Waterbury evening Democrat., 1892-12-24

teSS1On and 1ncldenGa11y TOT the 1eeS appertaining thereto. Why pay good money to another lawyer, when I will be quite willing to undertake your case for Gas you say1 a little money down, taking the rest out in trader"
 MT. Hemms was stricken dumb by the proposal.
 Being certain that so amicable an arrangement would commend itself to you, the moment it was presented in its full advantage, have taken the trouble to look up the law on the sub feet, and will without further barley let you know just where you stand. You are doubtless aware that there have been a number of acts passed in relation to tailoring which think will tend to make our negotiations exceed ingly simple. For instance, there was an act passed in the reign of William and Mary which made it illegal for a tailor to sew cloth buttons on a suit. The penalty is forty shillings for every half dozen buttons he uses, besides the forfeiture of the goods. But you were. of course, cognizant of this before you threatened the law on lawyer" 'I never heard of such an outrageous act It Is certainly not the law now"
 ''Ah, there you are wrong, and that shows the advantage of having the best legal assistance. It would i'll be- come us, Mr. Hemms, to characterize the wisdom of our ancestors as out rageous. There are many things per taininR to the law that may not com mend themselves to the lay mind" Do you mean to say that act has never been repealed?"
 ''So far from being repealed, it has been affirmed and added to in other reigns. In the fourth year of George l. | the law was made to include all kinds of buttons covered by any material whatever and tho forty shillings was retained as the penalty. In George the Fourths time there was a button act passed, forty shillings remaining the favorite penalty. I have often wondered why forty shillings was always a popular penalty imposed on 1 Englishmen for doing that which they should not do. Doubtless you have yourself pondered on the same inscrut- able mystery. Why not thirty shillings, or fifty shillings, or a5? Still so it is, and we must accept it.
 Why was such an unjust law passed?'
 "Do not, I beg of you, term it unjust. l Respect the law. l should be sorry to think that my custom went to a man who was not as law-abiding and as law-respecting as myself. Why was it | passed? It was passed to protect the l button makers of Birmingham"
 And do you mean to say l cannot collect my just debt because I have
 sewed cloth buttons on some of your | suits?"
 You will collect your debt the mo- ment get money to pay you, but you cannot collect it in any English court. | That was tried quite recently at Mary lebone county court, when a MT. King was sued by tailor named Shirley. l The amount claimed was nine pounds sterling. MT. Shirley was a most es- timable man, no doubG, and probably an excellent tailor, but people should have the law on their side. The law takes no account of m otive. The tailor
 was not only nonsuit ed, but was also fined the requisite number of forty shilling pieces, if there are any forty shilling pieces. I confess I am more
 familiar with law than with the coin
 age of this country. MT. King was
 suited not only by the law, but the tailor
 as we'll"
 'Is this why you asked me to come
 here?"
 "Yes- You gave me of your clothing, I give you of the law. Each the arti
 cle he deals in. Now if you sign re- ceipt for the clothes, l will charge you
 nothing for the law, nor will say any
 thing of the just penalties you have in
 cured"
 "Before doing so," remarked the | tailor rising II will consult another f l lawyer"
 "A most excellent resolution in or , dinary cases. In multitude of queen.
 counsel there is wisdom, or at least
 much law. But this case must be set
 tied now. In your letter you expressed
 a wish for an early settlement. It il my own desire. I must have my receip
 now or will invoke the law agains you as breaker of it."
 . The receipt was given. Of course, {
 tailor is no match for lawyer. It i
 always better to turn one of the lega . gentlemen on another. That is wha
 the tailor did. He consul ted anothe < lawyer. This gentleman assured thu = tailor that the acts complained of stil t stand on the statute books He said 5 however, that Blk in demanding an' = obtaining the receipt had compounded v, felony. For this he could be brough ~ ~ to book. But the tailor did not wan O to put Blk in jail; he wanted hi money. Why not threaten Blk? Thel o he could be settled with and the none.
 obtained. This, it seemed, would b d also compromising Bilk's felony, an' < then another lawyer could jump on tn s second lawyer. If the second lawye s settled, then the third lawyer woul Y, have compounded felony and so tn
 thing would go on until all the lega
 talent of London would be envelope >' in this netwc1x of compromising fel 0 onies.
 This is how the matter stands at tn = moment of writing. How it will en
 no one knows. It is a complicate
 question. l shall keep my eye on tn
 case and report progress from time t u time. Meanwhile those who read ma ~ take my word for it that the law o
 England to-day in regard to button