The Editor's Bag
137
CRIME IN BLOOD FOR A CENTURY
A PREPOSTEROUS SUGGESTION
An Iowa lawyer claims to have traced the ancestry of an Iowa criminal back through one hundred years with the result that every offshoot of the family has been found guilty of crime. Through the hundred years there seem to have been no hereditary diseases other than a light scrofula. All have been otherwise healthy and strong. The family history is a record of crime from the worst nature down to petty thieving. From the first is traced an inclination to gain wealth without honest labor, and there is a pessimistic vein mixed in. A certain daring may exist, but there is also an element of cowardice, and fear to finish a fight. A deed of cowardice and of horror marks one big black blot upon the family's history. Besides murder, there is also suicide. A most daring robbery was committed by another member of the family, and another is serving time in the state penitentiary for burglary. Larceny continuously plays a part through the hundred years. The record of this depraved family is itself an argument for the eradication of crime by education. In the history of the family there was poor environment accompanying the poor heritage.
In a small Southern town an old negro was being tried for theft. The old fellow had made a very complete raid on the smokehouse of a white neighbor. "Look here, Uncle," the Judge re marked informally. "I hear that you have nine or ten coon dogs around your cabin. Is that correct?" "Yas sah, Mars Jedge! Ah sho' is got de bes' dawgs in dis state, sah," the old man responded, beaming with pride. "You keep all those hounds, and yet come here and tell the court that the reason you stole that meat and meal was that your family was starving? What do you mean by that?" the Judge demanded. The old fellow appeared deeply grieved. "Now, Mars Jedge," he protested, "yo* sholy don' spect Ah gwine ax my chillun to eat dawgs, do yo', sah?"
WHEN COUNCIL SHOULD WEEP BE FORE THE JURY" In Kentucky it has been formally adjudged that trial counsel may, in the discretion of the Court, be permitted to lie down on the floor and halloo at the top of his voice (Owens v. Commonwealth, 58 S. W. Rep. 422). So also the Supreme Court of Tennessee, through Judge Wilkes, has declared that counsel, in arguing a case to the jury, has the right to shed tears, and if he have tears at his com mand, it may be counsel's professional duty to shed tears (Ferguson v. Moore, 98 Tenn. 342).— Bench and Bar.
A PROFITABLE QUERY A correspondent, noting the Editor's re quest for legal antiquities, facetise, etc., sends us the following, for the lighter side of the Green Bag:— "Quaere: Can an allegation that a man re ceived goods knowing they were stolen be supported by proving that he ate for break fast some poached eggs?" The Editor, on examining this contribution for the lighter side, feels constrained to express himself with all the tact he can command. The contribution is gratefully re ceived, and is deemed highly appropriate for our pages, etc., etc., with, however, the addi tion of a gloss to this effect—let no one sup pose that a request for legal antiquities and facetice implies a desire for antiquated legal facetiae! Can it be that our esteemed contributor committed an inadvertent slip of the pen and wrote lighter in place of heavier side? With all due respect we would humbly sug gest that he raises a legal question which is to be treated in no spirit of levity.
