Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/338

 Rh on the Bench, showing her the various documents in the case, and announcing to the Bar that a new judge had been appointed. How often, too, was he engaged in gay and gallant badinage with the lady litigant in person. One of these, who wanted him to try her case himself, once delight ed him greatly. He had been telling her that her case had been sent to be tried by a certain learned judge without a jury, adding : " He is a capital lawyer, you know, and will try your case very nicely." " Oh, yes, my Lord," she replied, "Lord Justice is all very well as to law, but my case requires so much common sense!" In a case relating to an alleged fraudulent pro spectus, the counsel before him was arguing that the prospectus had deceived a large number of persons, including some country clergyman, who had been induced to apply for shares in a worth less company. Lord Esher was unconvinced and incredulous, and said : " Now, just imagine for a moment that I am a country curate." " My Lord," replied counsel, "my imagination is lim ited," and Lord Esher laughed as heartily as his brethren and the Bar. The following interesting declaration has re cently been filed in the Supreme Court, Erie County, New York, in the case of Fendal v. Logan : — The above named plaintiff by her attorney for cause of complaint alleges : first, that the defendants reside in the city of Buffalo, in the County of Erie and State of New York. Second, that defendants in this action sustain the private relations of husband and wife, and that on the thirtieth day of October 1901, the husband and a co-defendant in this action per mitted and sent his wife, also a co-defendant in this action, to ride out in a horse and buggy, a horse and carriage, a horse and phaeton, or other vehicle, either for pleasure or for other purposes, upon Main Street in the city of Buf falo, N. Y., and while the wife and co-defendant was prosecuting her mission of pleasure, or per forming other duties as she was permitted and for which she was sent by said husband, she the said wife between the hours of three and four o'clock in the afternoon, was driving the said horse and buggy or other vehicle, wrongfully, carelessly, and negligently, without warning or caution, drove against and upon, and by means

301

of the shaft of said vehicle and by means of the tramp of the horse's hoofs, knocked down and ran over the plaintiff as she was making her transit from Niagara Street car to Main Street for the purpose of completing her trip down town, and while the plaintiff was in the act of crossing Main Street, after looking up and down Main Street, and having seen said horse and vehicle standing, moved onward, and while in the act of crossing Main Street, the said wife and co-defendant with reins or horse whip, struck the horse suddenly, rushing upon, and driving over as aforesaid, and by an irresistable force the plaintiff was thrown with violence upon the street. The injuries sustained by the plain tiff in detail are those of a sprained back, dislo cated womb, resulting in an abnormal or pathological condition of the ovaries. The plaintiff is a domestic, and as such has no other means of livelihood than that of her earn ings as a domestic, such as doing general house work, and as a result of the aforesaid injuries plaintiff for a time was confined in the Sisters' Hospital at her own expense, and for a long time thereafter she has been so disabled as to neces sarily reduce her weekly receipts from $3.50 to S3.00 per week, the employers having to hire an assistant for plaintiff. That the injuries inflicted internally upon the plaintiff as well cripple the back, rupture the liver, dislocate the womb, and render the ovaries abnormal, greatly shock the nerves and nerve centres as aforesaid in addition to great pain and long suffering, and also threaten pro tracted injuries, if not permanent impairment of plaintiff's abilities to earn a competent living as aforesaid, and thereby shorten plaintiff's life as aforesaid. That such injuries to plaintiff were caused solely by defendant's negligence and that without any negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendants for the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), beside the cost of this ac tion. "D1d you strike that jury? " asked the friend of the lawyer whose firm had just lost a justice court case. "My only regret," replied the attorney, " is that I didn't."