176
(SUG)JESTIVE CASES. HI. (Wa1kworth v. Dunnam, Supreme Court of Alabama, May 17, 1898; 23 So. Rep. 699.)
To prove a jury issue, we usually resort To witnesses, or data of a circumstantial sort; But is there any reason why opponents should de mur If the thing can prove itself, i. e., res ipsa loquitur? On its face It seems absurd To raise objection; But a case Has just occurred That's worth reflection :
Plainly, res ipsa loquitur. And plaintiff ought not to recover. Op1n1on of the Court. 4We do not doubt the jury would be ready To learn in this way if the liquor's heady. But parties may not offer drink or meat To jurors; and we certainly shall treat — That is — not now! — we mean, that in reality You're treating them, with too much Cordiality. Here's to you! with a quaere : Could a verdict stand, if beery?
The Facts. 2.
In an action on a note for the balance of a debt, The alleged consideration lay in goods sometimes termed "wet," — Labelled here as " Ginseng Cordial "; and the law (it chanced) was plain, That a claim based on intoxicating liquors would be vain. So a spirited debate Of course took place, On the evidential weight In such a case Of the various modes of proving how the liquor really acted; And the controversy thereupon becoming quite pro tracted, The notion was suggested By the counsel for the Cordial That the thing itself be tested By the jury, as an ordeal. Argument for Adm1ss1on. 3Should these contents be really spir. frumenti. This test will furnish evidence in plenty. The jurors, if they'll smell or taste or drink The stuff will know exactly what to think. Besides, should they experiment ad libit.. They might be put in as a. full exhibit! So if the Court thereon infer That this had brought them half-seas-over,
Moreover, every juror must report His private knowledge here in open Court; So should this test produce intoxication. He could not share his weighty information; Nor could he even take judicial note — His fellows were on board the self-same boat; E. g., should he discover this was rum, In legal view the word would still be, Mumm! In short, they couldn't know it, — However plain they'd show it! Moral. (1) This ban emphatic Of proof dram-atic, While granting as a rule res ipsa loquitur. Rests on the notion That tests by potion Might make the juryman a tipsy locutor. (2) It's somewhat risky, When sued for whiskey, To plead the Cordial bottle's true contents; You won't be able, Whate'er the label, To -'.set up" for the jury your defense. (3) There's many a slip 'Twixt cup and lip; These jurors, when they were not charged with Cordial, As like as not Wished they had got A chance to put it through the potent ordeal.
