IN A COURT OF JUSTICE. (From a Layman's Point of View.)
By Edgar White. WHO is that bilious-looking fellow, with the moon-shaped face, sitting up there between the gas pedestals? That, my boy, is the Court, — the Judge — the Monarch of this circus — the general manager of the actors you see performing below him. Oh! yes, — and that man with a book in his hand, who appears to be swearing at the Court, is, I suppose, the ringmaster? Well, not exactly, — he is only an attor ney, and he is telling the Court where he made a mistake in deciding a point a few minutes ago. Now the attorney, as you call him, has sat down. See how he is shaking his finger and fussing at that poor man who is crouching in the chair. That must be a murderer, and the attorney is telling him what an awful thing it is to be such a bad man. Ha! ha! You missed it again, my boy. That scared-looking fellow is only a witness on the other side, and the attorney is just asking him if he is sure about a statement he just made. Yes, I hear him now. But when the wit ness tells him he knows it's so, why does he ask him over again so many times? To be sure of it. And by that means he will not forget it? That is what is called " testing the wit ness's memory." Do witnesses like to have their memories tested that way? Do you like the toothache? I've no objection when it is in the other fellow's jaw. Same way with the witness. He doesn't object to having some other fellow's memory tested. Who is that red-headed fellow who has
just jumped up and shouted that he ob jected? That is the attorney on the other side. What does he object to? The question. Why does he object to the question? Because he thinks it is immaterial and ir relevant. Is it? It is for his side. Now the Court says something, and the attorneys are gathering up big stacks of books. What are they going to do now? They are going to find out what some other Court thinks about the question objected to. Doesn't this Court know enough to be able to tell whether the question is right or not? He's got his ideas about it, but he dare not go against the books. But I thought a Court was a judge to de cide these matters himself. To a certain extent you are right. You see, the attorney who asked this question will read a whole lot of decisions from other courts to show he is right, and the attorney who objected to the question will read a whole lot of decisions from his books to show the question is wrong, and — Then the poor judge is as much at a loss as ever how to decide, if the books are both ways? Inwardly, yes, — but he doesn't let on. While the argument is going on he mentally flips up a quarter, and decides against the fellow less likely to appeal. Is that right? No, it's policy. Now the judge says something, they all sit down, and the fierce-looking attorney be gins fussing at the witness again. You should say " examining."
