Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/155

 132

that he is no artist, and that his pretended works are made by talented subordinates. The " Law Times " says : — "This case is probably the first in which it has been suggested that an artist whose skill is im pugned should prove it by practical operations in court. The inconvenient results which would probably flow from such a practice are obvious. The practical operation would not be recorded, although it might produce different impressions upon different minds. The operator and his friends might consider the test conclusive in his favor; another view might be taken by the other side. How move against a verdict based on this opera tion on the ground that it was against the weight of the evidence? If the test is to be applied to a sculptor, why not to a prima donna? We have known of a case in which an artiste sought damages for wrongful dismissal, and the justification was that she could not sing. Would a judge have allowed her to sing to the jury? If so, the rule might be extended without limit, with consequen ces terrible to contemplate."

The " suggestion " in the case in question came from the plaintiff on cross-examination, with the observation, " that will end the case." Hereupon the following dialogue en sued : — "Mr. RUSSELL. No, indeed, Mr. Belt, it will not. Baron HUDDLESTON. If the jury express a wish to see Mr. Belt put to the test, I shall certainly not prevent it. (Applause in court, which was at once checked.) Sir H. GIFFARD. I shall cer tainly ask for it, my lord. Mr. RUSSELL. And I shall not object at the proper stage of these proceedings." Subsequently, at Carnarvon, in an action for personal injuries against a railway com pany, the plaintiff's counsel asked the court to allow the plaintiff to walk across the court before the jury, with a view to convince them that his lameness was not assumed. The same learned judge declined to allow this test, and said " that ever since he had been reported to have said, during the hearing of the case of Belt v. Lawes, that he should allow the plaintiff to make a bust of himself

(Baron Huddleston) in court, he had been pestered to allow all kinds of tests to be gone through in court before the jury; and he wished it to be known that the press had en tirely misrepresented him in this matter, and that he had never indicated that he should allow such a course to be taken." The differ ence between this test of skill, and the offer in the railway case is manifest; for the jury could not tell but that the plaintiff then was. shamming lameness, while there could be no question if he made a bust. The " London Law Journal " says : — "The practice of experimenting before judges is likely to receive a check, if it is often followed by such results as happened in a case before Mr. Jus tice Pearson last week. Two German firms were disputing the exclusive right in certain patents for improvements ' in the production of coloring mat ters suitable for dyeing and printing.' The con tention of the defendants was that the chemical means described in the specifications were impos sible, because if the ' oxyazo naphthalinoine ' were to be united with the ' fuming sulphuric acid ' of the strength therein described, it would be danger ous to human life; and an experiment coram judice was proposed. In an unguarded moment the judge consented, and adjourned to an empty room, where the baleful mixture was concocted by add ing a teaspoonful of the unpronounceable liquid to an ounce of fuming sulphuric acid. The result was terrific. ' So dense and poisonous ' were the effects of the fumes which arose, that judge, coun sel, witnesses, and bystanders fled, ' with the utmost precipitancy, to avoid being asphyxiated on the spot.' Her Majesty's judges are brave men, but even in the search for truth they ought not to be exposed to dangers hitherto reserved for combat ants in China; and the smoking out of the Royal Courts of Justice, as if it were a nest of hornets, is a contempt of court for which none of the penal ties provided by the Lord Chancellor's Bill is adequate." The London " Law Times " says of the same transaction : — "We see no advantage in this kind of exhibition; the conditions under which such an experiment has to be made must tend to make it misleading,