204
The Green Bag,
collided with him. The discussion grew warm, and at last the magistrate, forgetting his dignity and his position, became personal. "Who are you, anyway? " he blurted out. "Well," replied the lawyer, " I'm an attorney." "P'raps you are, but I never heard one talk like you do. What kind of a one are you?" "I'm a patent attorney." The magistrate rubbed his chin for thought. "Well, all I've got to say is," he said slowly, "that when the patent expires, I don't believe you can ever get it renewed again." Mrs. Simkins had just heard that her husband had been called upon to serve on a jury. "John Simkins on a criminal jury! " exclaimed Mrs. Simkins. " Well, all I can say is that I congratulate the criminals." "Why, Mrs. Simkins; is your husband a very merciful man?" "Merciful! Why, John Simkins wouldn't hang a pictur', unless he was jest made to!"
There used to be a funny old lawyer in central Maine, whose learning was not profound nor his wits sharp. Tradition says that an officer, who had occasion to arrest him for some offence, used a ' quit-claim deed for the purpose — not having a regular warrant. This experience was supposed to have sharpened the lawyer's ideas somewhat, and added to his knowledge, for afterwards a brother attorney said : " I don't believe Brother B could be arrested again on a quit-claim deed. He's got too sharp for that." Then after a moment's silent reflection he added : " But I think he might still be arrested on a warrantee deed." The late Mr. John Wilder May, while district attorney for Suffolk County, Massachusetts, wrote and published a treatise on the law of insurance, and some time afterwards, while contemplating publishing a second volume, happened to meet the late Mr. George Sinnott, and said to him : "I suppose, Mr. Sinnott, you know my book on insurance." " Oh, yes," said Sinnott, " I know it." " I call it," continued May, " ' May on Insur ance,' but I am about to publish a second vol ume, and it struck me that rather than call the
two volumes 'May on Insurance,' it would be better to change the title of the first, and call it the first of May, and the second the second of May; how does it strike you? " "I don't know anything about your second volume," said Sin nott, " but it strikes me you had better call the first one the first of April."
NOTES. It has always been realized that there are many perils to be encountered in the ball-room, and many a deep wound has been inflicted there. But happily the part affected is usually the heart, and that, as Josh Billings has said, is, next to the gizzard, the toughest bit of meat in the whole body, and has great recuperative capacity. Perhaps it is partly for that reason the law does not regard such an injury as per se affording any cause of action. Sometimes, how ever, a limb is broken, and then, that being an injury of which the law does take cognizance, relief may be sought in the courts against anyone who has been guilty of any neglect or breach of duty which caused it. Such a case is in fact mentioned in the Argus of last Saturday. It is there stated that a young lady of Newark in Nottinghamshire, who broke her leg at a dance, has brought an action against her partner on the ground that it happened owing to his clumsi ness. No particulars are given, and we are left to conjecture whether the accident happened in the waltz, barn dance, or kitchen lancers. It is not even stated what defense the partner intends to rely on, but many suggest themselves. The young lady may have got tied up in her train, owing to her own care lessness or negligence, or she may have been a " hardmouthed stumbling brute," as a well-known English M.F.H. is said to have once described a partner who fell with him during a dance. It will be interesting to hear how the case goes, but meanwhile it may be in structive to consider what obligation a man incurs by asking a girl to dance. He does not, it is submitted, undertake to convey her round the room a number of times and then to deliver her again to her chaperone in as good order and condition as he received her, the Act of God and of the Queen's enemies excepted. In fact, though it may seem ungallant to say so, there is no consideration for his incurring any special obli gations with regard to her, beyond what he owes to her from the fact of her having put herself to a certain extent under his protection and control at his invita tion. It is submitted therefore that at most his liabil ities are those of a gratuitous bailee, or of a man who offers a friend a ride in his buggy, and that he is liable only for gross negligence. Giblin v. McMullen, L.R. 2 P.C. 317; Moffat v. Bateman, L.R. 3 P.C.
