The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1881-07-28

must take neither more nor less than a
pound; and
Held that, by exacting the forfeit,
plaintiff Gan alieni was guilty ofcOnspi-
racy against the life of free citizen of
Venice, hence that his property should
be confiscated, one-half to go to the
state, and the other half to plaintiff.
Judgment to this effect, as recorded.
1t is now up on appeal.
SHYLoCK,
PLAINTIFF in error, Notion
COMMONWEALTH OF VENICE, nelo trial.
Defendants in error.
The undersigned, as counsel for the
heirs and assigns OF Shylock, plaintiff in
error in the above-entitled action, re-
spectfully represents as good and suffi-
cient reasons for a reversal of Judgment: ::
1st. That this client was not represen-
ted by counsel.
I'd. Appellant excepts to the judges
charge in that he said:
"Upon my power, may dismiss this court
Unless Bellario, a learned doctor,
Whom have sent for to determine this,
Comes here to day"
We claim that, being himself the au-
thoriZed magistrate, he had no power to
send for nybody. There is no evidence
to show who Bellario was, why he
should be sent for, or what he had to do
with the case. He may have been the
judges side-partner, or was perhaps a
local "boss'' in Venice; but the judge
had no right to send for hin. AS an
expert in matters of fact, his evidence
would be admissible only on subpoena
aff ~ lax
never regarded with favor. If Bellario
was judge of a higher court, the case
would have resched him on appeal. To
send for him was clearly irregular.
3rd. The tender of 5000 ducats was not
sufficient, and we were justified in our
refusal. The money should have been
deposited with the judge pending
hearing.
4th. Shylock's motion was for an at
tachment against the person of Antonio.
The power of the judge to issue this was
not discretionary, but mandatory
Therefore it could be opposed only for
in the bond. Defendant
did not claim this. Therefore the order
should have issued without parley.
5th. Bellario not arriving, the judge
admitted a man from Rome named Bal
thasar, and permitted, contrary to all
precedent in evidence, letter of intro
duction to be read written by Bellario
and dated Padua. It .s clear from this
that Bellario was running the court
We except to the letter of Introduction
as inadmissible and to Balthasar as ir-
relevant. Bellario wrote:
! am very sick. Balthasar is furnished
with rlY opinion. l leave him to your gra-
cious acceptance.
We submit, from the irregularity of
his action, that Bellario knew no more
law than police justice. Noone asked
his opinion, and it was clearly inadmis-
sible when sent by word of mouth
through Balthasar. The latter was not
identified. Bellario's remark, "I am
very sick" was probably a mistake of
the stenographer. The context shows
that it ought to have been, 81 am very
tresh."
9th. We except to the introduction of
There is nothing to show
that he was summoned by either side.-
1t is not claimed that he was a judge,
and he does not seem to have been
sworn as witness. Being a lawyer in
Rome, he had obviously no commission
to practice in the Venice courts.
9TH. The Judge erred in greeting Bal
thasar. "Give me your hand. Come
you from old Bellario?" This was en-
tirely undignified, and in current par
lance is, we submit, equivalent to:
''Shakel How's the old man? ?" or,
tShakel How's his nibs ?" Clearly,
again, Bellario was running the court.
Sth. We except to Balthasar being eX-
amined by the judge and also to his
speech:
"Antonio and old Shylock, both stand
forty"
9th. We object to Balthasar's question,
''ls your name Shylock ?" The direct
examination was oyer, and this ques-
ton could not be asked in rebuttal.
10th. We object and except to this ev-
idence:
Bal.-Do you confess the bonds"
Ant.-I do.
BdL.-Then must the Jew be merciful.
11th. We represent that as soon as the
Judge perceived that Balthasar had the
ear of Bellario, he permitted him, con-
trary to law and right, to run the court
to the disadvantage of appellant. We
offer to show:
a. That Balthasar was an imposter,
being in reality Portia.
b. That he (or she) not only was not
''yOung doctor of Rome" but never was
in Rome, being resident andIfreehold-
er of Belmont.
c. That "old" Bellario was either de-
ceived in the person or else a party to,
and abettor of, conspiracy against
Shylock.
d. That Portia was at the time the
wife of Bassanio and an interested party
in the suit, and hence estopped from
judging in the matter.
e. That the state could not profit by
this fraud. A new trial is therefore
18th. We submit that when the judge
saw-as he must have seen-that a wo-
man had begun to argue the question,
his only course was to adjourn the court,
and thus save those present, since it is
clear that a woman's arguments are
subjects for exception, especially where
money is concerned.
18th. The judge, for reasons which
the appellant will hereafter show, per-
mitted Balthasar to pronounce this de-
cision of the court, to which we except:
alt thou cut'st more
Or less than q just pound, nay. If the scale
do turn
But in the estimation Of hair,
Thou diest and thy goods are confscated "
Our grounds of objection are:
That in the cutting, not Shylock,
but Antonio, would die. Question
of fact.
That if Shylock died they could
not eonfiscate his goods, as they
were already, by will, left to the
state. Question of record.
That it was his privilege, as a
judgment-debtor, to take less than
apoind if he chose. Question of
law.
14th. Shylock having made a motion
Tor writ of attachment and this not
being granted, he was entitled to a
against the judge, issued
,ither by old Bellario or some magis-
rate of competent Jurisdiction. He was
right in refusing compromise.
18th. We will claim new trial, frSt,
/ reversal OF the judgment; second, res
tuition of the amounts paid over By ap-
oellant, together with costs and interest
o date; fhird. revocation of his testa-
nent, made under duress, giving the
noiety of his possessions TO Lorenzo, the
west singer of VeniCa and hfz cnn-f1