MEMORIES OF BENCH AND BAR.

Dunstan Times, Issue 3464, 7 April 1930, Page 7

MEMORIES OF BENCH AND BAR.

The judge in the High Court seems to the layman the most inaccessible figure in public life. Once inside lus wig and gown he is so much the embodiment of the majesty of the law that one cannot easily imagine him waiting to cross the Strand, or buying an evening paper like anyone else. He seems so little subject to the ordinary passions of men, so little interested in ordinary affairs, that we permit ourselves only a gentle smile of remonstrance when he asks, with childlike wonder, “What is an oboe?” or “Who is Charle Chaplin?” In his “Forty Years at the liar” the late Mr Edward Abinger, who was familiar to every newspaper reader before the War as the defender off Stinie Morrision, shows us a different picture. If his entertaining pages teach us anything it is this —tnat it is just as important for the aspiring barrister to study his judge as to study the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Judges have their pet aversions like everybody else, and in the period of which Mr Abinger writes —the period of Hawken, Russel, Grantham, and Coleridge—they expressed them with a freedom which is perhaps less common to-day.

Which ol our modern judges, for instance. could he charged with such bad manners as Mr Abinger attributes to Sir Peter Edlin, at that time chairman of the Middlesex Sessions ? Mr Abinger, it is necessary to explain, was a Jew, born under the name of Abrahams. His mother, thinking that the name would handicap her children in later life, was instrumental in changing it to Abinger while they were still in infancy. it was “mistaken kindness,’’ writes Mr Abinger. “I have been a. great suffered through this change of name. Sir Peter Edlin was very pompous in manner and a familiar expression of his was, if one dared to opejj one’s mouth: “Will the learned counsel allow me to get as tar as comma?” I am afraid I used wilfully to provoke the old gentleman so much that he could spitefully say: “Mow, Mr Abrahams, will you kindly address the jury?” • 1 naturally did not rise, and the Judge would then repeat; “Mr Abrahams, will you kindly address the jury?” 1 then remarked: “A very line patriarchal name, my lord, but not mine. Are you .referring to me?” “1 beg your pardon,” said the Judge, “Mr Abinger!” Lord Esher, the great Master of the Rolls, had many fads, one of which was the pronunciation of words in Latin, or derived from Latin: —, It xvas an extradition case-. 1 xvas saying that my client had been extradited, when he stopped me. M.R'.: “I presume you mean extradited.” Myself: “No, my lord, with submission I mean, extradited/’ M.R.: “In my court you will be good enough to pronounce that word extradited.” I could only bow my acknowledgments and comply with Ills lordship’s order. Another thing that Lord Ester detested was any show of “side” at the Bar:— A certain counsel very fond of horseriding was commencing to make an analogy to the proposition then being argued, and started: — “Now, my lord, take my horse “Take your boats,” said the M.R. Learned Counsel: “If your lordship pleases,” and proceeded with his analogy,’ substituting boots for horse. One of the best stories in the book is about Lord Darling, of whom Lord Carson long ago prophesied: “He will do xvell as a judge if only he will stop joking.” A counsel who had the unfortunate habit of dropping his aspirates once began his ease like this: — “My client’s ’orse was being driven along the Old Kent Road, when the horse was so severely injured that it ’ad to be destroyed. This ’orse cost niN client forty pounds.” “Stop a bit,” said Darling. “What waj the-height of this animal?” “About thirteen ’amis, my lord.” “Well,” said Darling, who was no doubt suffering torments from this massacre of the King’s English, “will you during the rest ol the case please call it a pony?” Another counsel, very small in stature. once had the following dialogue with a certain judge:— The Judge; “1 cannot see you, Mr Counsel: “I am standing up, my lord.”. . .. . The Judge: “Then I am alraid 1 must trouble you to stand on your Counsel: “1 am standing on the seat, inv lord.” The Judge; “Then you had better add a few law reports and stand on them.” , , , Counsel: “My lord, 1 placed six law reports.on the seat and. am at piesetm standing upon them !” But though judges were some-times cantankerous, counsel were otten pioxoeative. Prominent among the .juclgebaiters was Sir Charles G.l , who once said to Sir Peter Edlin: “Has it cvei entered your lordship s mind that a man can stand in that dock ami be innocent?” whereupon the diminutive S i Peter angrily flapped him down into his seat with both arms On another occasion Sir Charles >\ '• even more impudent. Hie case. that in which a certain prominent Army officer was charged with cheat-i-im* at cards. The Prince ol Males # (afterwards King Edward) xvas one o the witnesses, and both Bench < Court were filled with tash-onable om lookers. The judge was Loid Golci id-re Lord Chief Justice, who, was described by Disraeli as “a s.lver-tonjoec mediocrity.” Sir Charles (-.11 P«t question to a witness: f,ues“l do not see the want ot that que* tion.” said the Imrd Ch'e J • ~v “Ah,” retorted Gill, but tne J *. will,” and the '™ n justice said morning the Lord Clue! Justice been reported to me yesterday you suggested the jury would von put and 1 did not. fortunate observation. -, j n Gill, with the pleasantest J,mi It m the xvorld. rose, said: i -flit* fnd ,r c* ;iiicl sivt clown. lo A s .,uitl v tho hteUrd Oxford and Asquith, who 'vas 1 efed j„ the ease: “Is not Gill inimitable, “No” said Asquith “1 do. "ot think he is. , All he has clone Is to nut the Judges back up! Two other famous men who repeatedly rubbed each other the wrong w a' were Mr Justice Hawkins later Loid Brampton, and Mr Alfred Cock Q-C , a brilliant advocate whose brusque methods did not appeal to the judge. Cock used to think that Hawkins hj. his knife in him. and used to refer to bim as “that yellow broughamecl , referring to the fact that Hawkins used to drive to the Law Courts m a yellow carriage ; . , T remember a case m which xve appeared for the plaintiff before Hawkins and a jury. Before opening his case I said to Cock ; , “For goodness sake do not quarrel

