Law and Laughter Part 7

"The answer was immediate, unexpected, and, accompanied as it was by a dramatic glance at the outside of his brief, as if to refresh his memory, triumphant, 'Three and one, my lord!'"

"The following letter is to Mrs. Atkinson:

1 HARE COURT, TEMPLE, E.C., LONDON.

_September 18, '72._

MY DEAR LOO,--I trust it is well with yourself, John, and the childer.... It is an off-day. We are resting on our legal oars after a prolonged and determined struggle yesterday. Know!

that near our native hamlet is the level of Hatfield Chase, whereon are numerous drains. Our drain (speaking from the Corporation of Hatfield Chase point of view) we have stopped, for our own purposes. Consequently, the adjacent lands have been flooded, are flooded, and will continue to be flooded.

The landed gentry wish us to remove our dam, saying that if we don't they won't be worth a d--n. We answer that we don't care a d--n.

This interesting case has been simmering in the law-courts since 1820. The landed gentry got a verdict in their favour at the last Lincoln a.s.sizes, but find themselves little the better, as we have appealed, and our dam still reigns triumphant. Yesterday an application was made to the judge to order our dam to be removed. In the absence of Mellor, I donned my forensic armour and did battle for the Corporation.

After two hours' hard fighting, we adjourned for a week; in the meantime the floods may rise, and the winds blow. The farmers yelled with rage when they heard that the dam had got a week's respite. I rather fancy that they will yell louder on Tuesday, as I hope to win another bloodless victory. It is a pretty wanton sport, the cream of the joke being that the dam is no good to us or to anybody else, and we have no real objection to urge against its removal, excepting that such a measure would be informal, and contrary to the law as laid down some hundred years ago by an old gentleman who never heard of a steam-engine, and who would have fainted at the sight of a telegraph post. As we have the most money on our side, I trust we shall win in the end. None of this useful substance, however, comes my way, as it is Mellor's work. But I hope to reap some advantage from it, both as to experience and introduction. I make no apology for troubling you with this long narration. I wish it to sink into your mind, and into that of your good husband. Let it be a warning to you and yours. And never by any chance become involved in any difficulties which will bring you into a court of law of higher jurisdiction than a police court. An occasional 'drunk and disorderly' will do you no harm, and only cost you 5_s._ Beyond a little indulgence of this kind--beware! In all probability I shall be in the North in a few weeks. Sessions commence next month. I will write to the Mum this week.--With best love to all, I am, Your affectionate brother,

FRANK LOCKWOOD."

"Mr. Mellor vouches for the following story, which, as it ill.u.s.trates Lockwood's humour and had gone the round of the newspapers, I will tell.

It is the ancient custom of the new Lord Mayor of London, attended by the Recorder and Sheriffs, to come into the law-courts and be introduced to the Lord Chief Justice or, if he is not there, to the senior judge to be found on the premises, and, after a little lecture from the Bench, to return good for evil by inviting the judges to dinner, only to receive the somewhat chilling answer, 'Some of their lordships will attend.' On this occasion the ceremony was over, and the Lord Mayor and his retinue was retiring from the Court, when his lordship's eye rested on Lockwood, who in a new wig was one of the throng by the door. 'Ah, my young friend!' said the Lord Mayor in a pompous way (for in those days there was no London County Council to teach Lord Mayors humility); 'picking up a little law, I suppose?' Lockwood had his answer ready. With a profound bow, he replied: 'I shall be delighted to accept your lordship's hospitality. I think I heard your lordship name seven as the hour.' The Lord Mayor hurried out of Court, and even the policeman (and to the police Lord Mayors are almost divine) shook with laughter."

Counsel sometimes find their position so weak that their only hope of damaging the other side lies in ridiculing their witnesses. Serjeant Parry on one occasion was defending a client against a claim for breach of promise of marriage made a few hours after a chance meeting in Regent Street. According to the lady's story the introduction had been effected through the gentleman offering to protect her from a dog. In course of cross-examination Parry said: "You say you were alarmed at two dogs fighting, madam?"--"No, no, it was a single dog," was the reply. "What you mean, madam," retorted Parry, "is that there was only one dog; but whether it was a single dog or a married dog you are not in a position to say." With this correction it need not be wondered that the lady had little more to say.

