Commonwealth of Kentucky, accuse of the offense of » malicious mischief, committed as fellows : The said , on the — day of A. D. 18—, in the county and circuit aforesaid, did unlawfully, willfully and maliciously kill and destroy one pig, the personal property of George Pigg, without the consent of said Pigg, the said pig being of value to the aforesaid George Pigg. The pig thus killed weighed about twenty-five pounds and was a mate to some other pigs that were owned by said George Pigg, which left George Pigg a pig less than he (said George Pigg) had of pigs, and thus ruthlessly tore said pig from the society of George Pigg's other pigs, against the peace and dignity of the Common wealth of Kentucky."
The following incident in which the jury understood the game and justice was adminis tered despite the ignorance of judge and solici tor, took place at the term of Rowan Superior Court, held in Salisbury, N.C., in February, 1894: —
"John Jones, come to the stand. Have you been sworn?" "Yes sir." "Now, if you saw this fight go on, in your own way tell the court and jury how it started." "Well, you see, Will Brown, John Simons and Whack Lamper was playin'. Brown opened a pot for five, Simons stood and Whack he riz him five and they all stayed. Then cards were call — ' ' "See here, we don't know what you are talking about. Begin over." "They was a playin' and Brown he opened a jack and Simons stood. Whack, he riz —" "Now stop. You say Brown opened a jack. What did he do with it when he opened it?" "Jest nothing. Jest opened it, and Simons he stood and Whack riz " "Now wait. What was Whack doing before he ' riz,' as you call it?" "Whack never did call it; he was skeered." "Answer my question. What was Whack doing before that?" "Nothin', just a sittin thar." "Oh well; go on and tell what you know, if you know anything, and then be seated." "Brown stood pat, Simons drew to an inside straight and Whack drew to threes. Brown said
253
he was ten velvet and would bet that Simons wouldn't call it and Whack thought Brown had a full house and said a dealer couldn't open a jack. Brown said he could and then they got into it." The defendants having no counsel, and in further consideration of his absolute ignorance of what they were playing, the solicitor left it to the charge of the judge, which was about as fol lows : — Gentlemen of the jury, Will Brown and Whack Lamper are indicted for an affray. John Jones testified that Brown opened his jack knife and Lamper arose from his chair and after a few words struck Brown. If you believe the evidence of Jones they are both guilty. Take the case. One of the jury who knew the game explained it to the rest, and the verdict was that only Lamper was guilty, as a dealer did not have the right to open a jack.
NOTES.
In an old English chronological work, under the heading "Tea," may be found the following brief notice : — "Tea destroyed at Boston by the inhabitants, 1773, in abhorrence of English Taxes; for which they were severely punished by the English Parlia ment, in April, 1774." The use of the telephone to intimidate prisoners is the invention of a police inspector at Odessa. A man was one day brought into the police station, charged with having committed a serious robbery. The inspectoi had some difficulty in proving the case, and had recourse to an ingenious stratagem. He went to the telephone in another room, and asked the clerk at the central office to speak into the instrument the following words, in a solemn tone : " Istno Smelianski, you must confess the robbery; if you don't you are sure to be sentenced, and your punishment will be all the more severe." He then sent for the prisoner and questioned him again, threatening to appeal to the " ma chine" to get at the truth. The thief burst into a laugh, but the inspector held the telephone to his ear, and gave the preconcerted signal. The result was as expected. The rogue, terrified by the warning uttered by the uncanny " machine," at once made a clean breast of it.
