Page images
PDF
EPUB

tiger, the wolf, and the bear; and to whatever saying that every one is to be taken to know the degree of tameness or domestication the individual law. Look at the law's extent! Look at its comelephant is brought he cannot get out of this dis- plexity! Putting public policy aside, however, for creditable connection or classification, which af- the moment considerations of social necessity firms that elephants as a species have not been is the presumption such a harsh one after all? All reduced to a state of subjection. Critics of the sound presumptions of law are based upon experilaw may well ask why it would not have been ence of fact. The law presumes malice from an enough in these cases of animals feræ naturæ to injurious act because nine times out of ten such have applied the general standard of reasonable malice does exist; the law presumes the legiticare, care commensurate with the risk-the primacy of a child born in wedlock — given the opmary rule of law - instead of requiring the owner portunity of access - because children under such of a dangeros animal to insure safety, and visiting circumstances generally are legitimate; and in the him with consequential damages, whatever pre- analogous case of presuming knowledge of the cautions he may have taken by chaining or other law, the law is not so very far wrong. Most wise - nay, according to Lord Bramwell, though people do know the law as it affects them or their lightning may have fused the chain. The reasons business. The press, for instance, as the Argus which seen to have weighed with our court have case shows, is quite aware of its duties and liabilbeen the magnitude of the danger and the diffi-ities in the matter of reporting, and indeed of the culty of proving negligence; but this difficulty law of contempt, though in a momentary impulse might have been met by adopting the principle of of anger at being lectured an editor may blaze up French law that is to say, by making the owner into a total disregard alike of law and good taste. of an animal liable prima facie for its misdoings, The criminal class, again, is quite cognizant of the unless such owner can disprove negligence on his pains and penalties to which it exposes itself, and part, thus throwing the onus on the owner. This has been known even to put the judge himself is the law of most continental countries with reright on these points. Promoters, again. Their spect to animals, and a very rational one. Roman knowledge of the intricacies of company law is law had an extremely convenient way of extricat- often a lively surprise to the professional lawyer. ing itself from the difficulty. This is its formula: Who will say that the solicitor is not intimately If a bear escapes from his master and thus sucacquainted with the law in its various phases as it ceeds in doing mischief, the master cannot as concerns him? The fact is, we very quickly pick quondam dominus be called to account, because he up knowledge of things which it is our interest to has ceased to be master when the animal has know. escaped. "Has ceased!" Yes! but how did the bear manage to make away? — Law Journal (London).

THE PRESUMPTION AS TO KNOWING
THE LAW.

"ONCE,

NCE, and but once," says Charles Lamb in his "Christ's Hospital Memories," "the uplifted rod was known to fall ineffectual from his hand, when droll, squinting W., having been caught putting the inside of the master's desk to a use for which the architect had clearly not designed it, to justify himself with great simplicity averred that he did not know that the thing had been forewarned. This exquisite irrecognition of any law antecedent to the oral or declaratory struck so irresistibly upon the fancy of all who heard it the pedagogue himself not excepted - that remission was unavoidable." But what would happen to society if this plea were to be allowed, and a man who had libelled his neighbor or gone through the ceremony of marriage with another woman while his wife was still alive were allowed to plead that he did not know traducing a man's character or committing bigamy was malum prohibitum, or that "the thing had been forewarned?" If he could, the social fabric would soon crumble away. Yet it seems at first sight rather a hard

[ocr errors]

But there is a deeper sense in which the presumption is true. All law has a moral basis: it may be reduced almost to three maxims, Suum cuique tribuere, Alterum non lædere, Honeste vivere, representing respectively the fundamental principles of the law of contracts, the law of torts, and of the criminal law. Every man is conscious of these principles in himself. They have been familiar to him ever since he learned to recite his "Duty to his Neighbor" from the Church catechism. A knowledge of them may not enable a plain man to solve all the puzzles of the law, but they are a lucerna pedibus which will save him from any serious legal pitfalls. Law Journal (London).

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

client is some evidence that he may be dead. Noth- oddity of the speech, were almost driven into ing was so likely to kill him."

