Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1879-11-20

HOW FAR MAY COUNSEL 60!
RECENT EEEugEs OF TnE LICENSE THAT
LAWYERS TAKE * AEGugEST.
Frpn the Albany Las journal Nyrenl.srs
Two rather recent cases show the
necessity Of moderation Of utterance
in counsel. In one case in North
Carolina it was held that it j. not
within the privilege Of counsel in ar
gument to Il jury TO use language cal
culated 10 humiliiate and degrade the
opposite party in the eyes Of the Jury
and byslandcr-, particularly when he
has not been impcached and where,
on the trial, witness for plaintiff had
been impeached by the testimony of
defendant, and plaintiff counsel said
in addressing the jury that no man
who lived in defendants neighborhogd
could have anything but a bad char
aCter that defendant polluted every
thing near him or that be touched
that he was like the upas tree. she'd
ding pestilence and corruption all
around him - that the defendant was
entitled to a new trial, without show
ing that bis cause was prcjudiced by
the use Of that language The same
doctrine was held in case in Wiscon-
sin, where no evidence having been
given Of the defendant ability to pay
exemplary damages, the plaintiffs
counsel appears to have undertaken
10 supply this want Of evidence by
commenting to the jury upon the APP
pcllant's connection with the railroad
company and the wealth and power
Of the company a. q great corporation,
and defendants ability, from his con-
ncctiou with il, to pay any judgment
which might be rendered against him.
The Court held that ii ir error -ufii-
cient 10 reverse judgment, for coun-
sci, against objection, 70 state facts
pertinent ~ the issue and not in evil
dcncc, or to assume while arguing)
such facts 10 be in the case when they
are not. The Court say in the Wis
consin case: The profession Of the
law j. Instituted for the administration
of Justice The duties Of the bench
and bar differ in kind, not in purpose.
The duty Of both alike j. to establish
the truth and TO apply the law to it.
1t j. essential TO the proper admins
tratiou Of justice, frail and uncertain
AT the best, that all that can be said
for each party, in the determination of
fact and law, should be heard For
on.ic strife i but method, and a
mighty one, to ascertain the truth and
the law governing the truth. II Is the
duty Of counsel to make the most of
the case which his cHent is able to
give him but counsel is out Of his
duty and his right, and outside Of the
principle and object Of his profession,
when he travels out of his clients case
and assumes TO supply it, Deficiencies.
Therefore Is it that the nice sense of
the profession regards with such dis
trust and aversion the testimony of a
lawyer in favor of his client 1t Is the
duty and right Of counsel to indulge
in all fair arguments in favor of the
right Of his client but he is outside
of his duty aud his right when he APP
peals to prejudice irrelevant to the
case. Properly, prejudice has no more
sanction at the bar than on the bench.
But an advocate may make himself
the alter ego of his client, and indulge
in prejudice in his favor. lie may
even share his clients preiudices
against his adversary, as far as they
rest on the facts in his case, but he
has neither duty nor right to appeal
10 pneiudices, just or unjust, against
the adversary outside the very case he
has to try. The very fullest freedom
of speech within the duty of his pro-
fession should be accorded to counsel ;
but il is license not freedom of speech
20 travel out Of the record, basing his
argument on facts not appearing, and
appealing to prejudices irrelevant TO
the case and outside of the proof"