483
The Editor's Bag
court and in justice to‘ my client, THE COLORED ATTORNEY E HAVE received from George C. Johnson, Esq., of Chicago, the following story based on an actual occurrence, though the colored lawyer's argument may not have been reproduced verbatim. I was sitting in the court room of Judge Wells of the Municipal Court of Chicago one day last week, waiting my turn. A small wizen-faced woman of about thirty-four summers was suing a large
fat boarding house
keeper
in
replevin, and the subject in controversy was some household goods left in the care of the defendant. The boarding house keeper set up as a defense that
this woman first be obligated to pay my client. "To eat, your Honor, is man's highest
duty to God. Why, sir, to eat? Because a man's duty is to serve God, and if he serves God, he must be alive, and to
keep alive, your Honor, does he not have to eat? How can a man serve his God if he is dead? Why, your Honor,
if it hadn't been for my lady that lawyer there wouldn't have had a client today. No, sir! Why, your Honor, didn't my lady feed that woman? Didn't she keep her alive? Because my lady fed that woman, your Honor, isn't she here in court today? "Why, your Honor, look at the two
the goods were left as a pledge for meals furnished to the plaintiff, while the plain tiff contended that she did not owe for
litigators. Look at my big stout lady. Look at that little skinny woman. Which
any meals, but rather that she had taken
can best afford to lose the money?
the defendant out and bought meals
Which, I say, your Honor, is the most
for her.
likely? "No, sir, your Honor, if my lady
Both parties to the suit were white. The boarding house keeper was repre sented by a prominent colored attorney of Chicago. At the close of the testi mony the judge intimated that he was
going to find the issues for the plaintifi. The colored lawyer stepped up to the bar and shaking his right arm high in the air, vehemently addressed the
can tell the truth? Which, your Honor,
hadn't nourished that woman and kept
her alive she wouldn’t have been in court today and testify against her. Is it right then, I say, is it right? Is it morality? Is it religion? Is it justice that she should now have to surrender
the goods without being recompensed
“Why, your Honor, you are not going
for the subsistence she acquired? No, sir, your Honor, in the name of God, no, sir! no, sirl no, sir, it is not! You
to find the issues agin’ my client, are you?" “Such is my intention now, after having heard all the testimony," suavely
should first give my lady her just deserts!" "Judgment finding property in the plaintiff and assess the damages at one
replied the judge.
cent and
601111: —
“Why," began the colored lawyer
costs,"
meekly
announced
the Court.
with great emotion, "why, your Honor,
that is not right! That is not justice! HASTY LEGISLATION That is not morality!
That is not
religion! Why, your Honor, all religion, all morality, all justice cries aloud that in justice to God and in justice to this
ECISIONS handed down by the
Illinois Supreme Court within the past few months have directed attention