It was said of an eminent lawyer now dead that:

"When facts were weak, his native cheek
Brought him serenely through."

Lord Thurlow once built a house in the neighborhood of London. Now, he was first cheated by his architect, and then he cheated himself, for the house cost more than he expected; so he would never go into it. As he was coming out of the queen's drawing-room, a lady whom he knew stopped him, and asked him when he was going into it. "Madam," said he, with his well-known politeness," the queen has just asked me that impudent question, and as I would not tell her, I will not tell you."

Curran's Wit. - A witness having sworn that as he was returning at a late hour from a supper party he was assaulted by Curran's client, the counsel, in his cross-examination, asked him "if the number of eggs that composed his supper was not more than that of the Graces and equal to that of the Muses? if he did not drink a little coarse claret at dinner by way of foundation, to keep the claret out of the wet? if he did not swallow a squib after dinner, by way of Latin for his goose? and if, after his foundation of white wine, with a superstructure of claret, a stratum of nine eggs, a pint of porter, and a super-cargo of Geneva punch, his judgment was not a little under the yoke?"

At Sir Francis Delaval's election at Andover the attorney's bill was not discharged. It had been running up for many years, and, though large sums had been paid on account, a prodigious balance still remained to be adjusted. The affair came before the Court of King's Bench, when among a variety of exorbitant and monstrous charges there appeared the following article: To being thrown out of the George Inn, Andover; to my legs being thereby broken; to surgeon's bi and loss of time and business, all in the service of Sir F. B. Delaval, £500."

64

A gentleman who had a suit in Chancery was called upon by his counsel to put in his answer, for fear of incurring a contempt. "Well," says the client," why is not my answer put in then?" “How should I draw your answer," saith the law"without knowing what you can swear?" 'Hang your scruples," says the client again; "pray do your part of a lawyer, and draw me a sufficient answer; and let me alone to do the part of a gentleman, and swear it."

yer,

66

A lawyer, now deceased, a legal wag, was one day pleading before a Scotch judge. Happening to have a client, a female of the name of Tickle, defendant in an action, he commenced his speech in the following strain: “Tickle my client, the defendant, my lord." The audience, amused with the

hysterics by the judge replying: "Tickle her yourself, Harry; you are as able to do it as I."

[blocks in formation]

ARE LAWYERS MERCENARY?

D

URING a period whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, the legal profession has been made the target for "the slings and arrows" of the wits and satirists of each generation on account of the alleged cupidity of its members in the matter of fees. Milton's biting words in his "Tractate on Education" in connec tion with the subject, the satire of Macklin in hi comedy of "Love à la Mode," and the countless other disparaging references of a similar nature with which our literature is so plentifully interspersed, all reflect the popular conception of the mercenary character of the legal practitioner. Some of this, no doubt, was only half-seriously intended, but it is difficult to deny that in the past there was some justification for the popular view.

Under the old system of practice and pleading, when, as Mr. Birrell has remarked, so much subtle law was manufactured on a purely imaginary state of facts, the client might well doubt whether he was getting full value for his money when he found so much time employed, or rather wasted, in the discussion of peddling questions of

pleading having little, if any, bearing on the merits

of his suit. A good anecdote is always welcome. In one of his books, Samuel Warren, a man of inordinate vanity, but at the same time of undoubted ability and literary skill, tells the following little story: "I recollect a case," he says, "where a client of mine had his declaration on a bill of exchange demurred to, because, instead of the words in the year of our Lord, 1834,' he had written A. D. 1834.' I attended the late Mr. Justice Littledale at chambers to endeavor to get the demurrer set aside as frivolous, or leave to amend on payment of a shilling; but that punctilious though very able and learned judge refused to do either. Your client, sir,' said he, has committed a blunder, sir, which can be set right only on the usual terms, sir. "A. D.," sir, is neither English nor Latin, sir. It may mean anything or nothing, sir. It is plain, sir, that here is a material and traversable fact, and no date to it, sir,' and so forth; whereupon he dismissed our poor summons with costs." This exquisite foolery spelt costs between £7 and £8 in that particular instance - and it was hardly surprising that the suspicion should get abroad that a system which countenanced such pitiable quibbling had been specially devised as an ingenious method for the

[ocr errors]

heaping up of costs. We have changed all that. or very nearly done so, for, although clients stil' grumble, and no doubt will continue till the end of time to grumble, at the cost of litigation, they may at least have the satisfaction of knowing that the fees they pay are, in the main, applied in the honest endeavor to get at the real root of the litigated matter, instead of being frittered away in discussions barren of any practical result save the painful one from the client's point of view of a much heavier bill of costs.

