Legal Reminiscences. question, if the jury were evenly divided, one of the advocates for the larger sum may have proposed to deal with it as Mr. Webster once (after dinner) did with the national debt, when he said that, sooner than have any debate about it, he would pay it himself! At all events the jury agreed up on a verdict for the plaintiff for one dollar, and the court having adjourned for the day, sealed it up, placed it in the breast-pocket of their foreman, and went home to their sup pers and their beds with a serene conscious ness of justice done and public duty well performed. This verdict carried with it an other dollar of the plaintiff's costs. Under the rules of court at that time in force, either party might have once re viewed the judgment; in other words, have had a new trial by asking for it. As there is no record of any further proceedings in the
105
action for the libel, it is to be inferred that Mr. Field was of the opinion that the trial had given him two dollars' worth of enter tainment, and if the plaintiff was satisfied with the verdict he ought to be content; and if outsiders asked which party won, the words of "Old Caspar," when asked a simi lar question about the battle of Blenheim, would be in point : — "Why that i cannot tell, said he, But 'twas a famous victory!" The ingenuity disclosed in the ten special pleas; the opinion of the Supreme Court, holding six of them bad on demurrer, and the divorce proceedings dissolving the mar riage of Field and Miss Phelps, because the ceremony was not followed by cohabitation, are all necessary to a full history of this singular litigation. They may be considered in a subsequent article.
