OF BARRISTERS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3594, 30 January 1923, Page 63

OF BARRISTERS.

SOME THOUGHTS ON LEGAL MINDS AND METHODS.

By

Q. Pope.

I confess that I am no friend to barristers—l suppose that journalists regard them as their natural enemies. How often have I watched W— — L , hoary-headed sinner,- grown old in the furthering of men’s quarrels, immersed in One of his moth-eaten tomes, with his index finger sliding down the page, until —as he found his place—he Jfcrushed me beneath an avalanchg.-of “4vhereofs” and “heretofors.” Truly, Eyly art his worst never imagined such sentences as are here displayed, and the wording of them—that rigid framework which we may not bend without destroying the whole sense —why should it be so? Canst not state tliv meaning? without words which tliou puttest in with best intention to deceive and to confuse thy client ? Why refrainest thou from so doing?—is’t not from thought of thine eighty pences ? I have no friends at the Bar. Upon being called to it, they are, in niv eves at least, without the pale of our society, lost past all hope of regeneration. You cannot argue with them. They know It, and flourish upon it—-this is their trade. I would as soon offer to instruct a Plato in philosophy as enter into contravention with one of -them. They move with an indefinable sense of superiority; and a consciousness of it. They are aware exactly how far they may go without interfering with your liberties, and they halt on the border-line. Who ever heard of a barrister being sued for breach of promise-—or for libel? They are a race in themselves, and prove it from the cra*He. The justice of one’s cause matters nought to them—How strong is your case ? —Did he do so and so?—My dear sir. you have no case against him whatever—under the ——Act, 1908. . . . It is ever so. There’s a divinity in seeming wise That daunts the ignorant. Then again, there is the effect of their profession upon their characters. In the case of a criminal lawyer, hej is brought into contact with the worst <£ men. He sees the result of their uncontrolled passions, and the result is that he never loses command of himself. The lesson is too great. Never, reader, I counsel you, let yourself be so foolish as to be at crosspurposes with a man of law. Then that exaggeration of a building in which cases are tried ! Surely the architect was a kinsman of George Bernard Shaw, and chuckled when he saw his plans approved. What a joke was that to perpetrate upon the officers of justice! Pigeons make of it a resting place—fit emblem of the work done within. Never did man approach it unawares and see the motto emblazoned above the main entrance without rubbing his eyes to stare a second time. Was it not the notorious criminal L T—• —, who said that he would not have minded being convicted if it were not for the building that was chosen for the purpose? There is about it an air of dejection—and such dejection. It is as if it despairs of ever being anything better. I could forgive it, did it boast even a sinister appearance—such a one that the changing of the motto to “Lasciate agni speranza voi oh’ entrate,” would be meet and proper. Were it only reminiscent of Chancery even, and of interminable suite, as of “Jarndyce and Jarndvce,” it would awaken very different emotions ill

my breast; but it seems as if nothing were ever begun within those four walls; much less continued indefinitely. There is with the whoie legal fraternity, as with tlie Press, a sort of freemasonry, an unconscious brotherhood, which exclud is outsiders as effectively as bolts and bars. They seem almost to read each others’ thoughts, to anticipate references, and to know at what the other man is aiming. It has never been my misfortune (kind stars, I thank you!) to be in that unenviable position of witness in a wellcontested case, and I trust it never will. Neither have I ever formed one of the “twelve good men and true,’’ who hasten to’ decisions with the thought of their dinner ever uppermost in their minds. Wfiat matters it whether the man be innocent or no? If we delay longer will not the roast be spoiled and the wife in a shrewish temper .... Not guilty. Never have I beheld a barrister in the act of cross-examining without being re--minded forcibly of a ferret by the way in which he twists arid turns, wrongly interpreting the answers of the witness, ever seeking to get him to contradict himself in but so slight a degree to be able to turn with a flourish to the jury and proclaim him a liar or something worse. All as if there were no such things as confusion and self-consciousness in the world. How he enjoys thundering at the cowering witness, nipping his innocent levities (if he be so inclined) in the bud—plying iym with questions—mercilessly exposing every detail of his character to the gaping crowd. His aTe no halfmeasures; it is ever “Aye” or “No” with him—and if defeated he goeth away baffled and scowling. Assuredly, in practice no Third Degree could be worse than this. Who was it that fi-rst named this fraternity “land sharks’’? Fain would I have met that man. His was a perception worthy of a Pitt or Machiavelli; he had doubtless suffered through these very men. Tell me not that this name was born of vulgar spite, this man was a. philosopher and his losses would trouble him not one jot, save for the natural indignation at being duped by a lesser faculty. He was influenced by a desire to n.erve mankind; he used the name and it stuck.

Reader, I counsel you with much experience—go not to law. Better it were that thou shouldst wait for thine enemy in a side street and incapacitate him with a brickbat, if thou wilt take the consequences. Dost wish to erect a fence between thy neighbours property and thine own, so that his chickens will no longer decapitate thv bulbs ? Do so ; but if there be trouble as to who should pay the odd' half-pence in the cost—give way ; settle thy argument with pick-axes; but do not go law