[ocr errors]

But, while it may be conceded that by the operation of an iniquitous system now for the most part swept away there was, as has been said. some ground for the popular conception as to the mercenariness of the legal profession, there is nevertheless another side to the shield. However sceptical the lay mind may be on the point, disinterestedness in the matter of fees has on many occasions been conspicuously shown by lawyers. Marsfield returned nine hundred and ninety-five of the thousand guineas sent him as a retainer by the famous Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, with an intimation that "the professional fee with a general retainer could neither be less nor more than five guineas" (Campbell, Chief Justices, vol. 2, p. 343). Topping, a king's counsel, who died in 1821, did the like. Instead of quietly pocketing the large check, he returned it with the observation that the amount a thousand guineas indicated either a doubt of his doing his duty on the ordinary terms known to the profession, or an expectation that he should do something beyond the line of his duty. As in Mansfield's case, he contented himself with the modest five guineas. An incident very similar marked the career of the late Lord Justice Kay, as was mentioned in these columns after his death. A consultation was being held in his chambers in a suit not specially difficult, but in which many different interests had to be represented. The estate was large, and so were the fees. In the middle of the consultation Kay inquired how much was marked on his brief; on being told he said, "That is far too high," and told his clerk to put down about a third of the

[ocr errors]

aniount.

Such exhibitions of disinterestedness in declining to accept excessive fees do not, it is true, occur every day; but neither do the opportunities for their exercise come with undue frequency.

Large fees are no doubt sometimes paid to counsel, but not so commonly as is generally supposed. Immense honoraria, such as the £10,000 paid to Serjeant Ballantine for his defense of the Gaekwar❘ of Baroda, or the £24,000 received by Mr. Peterson for defending a great Indian contractor, are by no means the standard according to which the rank and file of the profession are remunerated. Never in his wildest dreams does the ordinary barrister conjure up visions of fees such as those; he has to be content with sums which by comparison

are beggarly in the extreme. Not only that, he is expected to give his services now and then without any remuneration at all. Sir Walter Scott, whom we are proud to remember was of our profession, tells us that for his successful defense of a sheepstealer and poacher the reward he got was the promise of a hare, and that from another of his clients, a burglar, the fee took the shape of this piece of advice - valuable indeed as coming from an expert — namely, that the best safeguards against burglars were, first, a yelping terrier kept inside the house, and secondly, a door provided with a large and, if possible, rusty key! These may be classed among the curiosities of barristers' fees, as also may that which the late Sir Frank Lockwood received for his defense of Peace, the notorious criminal. In his biography of Lockwood, Mr. Birrell tells us that after Peace was sentenced he sent a special message to his advocate thanking him for his exertions, and at the same time begging his acceptance of the ring which accompanied the message. The ring, it is added, was a most evil-looking thing, made of the basest of metals and bearing a suspicious resemblance to a knuckleduster. Lockwood accepted it, said he had never had anything half so handsome given him before, and took it home; but Mrs. Lockwood, says Mr. Birrell, declined to give the thing house room even for one night! This was Lockwood's fee! More amusing stil is the story of the honorarium received on one occasion by James Crauford, of the Scotch bar, who afterwards attained to the dignity of a judgeship of the Court of Session with the title of Lord Ardmillan. At one time he had a considerable practice at the bar of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, but it is said that from some of his clerical clients the remuneration he received did not err on the side of extravagance. One of these clients, who was charged with drunkenness, instructed Crauford just as his case was about to be called on. and at the same time handed him a neat little packet of something that looked in bulk like a fee of perhaps fifteen or twenty guineas. After the case was over it ended in the deposition of the bibulous minister and Crauford got home, he undid the roll, but found to his dismay that it contained, not golden guineas, but six peppermint lozenges of the kind most efficacious in stifling the odor of whiskey! Such stories they might be multiplied almost indefinitely besides the amusement they afford, likewise bear ample testimony to the large amount of work which the lawyer is called upon to undertake without fee or reward. What would a tradesman say if requested to go and do likewise? If much is to be set down on the debit side of the lawyer's account, it may at the same time fairly be claimed that he is entitled to counterbalance those with not a few substantial items on the other side. - Law Times (London).

