Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 02.pdf/109

 92

Judge M is a very absent-minded man. He was busily engaged in solving some judicial problem, when a servant hastily opened the door of his office and announced a great family event : "A little stranger has arrived." "Eh?" It 's a little boy." "Little boy! Well, ask him what he wants."

The story is told of Gen. B. F. Butler's early days, that a Yankee obtained his legal opinion how to recover the value of a ham which a neigh bor's dog came along and ate. He was advised to prosecute and recover for damages. "But the dog was yourn," said the sharp Yankee. Butler opened his eyes a little, asked him what the ham was worth, was told five dollars, paid the money, and then demanded a ten-dollar fee of the astonished native for legal advice.

Judge. Mr. State's Attorney, before you can introduce this witness you must show the loss of the record. State's Attorney. I presumed your Honor was aware of the fact that the records of Marion County were burned. Judge. As a private citizen I do know the fact, but as the court I do not. and you must put the proof of the fact into your case. State's Attorney. Well, your Honor, it strikes me a little singular that your Honor knows some thing off the bench, and don't know anything on it. We do not remember having ever seen in print the following anecdote of Judge Tappan, of Ohio, which was related to us by an old friend of the Judge. After he had studied law long enough to consider himself fitted for the bar, he made ap plication for admission, and at an appointed time met the Justices who were to test his knowledge by an oral examination. "Mr. Tappan," was the first question, " what is law 1" The answer came promptly : " An unjust distri bution of justice." Somewhat surprised, the examiner continued: "And what, then, is equity I"

"An imposition upon common sense." The justices held their heads together for a few moments, and unanimously declared that Mr. Tappan was fully qualified to practise. — Columbia Law Times. During the trial of a case in Louisville, a Ger man witness persisted in testifying to what his wife told him. This, of course, was ruled out by the judge. But the witness still persisted in 1epeat ing, "My vife toldt me." Presently the judge, unable to contain himself longer, said : " Suppose your wife were to tell you the heavens had fallen, what would you think?" "Veil, den, I dinks dey vas down."

"What prompted you to rob this man's till?" asked the judge of the prisoner. "My family physician," was the reply. " He told me it was absolutely necessary that I should have a little change."

NOTES. Judge Brewer is the youngest member of the United States Supreme Court. He is only fiftytwo years of age, is the fifty-second person ap pointed to that bench, and was confirmed by fifty-two votes. A decision has been given by the Supreme Court of New York, in Kemmler's Case, affirming the constitutionality of execution by electricity. Judge Dwight writes the opinion, in the course of which he says : — "It seems very clear that no provision of the English Bill of Rights was intended to operate as a restriction upon the power of the legislative branch of the English government. The act was chiefly a protest against the acts of tyranny and oppression on the part of the crown. In regard to the similar pro vision in the Constitution of the United States, it is in the first place to be observed that it has no appli cation to any department of the government of the States, but is a restriction upon the federal govern ment only. There is even some doubt if it is intended as a restriction upon the power of Congress in regard to punishment for crime. With regard to the pro vision in the Constitution of this State, the case is