A learned counsellor in the midst of an affecting appeal in Court on a slander case delivered himself of the following flight of genius.

"Slander, gentlemen, like a boa constrictor of gigantic size and immeasurable proportions, wraps the coil of its unwieldy body about its unfortunate victim, and, heedless of the shrieks of agony that come from the utmost depths of its victim's soul, loud and reverberating as the night thunder that rolls in the heavens, it finally breaks its unlucky neck upon the iron wheel of public opinion; forcing him first to desperation, then to madness, and finally crushing him in the hideous jaws of mortal death."

Talking of his early days at the Bar, Mr. Thomas Edward Crispe, in _Reminiscences of a K.C._, relates how on one occasion he was opposed by a somewhat eccentric counsel named Wharton, known in his day as the "Poet of Pump Court." The case was really a simple one, but Wharton made so much of it that when the luncheon half-hour came the judge, Mr.

Justice Archibald, with some emphasis, addressing Mr. Wharton, said: "We will now adjourn, and, Mr. Wharton, I hope you will take the opportunity of conferring with your friend Mr. Crispe and settling the matter out of Court."

But Wharton would not agree to this, and when at last he had to address the jury, he, in the course of his speech, made the following remarks, for every word of which Mr. Crispe vouches:

"Gentlemen, I think it only courteous to the learned judge to refer to the advice his lordship gave me to settle the matter out of Court. That reminds me of a case, tried in a country court, in an action for detention of a donkey. The plaintiff was a costermonger and the defendant a costermonger; they conducted the case in person. At one o'clock the judge said: 'Now, my men, I'm going to have my lunch, and before I come back I hope you'll settle your dispute out of Court.' When he returned the plaintiff came in with a black eye and the defendant with a bleeding nose, and the defendant said: 'Well, your honour, we've taken your honour's advice; Jim's given me a good hiding, and I've given him back his donkey.'"

Mr. F. E. Smith, M.P., tells a story of a County Court case he was once engaged in, in which the plaintiff's son, a lad of eight years, was to appear as a witness.

When the youngster entered the box he wore boots several sizes too large, a hat that almost hid his face, long trousers rolled up so that the baggy knees were at his ankles, and, to complete the picture, a swallow-tail coat that had to be held to keep it from sweeping the floor. This ludicrous picture was too much for the Court; but the judge, between his spasms of laughter, managed to ask the boy his reason for appearing in such garb.

With wondering look the lad fished in an inner pocket and hauled the summons from it, pointing out a sentence with solemn mien as he did so: "To appear in his father's suit" it read.

There have been few readier men in retort than the late Mr. Francis Oswald, the author of _Oswald on Contempt of Court_. After a stiff breeze in a Chancery Court, the judge snapped out, "Well, I can't teach you manners, Mr. Oswald."--"That is so, m'lud, that is so," replied the imperturbable one. On another occasion, an irascible judge observed, "If you say another word, Mr. Oswald, I'll commit you."--"That raises another point--as to your lordship's power to commit counsel engaged in arguing before you," was the cool answer.

The author of _Pie Powder_ in his entertaining volume, tells us that he was once dining with a barrister who had just taken silk. In the course of after-dinner talk, the new K.C. invited his friend to tell him what he considered was his (the K.C.'s) chief fault in style. After some considerable hesitation his friend admitted that he thought the K.C.

erred occasionally in being too long. This apparently somewhat annoyed the K.C., and his friend feeling he had perhaps spoken too freely, thought he would smooth matters by inviting similar criticism of himself from the K.C., who at once replied, "My dear boy, I don't think really you have any fault. _Except, you know, you are so d--d offensive._"

A judge and a facetious lawyer conversing on the subject of the transmigration of souls, the judge said, "If you and I were turned into a horse and an a.s.s, which of them would you prefer to be?"--"The a.s.s, to be sure," replied the lawyer.--"Why?"--"Because," replied the lawyer, "I have heard of an a.s.s being a judge, but of a horse, never."

