Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/211

 186

against objection, to manufacture in court a target similar to the target described in the patent sued upon, but composed of the same materials in dif ferent proportions; namely, five parts of plaster-ofparis to four parts of the pitch. This target was manufactured by us in the presence of the court as a part of the argument of counsel, not claiming, of course, that it was evidence. This composition, namely, five parts of plaster-of-paris and four of pitch, was described in a previous patent issued in 1880, to one Woodward. Oar contention was that the properties of the two compositions were essentially the same, and that there was no mate rial difference between them."

Mr. Albert H. Gladding, of Norwich, N.Y., writes us : — "In 1878 John W. Church, Esq., was district attorney of this county; and he put upon trial, at a court of sessions held by Hon. W. F. Jenks, County Judge, a prisoner under indictment for burglary. The prisoner's counsel was the late Isaac S. Newton, one of the brightest and ablest lawyers in this part of the State. The testimony upon the part of the people was to the effect that the defendant broke into and entered the dwelling in question through a certain cellar window. The defence produced in court the frame of the very window in question, and showed that its dimen sions were nine inches by thirteen inches. The defendant was a man of full age, and appeared to be of ordinary size though rather slim and spare. At the close of the evidence the defendant's coun sel moved fora direction to acquit, upon the ground that it was utterly impossible for the defendant to have committed the burglary as alleged and proved, to wit, through that cellar window. Any one look ing at the man and the window-frame would have jumped to the conclusion that the prisoner had established a perfect defence. The court inquired of the district attorney if he claimed that entrance was effected in any other manner, or if he claimed that this was not the identical window-frame; which questions were answered in the negative. When the court seemed about to give the direc tion for acquittal, the district attorney arose sud denly, and in a stern and commanding voice told the prisoner to • stand up.' He quickly and meekly complied. The district attorney with in creased energy said to him, ' Hold up your right hand, sir, as high as you can reach.' It was done.

' Reach your left hand down by your side.' He did so; and having got him into that position, and while his counsel was looking on with amazement and curiosity, wondering what the unusual proceed ing meant, the district attorney seized the windowframe, and throwing it over the prisoner's up-ex tended arm, drew it down to his arm-pit, and giving it a sudden jerk it came over his left shoulder, and then with both hands he stripped it down over his body with such force as to take two or three but tons off his waistcoat and produce an exclamation of anger or pain or both, while the window-frame lay around his feet on the floor unbroken. Every body was taken by surprise, but none more so than the prisoner's able and usually alert counsel. It is needless to say that the court declined to direct an acquittal. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he served his term in State's prison. Any one hav ing the curiosity to try the experiment will find that he can ' crawl out of a much smaller hole ' than he would expect, by taking the position Mr. Church put the prisoner in."

Judge Loran L. Lewis, of the New York Supreme Court, has given me two interesting instances of experiments in or out of court in his practice. Manke was on trial for mur der. A witness testified that he saw him from behind, ascending a hill, facing the sun, wearing a pepper and salt suit. Mr. Lewis experimented at the same place, under ex actly similar conditions, with persons wearing clothes of the color described, and of various other colors, and proved by observers that it was impossible to tell the color of any suit, on account of the sunlight. He also experi mented with variously painted boards, with the same result. On the trial of Schell, for arson, a witness testified that he went with the defendant into the cellar of the house in question, in the evening; that the defendant put a thin layer of shavings in a box, sprinkled them with kerosene, set in the midst a lighted candle projecting above them, and fitted another box on the top so closely that no ray of light was visible from the out side. The fire broke out some hours after the time fixed by the witness. Mr. Lewis brought boxes, shavings, and candles into court, and conducted experiments under the