We are indebted to The Law Times for the following items : A propos of enterprising clerks in solicitors' offices, the following story reaches the Daily Chronicle. A youth was engaged as junior clerk, and by way of filling in his time and testing his worth on his first day he was told to write a letter demanding payment of a debt .from a client who was long in arrears. To the great surprise of his employer a cheque for the amount arrived the next day. He sent for the young clerk and asked him to produce a copy of the letter which had had such an astonishing result. The letter ran as follows: "Dear Sir,— If you do not at once remit pay ment of the amount which you owe us, we will take steps that will amaze you 1" The promotion of that young clerk was rapid. A magisterial doctor on the bench at Cardiff, according to the Western Mail, expressed sur prise to find a brother doctor willing to kiss the poiice-court Bible when taking the oath. The mode of taking the oath varies considerably in courts of justice. The English method of kiss ing the book is well known, and many are the complaints that the practice tends to an undesir able propagation of microbes. The Scotchman solemnly holds his hand above his head. The Jew is sworn on a copy of the Old Testament with his hat on. The Chinaman breaks a saucer in pieces, vowing at the same time that he will speak the truth lest his soul suffer after the manner of the saucer. In Switzerland, it appears from a case just heard in London in which cer tain Swiss were concerned, the witness shakes hands with the magistrates and promises to speak the truth. This seems as sensible a way as any; nevertheless, one does not feel inclined to envy the lot of magistrates in the little Re public. In our own country we are sure the great unpaid would not welcome this contact with the great unwashed. A court-martial assembled at the 29th ult, says the Times, at Le Mans to give a fresh trial to Jean Voisin, a soldier who in 189 1 was sen tenced to death at Rennes for murder and rob bery, but whose sentence was commuted to hard labour for life. In 1900, on strong evidence of his innocence, he was pardoned, and returned to France. A woman keeping a wineshop near
Cherbourg was murdered and robbed early one Monday morning, and a peasant affirmed that he saw Voisin enter the premises. Moreover, several comrades alleged that a knife left near the spot belonged to him. He was absent from barracks at the time, and did not return till Wednesday night, when there were blood stains on his clothes, which he explained by saying that his nose had been bleeding. He alleged that having got drunk on the Sunday he went to the cottages of his mother and aunt, but both denied having sheltered him. He was conse quently convicted. Attempting to escape from Cayenne, he was condemned to two years of the "double buckle," inflicted, as will be remem bered, on Dreyfus. A convict at Cayenne named Langlois, an ex-sergeant at Cherbourg, acknowledged, however, to a fellow prisoner that he was the murderer. He had, indeed, at the time claimed as his property an epaulette found near the wineshop, stating that he had lost it, but this circumstance was set aside as irrelevant, though Langlois was afterwards con victed of embezzling the pay of the reservists. On his death-bed Langlois repeated his confes sion. Informed of this, Voisin appealed to friends in France, and obtained a pardon, his mother and aunt retracting their denials. The conviction was quashed, and his second trial will occupy several days. The " double buckle" has made him lame in one leg, so that he has had to ask permission to be seated in court. The court-martial concluded on the 2d inst. There was some difference of opinion, in spite of this confession, as to the real murderer. Voisin, at his first trial, denied having passed by the vic tim's house; whereas a peasant saw him, and it was proved that he must have done so in order to reach his mother's cottage, where, to establish an alibi, he said he had passed the night. His mother's original denial and eventual confirma tion of his story weje also difficult to explain. A great point in his favour was that, having received a pardon, he challenged a second trial, though this raised a doubt whether in case of a second conviction that pardon would hold good. The court thought it necessary to consult Gen eral Andre- on this point, and the reply was in the negative. The opinion turned out to be un necessary, for the prisoner was acquitted on the 2d inst. by five votes to two.