[Ill.u.s.tration: SERJEANT TALFOURD.]

In some cases counsel receive answers to questions which they had no business to put, and these, if not quite to their liking, are what they justly deserve. The following story of George Clarke, a celebrated negro minstrel, is a case in point. On one occasion, when being examined as a witness, he was severely interrogated by a lawyer. "You are in the minstrel business, I believe?" inquired the lawyer. "Yes, sir," was the reply. "Is not that rather a low calling?"--"I don't know but what it is, sir," replied the minstrel; "but it is so much better than my father's that I am rather proud of it." The lawyer fell into the trap.

"What was your father's calling?" he inquired. "He was a lawyer,"

replied Clarke, in a tone that sent the whole Court into a roar of laughter as the discomfited lawyer sat down.

At the Durham a.s.sizes an action was tried which turned out to have been brought by one neighbour against another for a trifling matter. The plaintiff was a deaf old lady, and after a pause the judge suggested that the counsel should get his client to compromise it, and to ask her what she would take to settle it. Very loudly counsel shouted out to his client: "His lordship wants to know what you will take?" She at once replied: "I thank his lordship kindly, and if it's no ill convenience to him, I'll take a little _warm ale_."

A tailor sent his bill to a lawyer, and a message to ask for payment.

The lawyer bid the messenger tell his master that he was not running away, and was very busy at the time. The messenger returned and said he must have the money. The lawyer testily answered, "Did you tell your master that I was not running away?"--"Yes, I did, sir; but he bade me tell you that _he was_."

A well-known barrister at the criminal Bar, who prided himself upon his skill in cross-examining a witness, had an odd-looking witness upon whom to operate. "You say, sir, that the prisoner is a thief?"--"Yes, sir--'cause why, she confessed it."--"And you also swear she did some repairs for you subsequent to the confession?"--"I do, sir."--"Then,"

giving a knowing look at the Court, "we are to understand that you employ dishonest people to work for you, even after their rascalities are known?"--"Of course! How else could I get a.s.sistance from a lawyer?"--"Stand down!" shouted the man of law.

At Worcester a.s.sizes, a cause was tried as to the soundness of a horse, and a clergyman had been a witness, who gave a very confused account of the transaction, and the matters he spoke to. A bl.u.s.tering counsel on the other side, after many attempts to get at the facts, said: "Pray, sir, do you know the difference between a horse and a cow?"--"I acknowledge my ignorance," replied the clergyman. "I hardly know the difference between a horse and a cow, or between a bully and a bull.

Only a bull, I am told, has horns, and a bully," bowing respectfully to the counsel, "_luckily for me, has none_."

"In Court one day," says Mr. W. Andrews in _The Lawyer_, "I heard the following sharp encounter between a witness and an exceedingly irascible old-fashioned solicitor who, among other things, hated the modern custom of growing a beard or moustache. He himself grew side-whiskers in the most approved style of half a century ago. "Speak up, witness," he shouted, "and don't stand mumbling there. If you would shave off that unsightly moustache we might be better able to hear what was coming out of your lips." "And if you, sir," said the witness quietly, "would shave off those side-whiskers you would enable my words to reach your ears.""

"My friend," said an irritable lawyer, "you are an a.s.s."--"Do you mean, sir," asked the witness, "that I am your friend because I am an a.s.s, or an a.s.s because I am your friend?"

Counsel sometimes comes to grief in dealing with experts. "Do you,"

asked one of a scientist, "know of a substance called Sulphonylic Diazotised Sesqui Oxide of Aldehyde?" and he looked round triumphantly.

"Certainly," came the reply. "It is a.n.a.logous in diatomic composition of Para Sulpho Benzine Azode Methyl Aniline in conjunction with Phehekatoline." Counsel said he would pursue the matter no further.

