Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 15.pdf/598

 Rh

PUBLISHED MONTHLY AT $4.00 PER ANNUM.

SINGLE NUMBERS 50 CENTS.

Communications in regard to the contents of the Magazine should be addressed to the Editor, THOS. TILKSTON BALDWIN, 1038 Exchange Building, Boston, Mass.

The Editor will be glad to receive contributions of articles of moderate length upon subjects of interest to the profession; also anything in the way of legal antiquities or curiosi ties, facetiae, anecdotes, etc. NOTES. A WESTERN lawyer had defended a prisoner charged with murder, with the result that the man was convicted and hanged. Shortly afterwards the same lawyer appeared before the judge with a fee bill for defending the man and attending to matters in probate clos ing up his estate. The bill was for a large sum, and the lawyer explained it in detail. "Well, I'll approve it," announced the judge, "but it does seem to me as if you could have killed that man for less." JUDGE GIVAN. formerly circuit judge in Missouri, relates this incident of a trial he had before a justice of the peace in his early practice. After the evidence was in Mr. Givan told the court he wanted "to read the law" which governed the case and then proceeded to read from the statutes. After he was through, a young attorney for the defendant, named Williams, addressed the court as fol lows: "If your Honor iplease, "what the gentleman has read from has no application whatever to this case; what he has read may do very well for a court of law, but it has no application to a court of justice. Why, your Honor, this court is, as its very name implies, a court of justice and not of law." With this he sat down. The argument was conclusive. ONE of the twelve attorneys who argued tine recent Tillman murder trial in S-mth Carolina followed a lawyer of State-wide reputation as an orator, and the position was

a difficult one. The lawyer made this explan atory preface: "I am reminded of a good Sunday School teacher I once heard with her class. She was a good woman and she had a crowd of little boys as her scholars, and one Sunday she brought some pictures to show them, and she showed them the picture of Christ; she showed them a picture of Mary, the Mother of Christ, and then she showed them a picture of the devil. This picture represented the devil having great, glaring eyes, fire coming out of his mouth, and great horns. The teacher said, 'Now, boys, how would you like a thing like that to get hold of you?' All of them looked scared, and one little fellow said, 'Well, I wouldn't like it.' Another little fel low, on the back seat, said, 'Miss Mary, I wouldn't like that big devil to get hold of me, but trot out one of your little devils, and I'll give him the mischief.' Gentlemen, I am in that fix." THE pistol carrying habit was almost uni versal in the South before the war, but there was one judge, in West Tennessee, who was determined to break it up in his jurisdiction and therefore made a rule, which has become a precedent for all time and has the force of an enactment of the supreme law making power of the State. It is known as the "law of fifty and sixty," and was promulgated by Judge John Harrigan, who presided over the courts of .Shelby County for a number of years. He was determined to break up the pistol carrying habit. To do this he established the rule of fining every man, caught with a pistol on his person, fifty dollars and sending him to the county work house for sixty days. During his whole administration he never departed from this rule. No matter who the