when

unde, trial of "Freeborn" John Lilblue. Tr. 1270) is one of unusual inBesides being one of the few state trials of the time which resulted in an acquittal, it was conducted more in accordance with modern forms than any previous trial. Objections to leading questions and to copies of documents as evidence appear for the first time. The right of the prosecution to reply was also first stated in this case. The treatment of the prisoner does not show much improvement; but Lilburne was a refractory defendant. He at first refused to plead. After much wrangling he plead not guilty, and his defense, stripped of all its quibbles, was that he was a better patriot than his prosecutors. His speech in his own defense is a curious combination of shrewdness and effrontery. "The jury by law," he told the court, "are not only judges of the law but of the fact also; and you that call yourself judges of the law are no more but Norman intruders, and in deed and in truth, if the jury please, are no more but ciphers to pronounce their verdict." Upon his acquittal he was re-imprisoned, and subsequently banished by an act which provided that if he returned he would be guilty of felony. He did return, and upon his second trial was again acquitted (5 St. Tr. 407). In what he termed the "furious hurley burley" of his second trial he achieved the additional triumph of extorting from the court, for the first time, a copy of his indictment. Lilburne's second acquittal incensed Cromwell, and the jury were summoned before the council to answer for their conduct.

Andrew's case recalls the worst days of Tudor tyranny. Andrews, who was a barrister of Gray's Inn and had served in Charles' army, was charged with being implicated in a design to raise a rebellion in the Isle of Ely. Nothing was legally proved against him, and his conviction could only be sustained on the theory that a base intention to levy war is treason.

Proof by

witnesses, trial by jury, the right of challenge, were all denied him. Attorney General Prideaux openly argued that "as the prisoner had an affection to act, though nothing acted, that was sufficient treason, and for that affection he deserved death."

We have a full and circumstantial report of Love's trial (5 St. Tr. 43). Love was a Presbyterian divine who was charged with being implicated in what is known as the Presbyterian Plot for a Scotch Alliance with Charles. He succeeded in securing a hearing by counsel on matters of law, and Hale appeared for him. He was kindly treated by the court, but the charge against him was not legally proved.

Among other trials during the Commonwealth were the cases of Gerhard, Vowell, and Fox for conspiring to murder the Protector. The guilt of the prisoners was clearly proved, and, apart from the deprivation of trial by jury, the proceedings were unusually fair. In Sidercombe's case it was held that setting fire to the palace at Whitehall was an overt act of treason. In the trial of Hewet, Mordaunt and others on a charge of plotting to restore the Stuarts, Hewet was sentenced upon his refusal to plead. Mordaunt was acquitted by the casting vote of the president of the court. It is said that this was the only instance of an acquittal in the records of the High Court of Justice.

The trial of the Regicides (5 St. Tr. 947), who had been exempted from the general indemnity, followed immediately upon the Restoration. The trials were, on the whole, fairer than might be expected. The prisoners did not dispute the facts; and twentynine convictions and thirteen executions may be called mild, according to the prac tices of those days, for a great rebellion. The disgusting desecration of the graves of the Puritan leaders was a far greater stain upon the Royalists.

Vane's execution was infamous (6 St. Tr.

law?" Recorder: "You must not think that I am able to run up so many years, and over so many adjudged cases, which we call the common law, to answer your curiosity." Penn: "This answer I am sure is very short of my question, for if it be common it should not be so hard to produce." . . . Recorder: "If I should suffer you to ask questions till tomorrow morning you would never be the wiser." Penn: "That is according as the answers are." Penn was finally haled to the bale-dock-"a stinking hole"-and the recorder charged the jury in his absence.

Then began the efforts to force a conviction. "We shall have a verdict by the help of God, or you shall starve for it," the Recorder told the jury. But they finally agreed upon an acquittal, whereupon they were fined and imprisoned. Bushel, one of the jurors, was immediately discharged by the Court of Common Pleas on a writ of habeas corpus, and the memorable judgment pronounced on this occasion by Chief Justice Vaughan put an end to the fining of jurors for their verdicts, and vindicated their independence as judges of fact (6 St. Tr. 999).

The Editor will be glad to receive contributions of articles of moderate length upon subjects of interest to the profession; also anything in the way of legal antiquities or curiosities, facetiæ, anecdotes, etc.

NOTES.

A the trial of a criminal cause a colored used as a witness for the State, and later was used as a witness for the defense, when the following occurred:

"You say your name is James Lanier?" "Yes, sah."

citations, and turned to reports and read them one after another. It took possibly two hours. When he had finished the doctor said: “Is that all the law?"

"Yes," replied the attorney.

"Well," said the doctor with a sigh of relief, "if that is the law, I will go out and hire me a lawyer and give him H." And he walked out.

