Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/133

 I2O

THE GREEN BAG

thority on trusts was called as a witness for the plaintiff. The defendant was a brother attorney and the distinguished witness was evidently embarrassed. His repeated lapses of memory grew almost ludicrous. An impor tant question raised a storm of technical objec tion from the defence and for several minutes court and counsel were absorbed in the discus sion of profound problems of evidence. At the first lull the suave voice of the witness was heard. "Your honor, I think I can solve this difficulty. My answer is ' I really cannot re member.' " The witness was allowed to retire.

ONE of Assistant Attorney-General Beck's stories at the Hardwicke Society dinner in England was especially appreciated by the students. A general in the Civil war applied at the close of the conflict, for admission to the bar of the United States. A committee of three examiners reported that he had answered correctly two thirds of the questions put to him. A judge, astonished at the general's success, asked the chairman of the committee what the questions were. "Well," he re plied, "the first was, 'What is the rule in Shelly's case?' and the answer was 'Writing poetry.' That was not correct. Then we asked him what was a 'contingent remainder' and a 'vested interest,' and he said he did not know. That was correct, and we admitted him." — Chicago Law Journal.

THE MAIDEN AND THE LAW PILL

SHE.—-Do you ever, while in Cambridge, Mr. Blackstone, indulge in sparring and such fine athletic sports? HE.—When two men fight though each consent, yet each is liable. See any leading writer on the law of torts. SHE.—I hear your cousin, Mr. Lighthead is just engaged; now is the story really true? HE.—A contract with a lunatic is always voidable. See 25 Queen's Bench Division, page 52. SHE.—They say, but tell me what do you think, Mr. Blackstone, that seals on letters have been going out of late? HE.—An instrument under seal needs nc

consideration. "Meeson and Wellsby," vol. II, page 68. SHE.—What awful weather we've been hav ing, Mr. Blackstone! Xow don't you think it looks as though it were going to pour? HE.—The evidence, I think, is hardly satis factory. See "Common Bench," new series, pages 3 and 4. SHE.—It's very late: 1 must be going, Mr. Blackstone. Remember you have promised that you'll call some day. HE.—I am afraid that promise is a ntidunt paclnni. "Pollock on Contracts," page 121, note a. —Harvard Lampoon.

REV. EDGAR J. HEILMAN, of Norristown. Pa., who is being sued for $10,000 damages because in an unguarded moment he asked Miss Blanche Gertrude Keck to be his, and afterwards regretted it, has set up a defense which, if sustained, would throw into con fusion all the established methods and tradi tions of courtship. He alleges that the con tract to marry was entered into on Sunday and was therefore void. A Sunday is generally understood to be the day of days for the in ception of such agreements; it can readily be seen that many of Pennsylvania's fair ones must be uneasy regarding their rights of ac tion. Fortunately we are able to allay their fears by referring them to Fleischman v. Rosenblatt, 20 Pa. Co. Ct. 512. In that case the ungallant defendant similarly claimed that his promise, having been made on the Sabbath, was void under Pa. Act of April 22, 1794, which forbids the doing or performing on that day of any "worldly employment or business whatsoever," save only works of "necessity and charity." He contended that the con tract in question was "business" and was not a work of either "necessity" or "charity." The plaintiff's counsel, however, maintained that an engagement to marry was a contract both of necessity and charity, which view the court also adopted. So it is safe to say that no minister of the gospel who on Sundays puts in his spare time between sermons plighting his troth to his fair parishioners can escape retributive justice on the ground that Sunday is dies 11011. — Chicago Law Journal.