Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/372

 Rh "That 's the very mistake I made in the lower court," answered the young man; " I don't want to let it defeat me twice."

ONE of the most prominent members of the Nebraska Bar was especially noted for the effect with which he addressed juries. When once under way, he drew upon his memory and imagination impartially, and without regard to application or circumstances, much less to accuracy, poured forth a torrent of classical and historical references which no jury could withstand. On an important crim inal trial in which he represented the defendant, the district attorney had made a very strong speech, in which certain checks were an important point. The opening sentences of the judge's answer, pro nounced with great deliberation and emphasis and with immense effect, were : — "Gentlemen of the jury, my learned friend has said a great deal to you about these checks; but let me ask him, where are the stubs? Gentlemen, it may be that some things are conspicuous in their presence, but there are others which are far more conspicuous in their absence. Why, Gen tlemen, it is related that at Rome it was the custom in the funerals of illustrious personages to carry in the procession the busts of the deceased's ances tors. And it is said that once at Rome, at the funeral of the noble Roman lady Juno, the busts of her ancestors were carried in the procession. And as the solemn procession filed through the crowded streets of the eternal city, the people saw that the bust of Brutus was wanting, and they shouted ' Where is the bust of Brutus? Show us the bust of Brutus!' (turning to the district attorney). Where is the bust of Brutus, where is the bust of Brutus, where is the bust of BRUTUS? Show me the STUBS!"

NOTES.

THE trial of Lizzie Borden for the murder of her father and stepmother terminated, as every unprejudiced person must have felt sure it would, in an acquittal of the accused. The Government's case was terribly weak, amounting in fact to no case at all. Link after link in the chain of cir cumstantial evidence was wanting, and it is sur prising that the prosecuting officer should have

341

felt it his duty, under the circumstances, to press for a conviction. However, it is much better for Lizzie Borden to have had the matter finally decided by a jury of twelve men of more than ordinary intelligence. Her vindication is com plete. She stands to-day before the world an innocent woman, and no one has the right to cast a shadow of suspicion upon her. A MOST pleasant evidence of restoration in fra ternal feeling between Secession South and Union North can be daily witnessed in one of the Cham bers of the Common Pleas in New York City, where Roger A. Pryor is on the bench as judge, and at the deputy clerk's desk before him sits William S. Keiley, while Alfred Wagstaff occasion ally as full clerk visits the court-room. Judge Pryor, as (in 1861) Chief of General Beauregard's staff in Charleston, was the first to enter Fort Sumter under a white flag; and Mr. Keiley was an officer in the Confederate Potomac Army, and shortly after the surrender of General Lee was arrested by Federal General Terry for alleged incendiary editorials in a Petersburg news paper of which he was proprietor. At the same time Mr. Wagstaff was a Union Colonel. Lions changed into lambs; but no little boylawyer can expect to lead any of the three! IN the early days of the Western States, when society was free and easy, and marriage was essen tially a matter of civil contract, not of status, many of the pioneers formed contract relations which are to-day giving the lawyers and courts considerable business in determining who are the rightful heirs and descendants of these pioneers. As these pioneers in many instances became cattle kings, bonanza kings, or railway directors, and also formed numerous contract relations with a slight marital tinge, the question as to who shall inherit their wealth is often a nice as well as an important one. One of these questions came up recently before the Supreme Court of the State of Washington (Kelly v. Kitsap Co. 32 Pat. Rep. 554), in the settlement of the estate of one Michael Kelly. Said Michael Kelly had in the fifties emigrated to the West, and becoming tired of a life of celibacy, sought to enter into a matrimonial alliance. As in those days the female portion of the population in the State of Washington was exceedingly small, he turned to the aborigines of the soil for a better