Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 15.pdf/549

 502

WHEN Judge Otis P. Lord of Massachu setts was to hold his first term of court after a serious illness, a bright young Methodist minister was asked to open the court with prayer. He was told of the illness of Judge Lord and that this was his first term since his recovery. The minister took in the situation, and made a prayer, which was a good one. He did not particularize until he came to the judge, and then he bent himself to his task. His virtues, and great ability as a lawyer and as a judge, were all remembered and praised, thanks given for his restoration to health, and prayers offered for his long con tinuance in his useful life. When the court adjourned at noon, Judge Lord turned to the sheriff and said: "Mr. Sheriff, what did you say was the name of the clergyman who opened the court this morning?" "The Reverend Mr. X ," answered the sheriff. "Well," said Judge Lord, "for a man who goes into particulars, that was the best prayer that I ever heard in a court room." MAGISTRATE: "Have you ever been mar ried?" Prisoner: "No, your honor, but I've been blown up by dynamite." AN Iowa justice recently decided a case involving the principle of E Phtribtis Unum so the story goes. It was a small damage case in which the defendant sought to set up the claim of right for his actions. His counsel was the local school-teacher. The justice was the proverbial county justice. The school-teacher had written out his argu ment and incorporated into it a number of Latin phrases. One of his strongest points was that his client was standing upon the doctrine of Vis Major. The opposing law yer saw that this was making a hit with the justice, so he began framing a reply. When the school-teacher sat down the attorney for the plaintiff began: "If the court please, counsel for the defendant has over looked one thing. The doctrine of Vis Major would apply to the case if it were still

in existence. But away back more than a Hundred years ago our forefathers fought for the doctrine that all men are created equal, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the gov erned. And when these principles triumphed the doctrine of Vis Major became null and void and the doctrine of E Pluribus Unum superceded it. And that is the doctrine which governs this case, and is the direct opposite of the principles cited by my learned opponent." Then the attorney went on at great length to expound the theory of E Pluribus Uiniiii, and the justice found for the plaintiff. '•THE evidence shows," said the magistrate, "that this woman threw a brick at the corpplainant, her husband." "Not so fast," interrupted counsel for the defense. • "The appearance of the man is evidence that the brick hit him, which proves that she must have thrown it at somebodv else." OF all the horse trades which figure so conspicuously in literature none has yet been uncovered to equal an exchange at Mt. Ayr, Iowa, recently, the validity of which lawyers were called upon to decide. It all came about because Foster Defenbaugh wanted an animal which William Long owned. A purchase was suggested and Long demanded one hundred and twen ty-five dollars for his animal. Defenbaugh thought the price a little too high, and no agreement could be reached till finally he offered to give the owner as many five dollar bills as would be required to girt the horse. Long sized up his animal and jumped at the opportunity. Defenbaugh pair1 hirrt one dollar to bind the bargain, and then the bills were pinned about the beast. To the sur prise of the owner it only took eleven. He refused to deliver the horse. The purchaser consulted a lawyer, who said the contract would be binding. But the two men met later and settled the matter out of court, it being presumed Defenbaugh increased the price, as he acknowledged he never knew before that a five-dollar bill was so large.