The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1877-04-29
SPLITTING TIE DIFFERENCE.'
IN. Y, World 4

:. IN. T. world
. The World few days ago told how the
late James OReilly, &C, of Kingston
, Ont, recovered a verdict of Gao in
breach of promise caee, by proving thai
the defendant had gained forty poun ds in
weight at the table of the plaintiff. An.
other as remarkable plea he once employ ed
with as quite as much success in the de-
bis client had sought to avoid by recourse
to the rules of strict law rather than to
those of absolute equity. 1t was tried at
country court and before a rurel jury, and
the trial lasted three days, and the greater
portion of time being occupied by q ire
the courts as to the validity of the technical
pleas interposed. The jurors honestly
strove to follow the arguments of the law
yers, but with indifferent success, and they
were hopelessly at sea when on the third
day, O'Reilly made his address. The de-
| fence bad been badly shattered as to it's law
and hadn't leg to stand upon in the mat
| ter OF right but by master stroke O'Reilly
succeeded in saving q good share of the
wreck. Turning on the wearied and be-
wildered jury, bis countenance bsamipg
with good humor and frankness, he spoke |
as follows:
Gentlemsn-You have for three days past |
heard some very interesting but abstruse dis
cussions of legal points, of which, probably,
you are weary. (Murmurs of assent) / shall
no0 avon UPON Any Ok inc GeCDnlCal Issues
that might be raised, but come right to the
point Your duty is plsin-it is to a1bitrate
between the plaintiff and the defendant, who
cannot agree by themselves. 1t does not re-
q1ire tie overhauling of q whole law library
to show honest and practical men like you how
to discharge a simple duty. Let MS suppose
that the plaintiff and defendant have q horse
trade. (Here the jury pricked up their excess
we ears They cannot agree upon price, the 6
plaintiff asking, let suppose, 5000, the de- | ,
tendant Offering $3.50, they agree to submit I
The case to few honest and compe men | +
Ike yourselves, and these jurors, understand 4
ng that in all such differences of opinion | q
lether party is wholly right nor altogether q
wrong, say, As between man and man. we n
hink You ought to split the difference the r
orse is worth $l75." l simply ask you to v
ppiy this equitable and simple principle to G
he present case. The plaintiff claims Sc coo; @
'e say we owe him nothing. You have seen 9
ow the evidence conflicts and how widely f
Ifering opinions are held as to the law Your n
lain common sense will, am conhdea t, enable v
on to come to speedy and simple decision "
1t did. The Judge charged strongly N
gainst the defendant, but in doing 40 p
welt at much length and singular acute =
ess and zest on the legal aspects of the :,
ase, and the jurors retired hopelessly be- in IL
'gged. They could only find in ali that OF
naos OF conflicting evidence and contradc- C
Try law one piece of solid ground 8,
Relily's plain, common sense proposition d.
split the difference. They did SO, and. ia
wing the plaintiff verdict of 80 600, af- o
rmed the immortal principle that if q
an refuses to pay his honest debts at all. q,
Is the duty of honest men to see Justice at
one by making him pay half of them. v