Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 10.pdf/198

 Ct)e #reen 38agPublished Monthly, at $4.00 per Annum.

Single Numbers, 50 Cents.

Communications in regard to the contents of the Magazine should be addressed to the Editor, Horace W. Fuller, 344 Tremont Building, Boston, Mass. The Editor will be glad to receive contributions of articles of moderate length upon subjects of inter est to the profession; also anything in the way of legal antiquities or curiosities, facetia, anec dotes, etc. LEGAL ANTIQUITIES. A curious provision was introduced into the Scotch Parliament in 1425, owing to the com plaints of the innkeepers that travelers stayed with friends when they came to a town. It was enacted that these henceforth, whether on foot or on horseback, should repair to the established hostelry of the place; and that any burgess who took them into his own house should be fined forty shillings. Nobles and gentlemen might stay where they pleased, provided they sent their horses and attendants to the inn.

FACETIA. A lawyer of bland manners, who was better known for his faculty for getting business than for his conception of the bearings of an author ity from the books, was one day arguing a mo tion before a very patient judge. He had quoted from four or five decisions and had said nothing that had any application to the case in hand. Pointing to a long row of volumes in calf binding on the table he exclaimed : " Your Honor, if these cases I have read to you are not just in point, I would have you know that I've got all these other ones here that are equally sat isfactory!" In a certain county of Pennsylvania, a judg ment had been entered by virtue of a warrant of attorney contained in a note, as is not uncom mon practice in that State. The defendant in this particular judgment alleged that his signa ture to the note upon which judgment was en tered had been obtained by certain material mis representations made by the payee to him, and also that he had not understood the instrument he had signed. His petition drawn by zealous

counsel was presented to the court, praying that the judgment be opened and the defendant let into a defence, and averred, inter alia, " that owing to old age and loss of teeth he (defendant) was unable at the time of signing said note to comprehend the force of legal language." "Now," said the lawyer who was conducting the cross-examination, " will you please say how and where you first met this man?" "I think," said the woman with the sharp nose, " that it was " — "Never mind what you think," interrupted the lawyer. " We want facts here. We don't care what you think and we haven't any time to waste in listening to what you think. Now please tell us where and when it was that you first met this man." The witness made no reply. "Come, come," urged the lawyer, "I demand an answer to my question." Still no response from the witness. "Your Honor," said the lawyer, turning to the court, " I think I am entitled to an answer to the question I have put." "The witness will please answer the question," said the court. "Can't," said the woman. "Why not?" "The court doesn't care to hear what I think, does it?" "No." "Then there's no use questioning me any fur ther. I am not a lawyer. I can't talk without thinking." So they called the next witness. Judge V, of the St. Louis bench, has the reputation of never smiling while in the perform ance of his duty. It was motion day in his di vision a short time ago, and nearly all the motions on the docket had been heard, when a prominent member of the bar entered the room hurriedly, 175