Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 10.pdf/587

 548

4th oijune, 1735, amounting to 8/. 18*. id. There was another Item of 12s. for Barbadoes Waters, and a Third for 15*. for keeping of his dog." Hobart came of age in the next March, "and on that Oc casion made an Entertainment at an Inn in Norwich. Gaily took care to be down at that Time, and asked Hobart for the Money." Two days later the note was given. There never had been any previous ac count rendered, nor any payment on account. Lord Hardwicke was asked to restrain collection of the note, and decree that it be surrendered. " Some Items of this Bill," his Lordship said, ''' were the most gross he ever saw," namely the charges of June 4, and those for the Barbadoes waters and the Dog's keep. He made short work of the infant's dislike of French cookery, and he observed: "But if a Rule should once be laid down, that in Cases of this Sort there can be no Relief in this Court, there are five hundred Persons about this Town, that would take Advantage of this, and lie in wait for the Ruin of Infants." So the prayer was granted, but Gaily was granted leave to try at law on a quantum meruit. All this is derived from the noble folio of 1742, in type that can be read across the room — if not a large room. The opinion evidently was extemporaneous, and one can see old Hardwicke shaking his wig, with its ambrosial curls, as he delivered it. It was lucky for the hungry and thirsty scholar that he was dead. Expert Testimony. — Two notable addresses on this subject have recently been delivered in the State of New York, one by the Hon. Theodore Bacon, of Rochester, before the Liberal Club of Buffalo, and the other by the Hon. St. Clair McKelway, editor of the "Brooklyn Eagle,"before the Social Science Asso ciation at Saratoga. Both of them were mainly taken up with denunciations of the abuses to which the innovation of expert opinion has led, with very little suggestion as to possible remedies. Mr. Bacon made a very exhaustive review of the judicial expres sions of animosity against the system, with which the law books are so thickly studded, and showed in a very conclusive way that its use is in direct opposition to the fundamental theory that judicial judgment must rest on evidence of the existence of facts, and not on evidence of the mere opinion that such facts exist. Mr. Bacon expressly disclaimed any intention to suggest remedies. Mr. McKelway made only sug gestions that suffice to show how difficult it will prove to get rid of or ameliorate the present wretched con dition. So outrageous and ridiculous is the extent to which the doctrine is now carried, that one is prone impatiently to exclaim, abolish it utterly; but it is evident that there are cases in which the testimony of intelligent and candid experts is not only defensible but nearly indispensable, as for example, the question

of the presence of poison in a human body, or the probable duration of a physical injury. Opinions on such questions go far toward being evidence of facts, and are far outside the bounds of mere speculation, within which experts so differ from one another and contradict themselves, and as the mass of the com munity have come to believe, testify invariably in favor of the party who pays them. Mr. McKelway needlessly vindicated the lawyers from the charge of insincerity, arising from the fact that they prefer to make out the best case they can for the party who employs them. There is a manifest difference be tween a hired legal champion and a hired witness who testifies to order. The one is necessary and blameless, the other is a disgrace to jurisprudence and a hindrance to justice. Mr. McKelway in con clusion, elaborates his view that crime is a disease, and should be cared for rather than punished. He attributes much to heredity, and would prevent crim inally sick persons from propagating their species. For " hereditary," read " environment." and we should go some way in agreeing with him. But on the whole we incline to think Mr. McKelway is too tender in his theory of the criminal, and at the same time rather inconsistently given to admiration of that unmerciful jailer, Brockway, of Elmira, who seems to think that the most effectual way of dealing with the sick criminal is to wallop the disease out of him. But an easy chair is no proper place for us to enlarge on this modern inquisitor, Brockway, and so we for bear. To those interested in the suppression or reformation of those modern pests of the court-room, expert witnesses, we recommend both these addresses. Uniform State Laws. — The address on this topic, delivered by the Hon. Lyman D. Brewster, of Connecticut, before the American Bar Association, last August, is an acute and highly interesting pro duction. It is mainly taken up with an account of the " Negotiable Instruments Act," recommended by the Conference of State commissioners on Uniform Legislation, drafted by Mr. John J. Crawford, of the New York Bar, and already adopted by the legislatures of New York, Connecticut, Florida, Colorado, Mary land, Virginia and Massachusetts; favorably re ported in both branches of Congress for adoption for the District of Columbia, and unanimously passed in the House of Representatives. The act is based to some extent on the English act drawn by Judge Chalmers, which has proved so wonderfully success ful, but is regarded here as an advance and im provement upon that act. This statute of thirtysix pages, compasses all the essential law contained in Mr. Randolph's prodigious treatise on "Commercial Paper," consisting of three huge volumes, and com prising almost three thousand pages of text, with a