The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-01-10
EMERGENCIES FoR LAwYERs.
Some OF the Instances In Which They
Fave TO be Quick and Quick v tilted.

4
| Fave to be Qu.ck and Quick v tilted.
from the Neso York sun.
Although the processes Of law are proven
bialiy slow, there are many occasions when
lawyers must act with promptness where a
lack Of promPtitude or knowledge of the law
would result disastrously to the interests Of
| their clients. This is noticeably the case in
| the drawing Of wills. 1t often happens
/ that lawyer is reused out of bed
late at night to go to the bedside
OF dying person and perfect a will. dis
| posing OF large amC UNITS Of property. To do
this with expedition, complying with all the
requisite forms while death is literally wait
ing at the door.is task that requires man Of
cool head and self-possession. Surrogates'
urts bear testimony to the frequency with
| which the wishes of testators have failed to
| be carried out. because of the failure TO
comply with some almost trifiing detail. In
one case the lawyer was so slow in making
cut the paper that the testator died before
| the requ site formalities were complied with.
In another case a quick-witted lawyer, who
saw that there was not time TO complete
will IN case where the property consisted
OF money In bank, adopted the expedient of
making out checks for the heirs, which
were duly signed and acknowledged, and
the heirs got their money the next day,
without being Obliged to wait year for ex-
ecutors.
In commercial crises lawyers have to do
good deal OF quick work ia putting bust
ness affairs In shape to meet al emergency.
The bankrupt generally desires to save
parts OF the wreck for this or that creditor,
or for relatives, or for himself, and the pa
pers must be drawn in due form to ell Ide
the vigilance of the unfortunate creditors
who get left. Bankruptcy business has be-
come a special branch Of law, and there are
some lawyers who have become expert at it,
so that upon short notice and with brief
time in which to work they can ARA age the
affairs OF bankrupt firm so as to dispose
| OF the assets according TO the wishes Of their
Gle is.
There is room an need for quick wit in
the actual trial of cases in court. II is one
thing to prepare a case with careful consid-
GRAFTON II the facts ard due application
of the law TO those facts. 1t is quite another
thing to be able to handle case in open
court under the spur of competition with
sharp opposing counsel or testy court. 10
every large law firm the work is divided like
| that in factory, and to each is assigned a
particular part of the case. The man who
tries it must be a man Of rapid judgment
ana resources. He must be able to meet
| surprises, to discern men, to divine hidden
motives, to ST ap at the prejudices of jurors
| or judges, and TO seize the advantages Of the
moment. There is no end If need for quick
wit In questions of identity. In an extradi-
| ton case, which deDended entirely upon
identity, the defendant had been fully iden-
| titled. The defendants counsel slyly got his
| client to change his coat in court with an
other man Of similar appearance, and within
a few minutes the witness was led easily to
| identify the wrong man.
A quick-witted and daring western law
/ yer once saved a guilty client from sure
conviction on a charge of poisoning. 1t was
proved that the poisoning had been done by
means Of certain cakes, a portion of which
was produced in court. When the counse
for the prisoner had finished his speech he
| said:
And these, gentlemen of the jury, are
some of the alleged poisoned cakes. We
| declare to you, gentlemen Of the jury, that
these are not poisoned cakes. They are as
harmless cakes as ever were made, and in
order, ge tlemen of the jury, to show you
that these cakes are not poisoned, will eat
one OF them right here in your presence"
And he did eat one. He took good care,
however, to leave the room at tie earliest
opportunity and to make bee line for an
| adjoining room, where he had an emetic in
readiness and an antidOte. But the jury
never heard about the emetic or the anti
dote until the lawyers client had been
acquitted.
On another occasion a witness had been
detailing with great minuteness certain
| conversations which had occurred several
years before. Again and again the witness
| testified to names and dates, and precise
words, and it became ne essary for his
| cross-exaniner to break him up. This was
| done by very simple Device While the
witness was glibly rafting off his testimony
| the cross-examiner handed him law book,
and said:
Read aloud a paragraph from that
| book"
"What forl' inquired the witness.
II will tell you after you have read it, !"
said the lawyer, and the witness accordingly
read aloud a paragraph of most uninterest-
| ing matter about lands, appurtenances, and
| hereditaments. Then the lawyer went on
and asked him few more questions about
| his memory, and the witness was positive
that his memory was very good. Suddenly
the lawyer said:
"By the way, will you please repeat that
paragraph you just read about lands, ap-
purtenanoes and hereditaments"
why, of course l could not do that" re~
| piled the wit eSs.
You must have a queer memory" re-
| torted the lawyer, "since you can repeat
| things that you say occurred years ago, and
| you cannot repeat what you read a moment
ago"
The witness was nonplussed, and the
| jury was obviously amused at his discom-
| future.
A quick-witted lawyer thinks on full gal
| lop Many successful cross-examiners have
been men who could keep up running fire
| of jokes and comments and never lose sight
of the main point, who could lead witness
along by suavity and politenes and acqui-
ence and apparent obsequious Difference
into pitfalls of contradiction. Such
men will let a smart witness talk on until
he drops some unfortunate expression that
| SUI jects him to being bounced upon and de-
moliShed st one fell swoop.
A leading counsel for the defendant in
an accident damage case, where the injury
had been occasioned by O jet Of steam scald-
ing the complainant's back and neck as he
was driving past the defe dant's place,
argued to the jury that the plaintiff was
guilty Of contributory neglige CO and
| should have looked up to avoid the accident.
The quick witted counsel for tie complain
ant retorted: 30, no; if be had looked up,
instead of suing for damage to tue back of
our head we should have had to charge you
for the loss of both eyes"
In trial fer murder, where the killing
was done by shooting, the counsel for de-
PENDANT made a good deal of fuss and intro
huced quantity of medical testimony to
show that the wounded man had been un-
| skipfully treated. At the close of confus-
ing crosS-examination by defendants coun-
sci on the length of the probe used TO find
the ball, the direction of the wound. and