Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/244

 The Editor's Bag talk to her to be his lawful wyfe, he shall be mulcted in ye sum one pound or less, as his estait may be, except if he can make it appeare that he is betroth to any ither woman he then shall be free.'" A FAMILY AFFAIR A WELL-KNOWN lawyer tells of a case on trial in one of those con servative old counties of Pennsylvania, the inhabitants whereof live pretty much as their fathers did and are seldom moved by any desire to emigrate. Now, eleven jury jurors had been obtained, and a talesman was under going examination touching his fitness for the twelfth jurorship, when counsel for the prosecution suddenly interposed with : — "Oh, by the way, Mr. Allen, I notice that you have the same name as the defendant in this case. Are you related to him?" "Distantly, sir," answered the tales man. "In that case, your honor," said the lawyer, addressing the court, "I shall challenge him for cause." "He can step down if you wish, Mr. Perkins," said the judge, "but I do not think it will make any difference. The eleven jurymen you have secured are all distant relatives of the defendant." AN IRISH JURY AN English jury will listen atten tively to the eloquent appeal of counsel, pronounce it "a first-rate speech, one of the best we ever heard," and bring in a verdict against his client. A French jury, on the contrary, being far more impressionable, will let an eloquent advocate play upon them as though they were an instrument of twelve strings. Lachand, the great

215

French advocate, used to sway a jury of his countrymen as he would. While defending a prisoner charged with mur der, it is said that the jury did not consider whether the prisoner was guilty of murder, but whether the murdered man did not deserve to be killed. An Irish jury is equally susceptible, and, under the spell of a lawyer's elo quence, who knows how to appeal to their feelings, often give a verdict con trary to the evidence. A Mr. Colclough, having the right to dispose of his property, and being with out children, left his landed and other estate, in the county of Wexford, to his wife. The heir-at-law, Lord Rossborough, disputed the will, on the ground of undue influence. In those days Irishmen had a preju dice in favor of an "ould family," especially when associated with a title. The counsel for his lordship took advan tage of this prejudice to make his most telling hit. Holding up the will by one corner between his thumb and forefinger, he thus appealed to the twelve Irishmen before him, "Tell me, gentlemen, would you disinherit the ould family on a rag of a pocket handkerchief like this?" The jury brought in a verdict against the widow, who had also excited their indignation by marrying again. She appealed the case, secured a second trial, before a jury in another county, and won her case.

A DEFINITION AN amusing illustration of giving a definition that itself needed to be defined — a frequent occurrence, by the way, is instanced in the case of a Southern witness and a lawyer. Some matter of boundary was in question, and a certain witness, ani-