FOR the following amusing anecdotes we are indebted to a former bar examiner in

MRS. B. sued Mr. B. for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment such as to endanger life. After stating certain acts of defendant, the pleader continued that said acts "have tended to destroy her health, her happiness and her life, and the same have done so." Defendant demurred on the ground that it was alleged that plaintiff was dead and the action would not lie. The judge declined to sustain the demurrer, but recommended that plaintiff's attorney amend his pleading.

a western town lived an eccentric doctor. One day he called at the office of an ambitious young attorney, apparently greatly excited, and wished to know the law on a certain point in a trade wherein he had been "fleeced," and for which he wished to institute immediate proceedings. He insisted that the lawyer investigate the law thoroughly.

The lawyer got the digest and looked up

To the question "What is essential to constitute a valid marriage in New York?” one grave candidate replied: "There must be a meeting of the minds; assent and consideration." Another-a more attractive genius-announced to us "that the parties must be of opposite sexes." As this was undeniably true, we passed him at once.

I recall that we asked one rather useless sort of a question, to wit: "What are the limitations of the power of a court of equity to relieve in cases of accident or mistake?" and we were informed that "whenever an injustice is committed by the act of God, equity will not interfere." The late Robert G. Ingersoll told me that the man deserved a medal.

Passing by the gentleman who said that the bailor went on the bond of the bailee, and the other one who in answer to the question "In what office are notices of lis pendens filed?" said, "In the room on the left as you go into the Court House on the Broadway side," I come to the Solon who assured me that "Expert testimony is always founded on fictitious facts." A good many of us will believe that he was really wiser than he supposed.

A WITNESS in a Wisconsin court was asked recently: "Well, how about Corry Brothers, as a financial success?"

"As a financial success," replied the witness, "Corry Brothers was a great failure."

IN a jury trial at Los Angeles recently, the attorney for the defendant started in to read to the jury from a certain volume of the Supreme Court Reports. He was interrupted by the Court, who said: "Colonel it is not admissable, you know, to read law to the jury." "Yes, I understand, your Honor; I am only reading to the jury a decision of the Supreme Court."

HONORABLE HENRY COLLINGS is one of the common pleas judges of the second subdivision of the Seventh Judicial District of Ohio, and was presiding at a term of that court in Lawrence County. W. D. Cross is a prominent and able young attorney of the bar of that county.

In a cause pending in that court, in which Mr. Cross appeared for the defendant, after his sundry motions and demurrer to the plaintiffs' petition had been overruled, and plaintiffs' demurrer to his answer had been sustained, Mr. Cross said:

"Well, your honor, if plaintiff's pleadings are good against all my attacks by motion and demurrer, and my pleading will not stand his first attack, what am I to do?" Judge Collings "Hire a lawyer, Mr. Cross."

I WAS called upon some years ago, says a Maine attorney, to defend a man who had been sued in trover for conversion of certain cedar sleepers. The case was to be tried before a trial justice at some distance from the shire town of the county, but I prepared my case as elaborately as possible and thought I had a most convincing defense. I had the evidence evidence and proved that the sleepers were both paid for by the defendant and were delivered at his exclusive landing on the river long before the plaintiff made his alleged purchase. My evidence was

I

not even denied, and I was patting myself on the back, as the clock showed the time to be advancing towards the supper hour, (after a whole day spent in the struggle with many witnesses for the plaintiff and a few for the defendant), and the plaintiff's counsel was finishing up his long-winded harangue. thought surely the verdict could not be other than for the defendant. My nerves and whole system received a rude shock, however, when I heard the justice drawl out: "Wall, there's a heap of testimony in this case and an allfired lot of it seems to be contradict'ry, an' I've got a toothache, an' the only safe thing to do, is to give the verdict for the plaintiff and let the defendant appeal!"

A YOUNG attorney had advised his client that he had a good case and had started suit and filed his declaration. The defendant put in a demurrer to the same which was argued before the venerable Judge Gary of Chicago. After hearing the arguments the judge notified the parties that he would sustain the demurrer, whereupon the young attorney for the plaintiff said, "In that case, your Honor, I ask leave to amend."

The judge replied, "It won't do you any good, for upon your own statement of the facts you have no case."

But the attorney insisted, saying, "Your Honor, I must amend, I must amend. What will I tell my client?"

Judge Gary leaned forward in his quiet manner and whispered, "You tell your client that Judge Gary is an old fool."

ON another occasion before the same judge, a young attorney was making some noise in the back part of the court room and was moving around as though in search of something. Judge Gary called him by name and asked what the trouble was, whereupon the young man stated that he had lost his overcoat. The judge replied, "Now see here, some men have lost whole suits in this court and have not made one-half the fuss about it that you have."