with the Judge, or w r e shall be bound to lose it,” and he promised me not to do so, proceeding to open the case to the jury but keeping one eye on the Judge. . Presently the following dialogue ensued : Hawkins: “Mr Cock, I object to you looking at me like that.” Cock : “My lord, 1 must look where X like, when I like, and how I like!” Result, verdict for the defendant. Of the ruses of counsel in handling witnesses Mr Abinger has much to say. “The most difficult person to crossexamine,” he says, “is a woman. If she cries and is good-looking you may look upon your case as lost! The great thing is to cross-examine a woman effectively and without making her cry” : The most remarkable cross examination of a woman I have ever heard was by Sir Charles Russell. He was interrogating a young and very beautiful Countess, and had to subject her to very severe questioning, and naturally he did not want to reduce her to tears. At times he xvonld speak in gentle and almost paternal tones, and then when he reached the climax of this part of his cross examination and when she seemed about to burst into tears, he would drop his fierce tone and resume the most dulcet and amiable manner towards her, which had the effect of restoring the lady to good temper. He proceeded to do this during a period of some two hours, getting out of her all lie wanted without the lady shedding one single tear, a feat which in my judgment no other member) of the Bar was capable of doing Another counsel, Scarlett, once unmasked an impostor—an ex-soldier whq had hitherto successfully concealed the fact, by suddenly shouting “Attention!” The man, thrown of his guard, smartly clicked his heels, brought his hands to his sides, and stood erect, thus giving his case completely away. The great Daniel O’Connell trapped a hostile witness in an even more dramatic way. O’Connell was opposing probate of a will: — His case was that after the testator’s death his hand was guided by the plaintiff making the deceased man’s signature. The following dialogue ensued : “I put it to ye, witness,” said O’Connell, “that when flic man’s name was written at the bottom of the will he was dead.” “And I tell ye, Mr Counsellor,, tlierc was loife in him.” “And I put it to ye witness,” said O’Connell, “by the oath yo have taken, that the man was dead.” “And I tell ye, Mr Counsellor,” replied the witness, “by the name of the Holy Virgin, there was loife in him.” O’Connell, noticing the strained manner in which the witness had repeated the words “there was loifo in him,” put the following question which may have been induced by previous experience:— “And I put it to ye, witness, that ye caught a floi (tiy) upon the dead man’s mouth and put- it in and then took his hand and made his signature.” The witness immediately broke down, and the will was pronounced proved. “Only give me time, sir,” pleaded a bogus Emir of Kurdistan when charged before the late Allan Lawrie at the London Sessions with imposture. “Only give me time and I shall pay everybody.” “Oh, I’ll give yon ‘time’, all right,” grunted Lawrie. And he did. There is an amusing story of Lord Carson which he himself told Mr Abinger soon after his appointment as Solicitor-General: — He told me one day that be thought this was partly due to the fact that he had quite early'on his arrival in England been invited to a reception at Lord Londonderry’s, where the Prime Minister, then Lord Salisbury, was present. He told me that his noble host’s major-domo had come to him and said:— “His lordship has directed me to tell you to go and talk to the Prime Minister.” He conversed with the Prime Minister for some twenty minutes, no doubt displaying his fascinating native wit, quick powers of repartee, delightful mannerisms and stories. The next day .Carson met Lord Londonderry at the Carlton Club. The noble lord said to Carson: “I owe you an apology., because I have now ascertained that although I had requested my major-domo to tell Lord Castlereagh to go and talk to the- Prime Minister, he by mistake came to you.” CD such is the Kingdom of Heaven! The book abounds in stories sucu as these, but it has also a serious purpose. Mr Abinger was severely criticised before the war for bis conduct, of Stinie Morrison’s case, and he devotes several chapters to a defence ot his actions. Incidentally he describes for the first time the strenuous efforts lie made behind the scenes to save Morrison’s life, but that story is too Jong to tell here. It, is a rule of procedure in a Court of Law that if a defending counsel subjects a witness for the prosecution to questions concerning bis character and credibility, prosecuting counsel may ask the prisoner similar questions, in the Morrison case Mr Abinger incurred criticism because he took this risk. Morrison had been previously convicted of burglary, and was a convict on licence at the time Leon Beron was murdered on Clapham Common. These facts came out during bis cross-exami-nation. and were considered by Mr Abinger’s critics to have been fatal to his case. Mr Abinger contends that be was forced to take the action he did, first because the evidence lor the Crov. n was “sonic of the flimsiest and most unreliable” he had ever known, and it was necessary to ekpose it, and second because Morrison insisted on it. He in turn complains that M r Justice Darling brought prejudice into the case by asking a medical witness if Heron's injury could have been caused by a burglar's jemmy, and be urges that the statute regarding cross-examina-tion should be amended. “It is the prisoner who is being tried for his life," be says, “not the witnesses.” Morrison died in Parkhnrst Prison in 1921, bis sentence having been commuted to one of penal servitude for lile. Was be guilty? “It will always bo open to tiie gravest possible doubt” is Mr Abinger’s last word.