Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/202

 Charles Russell, Barrister. would get. D1rectly his junior and the soli citor had seated themselves in his room for the consultation, he turned to the latter and asked, ' What is your client going to wear at the trial? ' The solicitor replied that he had not the faintest idea. Russell then said, ' Take her to-morrow to her dressmaker, and order a perfectly plain dress of a soft grey colour, fitting closely to the figure, without any trimming, and a big black hat also as simple as possible.' The consultation was very short and the case itself was practically not discussed — indeed there was little to discuss in it. Russell's client got a verdict for .£10,000" (p. 109). "'Russell' (says a Northern circuiteer) ' differed from all the men on the circuit in this respect; he was a splendid all-round man. Some men were good for legal argument, others were firstrate in commercial cases, others admirable in what are called sensational actions — libel or breach of promise; others came to the front in criminal causes, but Russell excelled in everything. Whatever he went into he came out top ' " (p. III). Russell in cross-examination excelled all the masters of that art. This biography gives many examples; and most absorbing reading they are. Space can be taken here for three only. Of these three, the first, Lambri Pasha v. Labouchere, was at the be ginning of his practice at the bar; the sec ond, Scott v. Sampson, was in the middle; the third, the Parnell Commission, was to ward the end. The increase in his own skill is to be noted in this progression; in the first case the cross-examination of Lambri is by comparison with his later work slight, the witness is tricked, that is all; in the second case, the cross-examination of Sampson shows great power, but no subtlety; in the third case, the cross-examination of Pigott will always be to the legal profession a model — and a marvel.

169

"Russell once more turned sharply to Lambri and asked in English, ' Is your father alive? ' "Lambri (in good English) : 'Yes.' "The Lord Chief Justice : ' We can dis pense with the interpreter, I think.' "A Juror : ' It would be a great saving of time.' "Russell had produced the effect he de sired. He had satisfied the judge and the jury that Lambri understood English quite well enough to undergo his examination in that language. The rest of the cross-exam ination was carried on through the interpreter, but the prejudice created against the prose cutor at the outset remained to the end; and in the end Russell demonstrated to the sat isfaction of the judge and jury, and indeed of every one in court, that Lambri was an illbred, ill-educated imposter, who had lived on the Continent by card-sharping, and had come to England to ply the same trade, when Mr. Labouchere, by the help of the French police, brought him to book " (p. 128). "' Russell's cross-examination of Samp son,' says an eye-witness, 'was ferocious.' I remember one scene which was painful in its dramatic intensity. It lasted only for an in stant, but produced an extraordinary effect. Russell asked Sampson a question. Sampson did not answer. ' Did you hear my question? ' said Russell in a low voice. « I did,' said Sampson. ' Did you understand it? ' said Russell in a still lower voice. ' I did,' said Sampson. ' Then,' said Russell, raising his voice to its highest pitch, and looking as if he would spring from his place and seize the witness by the throat, 'why have you not answered it? Tell the jury why you have not answered it.' It is impossible to realize the scene unless you saw Russell. The voice, the gesture, the manner, the whole appearance of the man were awful. A thrill of excitement ran through the court. Samp