Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/563

 528

THE GREEN BAG

undoubtedly furthered the ends of justice. While Sir John recognizes the improve ments that have been made since he began to practice — notably the simplification of pleadings — he deplores certain abuses which flourish and which induce litigants to resort to unsatisfactory arbitration, or the aban donment of just claims. These abuses are the cost of trials and the unrestricted right of appeal. The Times aptly referred to this as "the gambling element" introduced into litigation. Sir John goes so far as to say that unless there is a very large sum at stake no one can, in a case open to reasonable doubt, advise a prudent man to incur the risks of litigation with a powerful opponent. The cost of trials is, where ex pert witnesses are called, specially high. Lord Campbell recognized that experts are advocates rather than witnesses, and sug gested in a bill that they should not be sworn. There is a lighter side to Sir John's book. Some of his stories are so good that the reader will ask for more. We have a char acteristic anecdote of Serjeant Ballantine, who cross-examined a female defendant with such brutality that she fell down flat in the witness box, and could not be further ques tioned. It so happened that one of the best judges of the reign of Queen Victoria, Chief Justice Earle, was on the bench, and in sum ming up to the jury he said that they had witnessed "an exhibition of brute force," which he had never before seen in a court of justice, and hoped never again to witness. A judge when speaking of another judge in court, refers to him as "my brother so-andso." This greeting does not necessarily imply fraternal relations. For instance, no love was lost between Lord Blackburn and Lord Bramwell. Both were eminent judges, but Lord Blackburn was not universally popular. A dinner was to be given to Lord Bramwell on his retirement, and Sir John reports the following dialogue — Blackburn: "I am not coming to your dinner, Bramwell." Bramwell: "I did not suppose you were."

Blackburn: "No, I do not like such things. When I retire I shall do so in vacation." Bramwell: "My dear Blackburn, it will be a very unnecessary precaution." Then we have the delicious remark of Lord Justice James — "A judge is not necessarily a fool." Sir John depreciates his own powers, when, in the concluding sentence of his Jottings, he says "that the road to such success as I have had is open to any young man entering the profession," but he is absolutely right when he advises him to abstain from money lending, company pro moting, and financing builders. This book is thoroughly sound and wholesome, and deserves to be "read, marked, and inwardly digested." If it has a blemish it is the blemish of reticence, the fault of a strong nature. For private conversation there can be no sounder principal than dc mortuis nil nisi bonnm, but when a man takes a pen into his hand, his guiding principle should be — de mortuis nil nisi vcrum. Of living men in unique positions, such as the lord chancellor or the headmaster of Eton, no wise man writes without great reserve, but of a dead keeper of the queen's conscience, he, who professes to record facts, should write the truth, the whole truth, and noth ing but the truth. Sir John had better oppor tunities than any living Englishman to tell us something new and true of the giants of old, but he does not do so. We are all creatures of mingled iron and clay. Sir John writes of most judges as if they were all iron. Of Lord Chancellor Campbell he does write as of a human being — "Lord Campbell, who was generally disagreeable to everyone, and always took the popular side," with the result that he gives us a clearer picture of the old Scot than of any other judge. In conclusion, if. anyone desires a picture of a London solicitor of the best type, let him read these Jottings, and learn how wise, modest, and capable a man can be who devotes his life to the service of others. London, Eng., August, 1907.