An action was brought by the owner of a donkey which was forced against a wall by a waggon and killed. The driver of the donkey was the chief witness, and was much bullied by Mr. Raine, the defendant's counsel, so that he lost his head and was reprimanded by the judge for not giving direct answers, and looking the jury in the face. Mr. Raine had a powerful cast in his eye, which probably heightened the poor fellow's confusion; and he continued to deal very severely with the witness, reminding him again and again of the judge's caution, saying: "Hold up your head, man: look up, I say. Can't you hold up your head, fellow?

Can't you look as I do?" The witness, with much simplicity, at once answered, "I can't, you squint." On re-examination, Serjeant c.o.c.kle for the plaintiff, seeing gleams of the witness's recovery from his confusion, asked him to describe the position of the waggon and the donkey. After much pressing, at last he said, "Well, my lord judge, I'll tell you as how it happened." Turning to c.o.c.kle, he said, "You'll suppose ye are the wall."--"Aye, aye, just so, go on. I am the wall, very good."--"Yes, sir, you are the wall." Then changing his position a little, he said, "I am the waggon."--"Yes, very good; now proceed, you are the waggon," said the judge. The witness then looked to the judge, and hesitating at first, but with a low bow and a look of sudden despair, said, "And your lordship's the a.s.s!"

Serjeant c.o.c.kle, who had a rough, bl.u.s.tering manner, once got from a witness more than he gave. In a trial of a right of fishery, he asked the witness: "Dost thou love fish?"--"Aye," replied the witness, with a grin, "but I donna like c.o.c.kle sauce with it." The learned serjeant was not pleased with the roar of laughter which followed the remark.

Mr. H. L. Adam in _The Story of Crime_ says he remembers a very amusing incident in one of our police courts. A prisoner had engaged a solicitor to defend him, and while the latter was speaking on his behalf he suddenly broke in with, "Why, he dunno wot the devil he's talking abaht!" Thereupon the magistrate informed him that if he was dissatisfied with his advocate's capabilities, he could, if he chose, defend himself. This he elected to do, and in the end was acquitted, the magistrate remarking that had the case been left to counsel he would unquestionably have been convicted.

In cross-examining a witness, says Judge Parry in _What the Judge Saw_, who had described the effects of an accident, was confronted by counsel with his statement, and asked, "But hadn't you told the doctor that your thigh was numb and had no feeling?"--"What's the good o' telling him anything," replied the witness. "That's where doctor made a mistake.

I told 'im I was numb i' front, and what does he do but go and stick a pin into my back-side. 'E's no doctor."

From the same source is the following story. Another man was testifying to an accident that had occurred to him at the works where he was employed. It was sought to prove that his testimony was false because he had a holiday that day, and this poser was put to him: "Do you mean to tell the Court that you came to work when you might have been enjoying a holiday?"--"Certainly."--"Why did you do that?" The reply was too obviously truthful. "What should I do? I have nowhere to go. I'm teetotal now."

A Jew had been condemned to be hanged, and was brought to the gallows along with a fellow prisoner; but on the road, before reaching the place of execution, a reprieve arrived for the Jew. When informed of this, it was expected that he would instantly leave the cart in which he was conveyed, but he remained and saw his fellow prisoner hanged. Being asked why he did not at once go about his business, he said, "He was waiting to see if he could bargain with Mr. Ketch for the _other gentleman's clothes_!"

A sign-painter presented his bill to a lawyer for payment. After examining it the lawyer said, "Do you expect any painter will go to heaven if they make such charges as these?"--"I never heard of but one that went," said the painter, "and he behaved so badly that they determined to turn him out, but there being no lawyer present to draw up the Writ of Ejectment, he remained."

This must be the lawyer who, being refused entrance to heaven by St.

Peter, contrived to throw his hat inside the door; and then, being permitted to go and fetch it, took advantage of the Saint being fixed to his post as doorkeeper and refused to come back again.