Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/519

 483

The Editor's Bag

court and in justice to‘ my client, THE COLORED ATTORNEY E HAVE received from George C. Johnson, Esq., of Chicago, the following story based on an actual occurrence, though the colored lawyer's argument may not have been reproduced verbatim. I was sitting in the court room of Judge Wells of the Municipal Court of Chicago one day last week, waiting my turn. A small wizen-faced woman of about thirty-four summers was suing a large

fat boarding house

keeper

in

replevin, and the subject in controversy was some household goods left in the care of the defendant. The boarding house keeper set up as a defense that

this woman ﬁrst be obligated to pay my client. "To eat, your Honor, is man's highest

duty to God. Why, sir, to eat? Because a man's duty is to serve God, and if he serves God, he must be alive, and to

keep alive, your Honor, does he not have to eat? How can a man serve his God if he is dead? Why, your Honor,

if it hadn't been for my lady that lawyer there wouldn't have had a client today. No, sir! Why, your Honor, didn't my lady feed that woman? Didn't she keep her alive? Because my lady fed that woman, your Honor, isn't she here in court today? "Why, your Honor, look at the two

the goods were left as a pledge for meals furnished to the plaintiff, while the plain tiff contended that she did not owe for

litigators. Look at my big stout lady. Look at that little skinny woman. Which

any meals, but rather that she had taken

can best afford to lose the money?

the defendant out and bought meals

Which, I say, your Honor, is the most

for her.

likely? "No, sir, your Honor, if my lady

Both parties to the suit were white. The boarding house keeper was repre sented by a prominent colored attorney of Chicago. At the close of the testi mony the judge intimated that he was

going to ﬁnd the issues for the plaintiﬁ. The colored lawyer stepped up to the bar and shaking his right arm high in the air, vehemently addressed the

can tell the truth? Which, your Honor,

hadn't nourished that woman and kept

her alive she wouldn’t have been in court today and testify against her. Is it right then, I say, is it right? Is it morality? Is it religion? Is it justice that she should now have to surrender

the goods without being recompensed

“Why, your Honor, you are not going

for the subsistence she acquired? No, sir, your Honor, in the name of God, no, sir! no, sirl no, sir, it is not! You

to ﬁnd the issues agin’ my client, are you?" “Such is my intention now, after having heard all the testimony," suavely

should ﬁrst give my lady her just deserts!" "Judgment ﬁnding property in the plaintiff and assess the damages at one

replied the judge.

cent and

601111: —

“Why," began the colored lawyer

costs,"

meekly

announced

the Court.

with great emotion, "why, your Honor,

that is not right! That is not justice! HASTY LEGISLATION That is not morality!

That is not

religion! Why, your Honor, all religion, all morality, all justice cries aloud that in justice to God and in justice to this

ECISIONS handed down by the

Illinois Supreme Court within the past few months have directed attention