Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 10.pdf/570

 Wit and Wisdom of Chief Justice Logan E. Bleckley. owner, having succeeded the testator even in the office of husband. But why may not a Potts marry for love? and once married, it was no un common lot for him to become the favorite of his wife, and therefore her legatee. Half his good fortune is thus accounted for; and the other half was the result of purchase, at what seems to have been a fair price. The jury were satisfied not to molest him, and so are we." — New v. Potts, 55th Ga. 427. "Trial, under our system, is a cooperation of minds — a grave and serious consultation over what should be done and how the end should be accomplished. The attorneys in the cause are not mere carriers to bring in materials for con structing the edifice; they have a right, as re presenting the parties, to suggest where every important stone should be laid, and to assign reasons, drawn from legitimate sources, in sup port of their suggestions. Their reasons may be good or bad, but such as they are they should be heard and considered." — Van Dyke v. Martin, 55th Ga. 470. "In the view of some judges jeopardy arises not out of the trial but out of the verdict; as if, in a combat intended to be mortal, there was no danger of being slain until you are hit." — Nolan v. State, 55th Ga. 523. "logically considered, the trial of a criminal case is an effort to complete a final syllogism, having, for one premise, matter of law; for the other, matter of fact; and for the conclusion the resulting proposition of guilty or not guilty. It is the duty of the judge to supply the jury with material for the major premise of this syllogism; and it is the duty of the jury to collect from the evidence the minor premise, compare the two, draw the conclusion, and declare it in their ver dict. Inasmuch as it is possible for the judge to mistake the law or misrepresent it, the material which he supplies, or some part of it may be erroneous. Are the jury nevertheless to accept it as correct, or is it subject to their revision and correction? May they, if they think it faulty, reject it, and substitute in its place something corresponding to their own convictions of what the law really is? Are the scriptures of the law an open Bible, or must they be read for the laity by the priesthood of the bench?" — Habersham v. State, 56th Ga. 64. "This case presents a contest over cattle and

531

turpentine. The herdsman makes a stand against the aggressions of the manufacturer. The man whose vocation it is to turn the herbage into beef rises up against the man who seeks to convert the trees into turpentine. The disputed element is fire. Fire is the friend and ally of him who seeks after turpentine, but the mortal enemy of him who rejoices in the possession of many cattle. The one ranges the forest with his brands of burning; the other, in alarm, cries fire! and clamors for its extinction by a court of equity. And equity, it seems, finds this a difficult busi ness. It is wanting in hooks and ladders, engines and other appliances, and has no waterworks. How equity is to put out fire, or to prevent it from spreading, is more than we know without some thoughtful consideration. The complainant, however, is in court with his application for aid by the writ of injunction; and that is a writ which has arrested many things, and may possibly arrest fire itself. Let us see." — Harrell v. Hannum, 56th Ga. 508. "A locomotive and a mule may well pass over the same ground, so that they pass at different moments of time. If, however, they contend for the same place at the same instant, and a collision ensues, with damage to either, the diligence of their respective owners may be challenged and com pared." — Ga. Railroad Co. v. Neely, 56th Ga.542. "It seems, from authority, that to a complete larceny by A, there may be added, by a sort of criminal accretion, another complete larceny by B : 25 Ga. 515; also, that a man may commit a crime as principal without being present; 30 Ibid., 757. Compare 26/493, Code 4,305 to 4,308; 17 Ga. 346. There is matter for much thought in these things, and mystery enough to bewilder one for some days. The Code seems plain; but the same law existed when the 25th Ga. and 30th Ga. Reports were made. For my own part, judicial candor obliges me to say that I do not know whether the main staple of Judge Wright's charge in the present case, about schem ing, planning and furnishing brain-work, is good law or not. I am not sufficiently master of the subject to overrule him, and yet I secretly wish he would not charge the like again. It is some little relief to my perplexity to find the charge is unguarded in that part of it which refers to the prisoner as possibly instructing another when and how to steal." — Minor v. State, 633.