to sue papa! He's got his sue in his hand!" THE late N. M. Hubbard was defending a case that was being tried in northern Iowa some years ago. and a witness, produced for the plaintiff, after being duly sworn, commit ted perjury in the most startling manner. Finally Judge Hubbard said to the witness: "Sir, do you believe in a God?" But before the witness could reply, the at torney on the opposite side, speaking to Judge Hubbard, asked: "Do you believe in a God, Judge Hub bard?" To which the judge in the very deliberate and complacent way that was his alone, an swered : "I did, but when I remember the fate of Ananias and Sapphira and then see this wit ness living, I begin to doubt." AN Irish advocate was arguing a case in the West. He represented the plaintiff who was trying to recover for a pig which a neighbor had killed when it broke loose and trespassed upon his property. , "Gintlemen," remarked the lawyer as he approached his climax, "is there to be no protection fur a mon and his property in this counthry. Do you, twelve intilligent men, think that the defindent was justified in his action. I say, gintlemen, it was nothing more than robbery. Think of it. Whan a mon will take another mon's goods and kill in broad day loight. Why, if yez foind for the defindent there, the toim is fast approach ing when none of you will be safe in leaving your own dooryard." And the jury laughed. A FEW years ago, in Henry County, Ten nessee, an old gentleman died, leaving a tract of land to be divided equally between his two sons, Bob and Tom. The land was divided according to law, but Bob claimed that the land that was given his brother was worth a thousand dollars more than his portion. Tom felt that his brother's land was worth a thou sand dollars more than that he had received, and the case was carried into the Chancery
Court, over which Judge Jonathan Somers presided. The judge asked the litigants if they were willing to abide by his decision, and not carry the case to a higher court. They had implicit confidence in the Chancel lor's wisdom and honesty and agreed that his verdict should be final. Then he told the brothers that as each claimed that the other had a thousand dollars the advantage that he would give Tom's land to Bob and Bob's land to Tom; and as they had promised to abide by the judge's decision they did so, and as a consequence, several lawyers missed fat fees, and the case was never heard of in Su preme Court. WHEN Clifford 's-inn disappears, Staple-inn will be the sole survivor of the old Inns of Chancery, for, though some others still ex ist in name, they are but shadows of what they were. The race of sergeants-at-law is reduced to two individuals—Lord Lindley and Lord Field—and Lord Alverstone and Lord James of Hereford are the only living persons who can boast that they held the of fice of Tubman or Postman in the Court of (Exchequer. Those who were familiar with the old Courts at Westminster will remem ber the thrones which they respectively oc cupied in the court of the Chief Baron. The Postman had his "post" at the left extremity of the first row of seats assigned to the outer Bar, and the Tubman his box or "tub" at the other end. Both were members of the ju nior Bar, the Postman being entitled to the common law, and the Tubman to the equity and revenue, business of the Court of Ex chequer. When a vacancy occured in either office the Chief .Baron nominated a successor by word of mouth in open court. Outside the court they had no privileges, but within its walls they had precedence of all their pro fessional brethren, the Attorney-General not excepted. Lord James of Hereford was ap pointed Postman in the year 1867, and Lord Alverstone was both Tubman and Postman during his short career as a junior, from 1868 to 1878. It was Chief Baron Kelly who thus started him on the high road to fame and fortune.— The Law Times.
