San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1889-11-27
HUMORS OF THE BENCH.
How Far Judge May Co in Joking and
Maintain the Dignity of the Court.

How Iar 70 Judge may 20 III o"kinS anu
Maintain the Dignity of the Court.
If body of men are engaged in work. Of
any kind and their leader insists on playing
the wag, the moral atmosphere soon becomes
entirely unsuited to the discharge of affairs.
If, then, when lawyers are engaged in the
solemn and important duties of court Of
law, an example of frivolity is set by the per-
son il authority, it is pretty certain that the
public interest will suffer.
The principle which can be applied to de-
termine how far it is allowable for judge
to exercise his gift of humor stands, there
FORE thus: Nothing should be said by him
which can i'll any way destroy the essential
sense of seriousness which should pervade a
court of justice, or introduce temper of
ocular familiarity, such as must infallibly
breed contempt As matter of fact it will
be found that such rule is practically OBJ
served by most of the judges and that its OPP
Grafton does not in the least cut us off from
that species of judicial wit which is most
worth preserving. 1t prevents the court
from being turned into bear garden, but
leaves ample scope for snubbing an impudent
or restraining tiresome advocate wittily,
and for placing the results of an investiga-
ton or of the application of legal principle
in the shape of an epigram.
For example, it cannot be said that the dig
nifty of the court suffered in the least when
Baron Maule used his extraordinary power
of humor to rebuke Mr.. Cresswell's inordinate
arrogance. Counsel had been treating the
bench throughout his speech with the utmost
lack of courtesy At last the judge could
bear it no longer and stopped him: Mr.
Cresswell, I am perfectly willing to admit
my vast inferiority to yourself Still am
vertebrated animal, and for the last half
hour you have spoken to me in Ia. "uage
| which God Almighty himself would h.. tate
| to address to black beetle"
Such phrases were not, we imagine, likely
| to make Baron Maule's court unmanageable,
or to let counsel get out of hand. Surely 1t
| is absurd to say that the exercise of such wit
| must be condemned, because we protest
| against the use of an ill timed, i'll judged and
| jaunty .iocularity. The one need never for a
moment lower the tone of the court. The
| other, ''easy. vulgar, and therefore disgust
| ing is sure to end in a loss of dignity and
| respect.
Again, the judge who reminded an advo-
| cate in the following manner that he was
wasting tho time of the court did no violence
| to decorum. The barrister had beef explain
| ing at great length certain transactions in
| regard p furnished house. Having dealt
with tao NoGse in long and dreary Grafton
! utterly beside the point, he coughed and be-
| gan: "And now, my lord, | propose to ad-
| dress myself to the furniture" You have
not been addressing yourself to anything else
| for the last hour and a half" was the reply.
| Here, though counsel could hardly have felt
comfortable, the court suffered no loss of re-
| spect.
| Indeed, under certain circumstances, a
| judge may find in his wit the means of bring
| ing clearly home to the public mind the i'll
results of any portion of our legal system
which he considers imperfect.
| P&rCn Mauie had once to sentence a man
| tried before him in a case of bigamy, in
which it appeared that though the crime had
| actually been committed, there were very
| great excuses for the prisoner. His wife had
been drunken and unfaithful and, leaving
him with large family of children to bril- Z
up, had disappeared for several years. Under
| such circumstances he had thought himself
| able to marry again. In giving sentence
| Baron Maule in detail stated how the prison
| er ought to have acted, how he should have
brought one action for GRIM con. in the
| civil courts and another in the ecclesiastical
courts for divorce, and, finally, how ho
should have obtained private act of par
lament dissolving the first marriage and al
lowing him to contract second. You will
| probably reply" ended Baron Maule that
this would have cost you 81 900 and that you
have not a thousand pence. But let me tell
| you, prisoner at the bar, that this is no ex-
cuse, and that in England the law is the same
| for the poor as for the rich"
AS may be deduced, this passage led up to
a sentence of three days Imprisonment,
to begin from the first day of the assizes, and
therefore, in this case at least, the prisoner
had something beyond 'his judges joke for
consolation. The Spectator.