Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 08.pdf/296

 Rh The late Lord Chief-Justice of England used to tell his friends this anecdote at his own ex pense : — Driving in his coupe towards his court one morning, an accident happened to it at Grosvenor Square. Fearing he would be belated, he called a near-by cab from the street rank and bade the Jehu drive him as rapidly as possible to the Courts of Justice. "And where be they?" "What, a London cabby and don't know where the law courts are at old Temple Bar!" "Oh, the law courts, is it? But you said courts of justice." On his way to his judicial seat the Chief Justice saw at once that a line was drawn in the common mind between law and justice. As if, for instance, while one was dispensed the other was dispensed with.

Counsel in a case lately pending for trial in the New York Surrogate Court had his question met with the answer, " the matter slipped my mind." "In other words, you forgot such an impor tant event." "No, I haven't forgot it." "Pray, sir, what difference is there between forgetting a matter and having it slip from your mind?" "Well, counsellor, it is this way : A thing slips from the mind, but by and by you remember it. But if you forget a thing it never comes back." His Honor made note of the distinction.

Both lawyers and laymen down in Cumber land, Maryland, are fond of relating an incident in the Cumberland Circuit, which many of them are capable of doing with real dramatic effect. During their lives the De Vecnion brothers were at the head of the Maryland Bar. When Thomas died, his executor found his books in a very con fusing condition. One unsettled claim for a large sum was against a client for whom the deceased had labored long and successfully, but to the de triment of his general practice. Suit was brought by the executor to recover this money, and the surviving brother appeared for the executor on the trial. While the trial was in progress, the defend ant at every possible opportunity belittled and scoffed the recognized ability and integrity of his

I j j j j

269

dead counsel. No attention was paid to these insults by the prosecution. Finally, the brother rose to sum up. He re lated the story in the evidence, showing that for years the deceased lawyer had labored incessantly and at great sacrifice for the defendant, whose for tunes had been retrieved by the attorney's skill and wisdom. He referred to the talents of his brother and the estimation in which they were held by the community. At almost every word he was interrupted by the sneers, hisses, and scoff ing of the heartless defendant. At length, pained and saddened beyond expression, and unable longer to endure the taunts of the dead brother's defamer, De Vecnion turned his livid, grief-stained face toward the defendant. He raised his hand, and pointed his finger at the jeering fellow, and was apparently about to make a passionate remon strance. But suddenly his arm dropped, his expression changed, and with tears coursing down his cheeks, he slowly exclaimed : " Sneer at me if you wish; .but do not defame the brain that thought for you, the tongue that talked for you, and the hand that wroughtfor you : for they are now peacefully at rest beneath the sod of the valley." De Vecnion sank down, completely overcome with grief. It seemed to those present as if the spirit of the maligned man had come into the court-room, and solemnly spoken the words.

Prior to 1838-9 grand jurors were allowed no pay for their services under the laws of Missouri. The Legislature enacted during the session of 1838-9 an act allowing jurors one dollar per day and mileage. This incurred the displeasure of the County Court of Van Buren County in said State, as shown by an order of date August 5, 1839, duly entered of record, to wit: "On mo tion it is ordered that pursuant to an act past at the last General Assembly of the State of Missouri granting of grand jurors the wright of pay for their services is hereby refected and this court say that the Grand jurors of this county shall not be allowed pay hereafter." On the same day the same court entered also of record the following order : " On motion it is ordered that the act entitled an act granting of License for Dramshops, approved February the 13th, 1839, be and the same is hereby rejected by