[ocr errors]

Legal Botes.

A Georgia judge recently, in deciding a case against a man who had been missing for many years, then suddenly appeared and claimed part of an estate, made this comment: "I scarcely think the statute of relations will stop and wait for him any more than the village of Falling Waters awaited the awakening of Rip Van Winkle, or the wife of Enoch Arden awaited his return."

Justice Brewer the other day told a story of an Indiana justice of the peace who owned a farm. One line of his fence formed the boundary of the States of Indiana and Ohio. Like others in rural districts who hold office, he had an abnormal appreciation of the responsibility of the office, and never lost an opportunity to exercise his prerogative of demanding that the peace be preserved. One day his son and his hired man got to fighting on a stretch of the farm near the boundary line fence, and the justice of the peace rushed out and mounted the fence. Then, with head cocked high and the air of one who has but to command, he shouted, "In the name of the State of Indiana I demand the preservation of the peace!" Just then the fence gave way under his weight and as he went down with the fence toppling over to the Ohio side he shouted to his son: "Give him the mischief, Jim; I've lost my jurisdiction!”

The gown question has been of late settled in New York in favor of the judges wearing black silk gowns, but it is still under discussion in New Jersey, says the Albany Argus. The wearing of court regalia was abolished in that State in 1791, the minutes of the Supreme Court showing that on May 11 of that year the counselors of the court presented a formal petition "that inasmuch as the wearing of bands and bar gowns is found to be troublesome and inconvenient, and also deemed by your petitioners altogether useless, the rule of this court made for that purpose may be vacated." The rule was ordered vacated, and since then republican simplicity has been the order of the day in the courts of New Jersey. But, although the New Jersey judges are reported to be almost unanimous in their opposition to the revival of gowns, the New Jersey bar, headed by the attorney-general, who is president of the State Bar Association, seems to be in favor of the adoption of gowns by the bench, and the probability is that the judges will ultimately be persuaded to acquiesce.

Justice Beekman, in the New York Supreme Court, First Department, has decided, on application of a stockholder in the Wagner Palace Car Company, that an injunction pendente lite should not issue restraining the board of directors of the Wagner company from dissolving that association, and making over to the Pullman Palace Car Company the assets and good will of their concern.

It is held that associations of this kind are not corporations in the eyes of the law. The board of directors by virtue of the rules and by-laws of the association, were fully empowered to dispose of the assets of the company with the consent of a majority of the stockholders. Justice Beekman, in reply to the contention that by the sale of the Wagner company to the Pullman a trust was organized, said he saw nothing hurtful in combinations of this kind. The decision further contained a statement of the terms upon which the sale was negotiated. Each stockholder in the Wagner concern received for his stock, approximated at a valuation of $180 par, a share in the Pullman company at $100 par.

The Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court have now rendered decisions which confirm the title of the State to large tracts of land in the Adirondacks secured at tax sales, says the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. The Court of Appeals decides that the limitation of the right of redemption prescribed by the statute of 1885 is valid. This statute'was intended to end definitely the system of allowing lands that had become burdensome to go to the State for nonpayment of taxes, with the expectation of getting them again at some future time. Many speculative enterprises for taking from the State land acquired by tax sales will be nipped by the decisions of the courts. The decision by the Supreme Court is in favor of the State in the suit of the Saranac Land and Timber Company for the ejectment of Comptroller Roberts. It is gratifying to know that the State's interests are properly defended instead of being weakly abandoned to the speculators in Adirondack land. In years past land was surrendered freely.

Governor Roosevelt has vetoed Assemblyman Joseph I. Green's bill amending section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to prohibit the settlement of cases without consent of counsel.

