were appointed by popular vote, and the successful candidate was not always a man of high attainments in the practice of his profession at the Bar, or of profound learning in the laws of his country. Too often he was a man of no better education than the ma.s.s of litigants upon whose causes he was called to adjudicate. For instance, a Kentuckian judge cut short a tedious and long-winded counsel by suddenly breaking into his speech with: ”If the Court is right, and she thinks she air, why, then, you are wrong, and you knows you is. Shut up!”
”What are you reading from?” demanded Judge Dowling, who had in his earlier life been a fireman and later a police officer. ”From the statutes of 1876, your honour,” was the reply. ”Well, you needn't read any more,” retorted the judge; ”I'm judge in this Court, and my statutes are good enough law for anybody.” A codified law and precedent cases were of no account to this ”equity” judge.
But these are mild instances of the methods of early American judges compared with the summing up of Judge Rodgers--Old Kye, as he was called--in an action for wrongful dismissal brought before him by an overseer. ”The jury,” said his honour, ”will take notice that this Court is well acquainted with the nature of the case. When this Court first started in the world it followed the business of overseering, and if there is a business which this Court understands, it's hosses, mules, and n.i.g.g.e.rs; though this Court never overseed in its life for less than eight hundred dollars. And this Court in hoss-racing was always naterally gifted; and this Court in running a quarter race whar the hosses was turned could allers turn a hoss so as to gain fifteen feet in a race; and on a certain occasion it was one of the conditions of the race that Kye Rodgers shouldn't turn narry of the hosses.” Surely it must have been Old Kye who, upon taking his official seat for the first time, said: ”If this Court know her duty, and she thinks she do, justice will walk over this track with her head and tail up.”
On a divorce case coming before a Western administrator of the law, Judge A. Smith, he thus addressed the plaintiff's counsel, who was awaiting the arrival of his opponent to open proceedings. ”I don't think people ought to be compelled to live together when they don't want to do so. I will decree a divorce in this case.” Thereupon they were declared to be no longer man and wife. At this juncture the defendant's counsel entered the Court and expressed surprise that the judge had not at least heard one side of the case, much less both sides, and protested against such over-hasty proceedings. But to all his protestations the judge turned a deaf ear; only informing him that no objections could now be raised after decree had been p.r.o.nounced. ”But,” he added, ”if you want to argue the case 'right bad,' the Court will marry the couple again, and you can then have your say out.”
Breach of promise cases generally afford plenty of amus.e.m.e.nt to the public, both in the United States and Great Britain, but it is only in early American Courts that we hear of a judge adding to the hilarity by congratulating the successful party to the suit. A young American belle sued her faithless sweetheart, and claimed damages laid at one hundred dollars. The defendant pleaded that after an intimate acquaintance with the family, he found it was impossible to live comfortably with his intended mother-in-law, who was to take up residence with her daughter after the marriage, and he refused to fulfil his promise. ”Would you rather live with your mother-in-law, or pay _two hundred_ dollars?”
inquired the judge. ”Pay two hundred dollars,” was the prompt reply.