In a memorandum filed with the dead bill, the governor says: "I withhold my signature from this bill because in my judgment it is thoroughly vicious. It provides that no settlement of any law suit shall be valid without the consent of the attorneys, or without an application to the court, upon notice to the attorneys. The Code now provides all necessary security for an attorney, in that it gives him a lien upon the cause of action. This bill would be a benefit chiefly to the very lawyers whom the honorable members of their profession least desire to see benefited - that is, to those who bring suits for damages on account of accidents, and who wish to be in a position to mulct both their own clients and the defendants, in case of settlement. In its first draft the bill applied only to negligence suits. An unscrupulous attorney might turn it to his advantage by bringing a blackmailing suit at the eve of any great commercial or railroad consolidation, when it would be in his

power to hold up a settlement involving great sums of money. In short, the possibilities for fraud which are afforded by this bill are so numerous that it is not entitled to any consideration."

English Notes.

It is perhaps not generally known that the Prince of Wales is a member of the legal profession a bencher of the middle temple.

Judge Dane, who in October last dismissed a civil bill for damages for assault because the plaintiff refused to be sworn and give his evidence in English, has been reversed by Mr. Justice Murphy, says the Law Times. This case provoked a good deal of discussion at the time, and was the subject of a question in the house of commons. Judge Dane formed the idea, erroneously as it would seem now, that the plaintiff understood English well enough, and that his request to be allowed to give his evidence in Irish was prompted by some ulterior motive. Accordingly, as the man declined to speak anything but Irish, the case was dismissed with costs. Mr. Justice Murphy, however, took another view, and allowed him to give his evidence in the language to which he was accustomed. In the result the plaintiff proved his case, and was awarded a moderate sum as damages for the assault, with costs. Judge Dane's action, however well-intentioned, seemed at the time to be somewhat harsh, and very few will regret the result of the appeal from his decision.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

ambitious of that honor, and I hope in this case to stand in the same way.

"Lord Clonmell: If you print or publish what may inflame the mob, it behoves the judges of the land to notice it, and I tell you, by the Eternal God, that if you publish or misstate my expressions, I will lay you by the heels."

Brave words, which now sound quite comical.

Legal Laughs.

When Oliver Cromwell first coined his money, an old cavalier, looking upon one of the new pieces, read this inscription on one side, "God with us; on the other, "The Commonwealth of England." "I see," said he, God and the commonwealth are on different sides."

""

In the reign of George II one Crowle, a counsel of some eminence, made some observation before

an election committee which was considered to reflect on the house itself. He was accordingly summoned to appear at their bar; and, on his knees, he received a reprimand from the speaker. As he rose from the floor, with the utmost nonchalance, he took out his handkerchief, and wiping his knees coolly observed that it was the dirtiest house he had even been in in his life."— Law Times (London).

[ocr errors]

Lord Chief Justice Holt, who had been very wild in his youth, being once upon the bench at the Old Bailey when a fellow was tried and convicted of a robbery on the highway whom he remembered to have been one of his old companions, curiosity induced him to inquire into the fortune of the contemporaries with whom he had once associated, and of whom he had known nothing for many years; he therefore asked the fellow what had become of Tom and Will, with the rest of the tribe to which they belonged. The fellow, fetching a Ah! my lord," deep sigh and making a low bow, said he, "they are all hanged but your lordship and I."

66

66

66

Mr. Abrahams," said Lord Mansfield, "this man is your son, and cannot go on the same bail bond." 'He ish not my son, my lord." Why, Abrahams, here are twenty in court who will swear to it." "I will shwear, my lord, he ish not." "Take care, Abrahams, or I will send you to prison." Now, my lord, if your lordship pleases, I will tell you the truth." "Well, I shall be glad to hear the truth from a Jew," replied Lord Mansfield. "Now, my lord, I wash in Amsterdam two years and three-quarters; when I came home I find this lad; now the law obliges me to maintain him, and consequently, my lord, he ish but my son-in law." Well, Moses," rejoined Lord Mansfield, this is the best definition of a son-in-law I ever heard."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »