The sun., 1897-03-14
vi.

In important cases, not unfrcqucntly Charles
o'Conor would encounter James W. Gerard tthe
cldcr). Mr.. Clinton says that tho contrast be-
tweon these two also was remarkable. Ho
opincs that no lawyer In his day was SO sue
cessful before juries as was Mr.. Gerard. IL
Is certain that the latter obtained a greater
number OF vordicts against evidence than
has any other lawyer that has prac.
tised at the New York bar. He was full OF
expedients and possessed extraordinary tact.
In profound knowledge Of human nature. and
ready adaptation OF himself in the conduct of
trials to the peculiarities, caprices, and whims
OF different Jurics, he was almost without a
rival. His method OF conducting trials and
his ways OF enlisting the sentiment, SYM
pathies, and prcjudices of jurors In his
favor seemed to change almost with every Jury
with which he was brought fNco to face. The
following is one OF the incidents rocountcd of
him as cxemplifying his characteristic and gen.
orally successful tactics: Gerard and OConor
were opposed In an important case In which the
plaintiff claimed heavy damages from tho de-
fendant on the ground OF fraud in business
transaction. O'Conor counsel for the plain
tiff and Gerard acted for tho defendant. Tho
fraud could only be proved by a variety OF facts
and circumstances, any one OF which, by itself.
was probably not very strong; all combined,
however. were likely to mako out an over
whelmng case. Mr.. Clinton reminds us that the
force and weight OF circumstances depend upon
the impressive manner In which they are
brought out In evidence before the jury. Objec-
tion Is often made to the admission Of the evi.
dcnce; the bearing Of each circumstance is not
infrequently discussed by opposing counsel and
its relevancy has to DO shown before It can DO
admitted. In this way tho jury become inter.
cstcd and get educated in regard to tho plain
tins case as the trial proceeds. and the various
facts. as they are brought out In detail, con-
tinuc to increase In Importance, until their united
force, when the plaintiff rests. sufilccs TO provo
his case. In this instance. when O'Conor had
produced his first witness and began to examine
him. Gerard. in his quick, nervous manner, arose
and said: "Mr. OConor. what do you propose
to show by this witnessf' OConor stated what
he proposed to prove. Gerard said: ut is use
less to waste the time Of the Court and jury In
proving that. ! admit It," 0'Conor called his
next witness and began to examine him. Gerard
in the samo manner before jumped up and
asked OConor the same question as to what no
purposcd TO show BY tho witness. O'Conor, in
his clear and succinct way. stated precisely
what he expected TO prove. Said Gerard: Il
d6mH IL; don't let us waste time" O'Conor
called his next witness. Gerard put TO him tho
same question, and O'Conor, with his usual
lucidity and accuracy stated tho facts he ex.
pccted TO demonstrates Said Gerard: 81 admit
all you say you nrc going to prove. Let
us hurry along" In this way Gerard
rs plaintiffs witnesses ono after another
were called, admitted everything that was
sought 10 be proved by them. With a ra.
pidity that almost took O'Conors breath away
he found that his whole case was conceded; all
the facts which, by dnt OF indc!atisable perso.
vcrance and great professional skill, he had
collected and meant to got In evidence, were
admitted wholesale. He consequently rested his
case, and rs Gerard had no testimony 10 adduce
on behalf of his client, the case went to the Jury
on the evidence OF tho plaintiff. or course IL
was for the jury To construe tho facts and cir.
cumstances and to determine whether tbey
proved the fraud charged upon the defendant.
Gerards speech to the jury was very short and
was substantially as follows: "Gcntlemen OF
the Jury-Somc OF you know me personally. |
have no doubt those OF You who are not person.
ally acquainted with me know me by rcputa.
tion. Now, gentlemen, you knOm that IL my
client had been guilty Of any fraud would be
the last man on earth TO admit il. would hide
II from you, would cover IL up; would fight,
iight-and l know hog to fght-ngainst tho
proof OF 1t getting In evidence II my client had
been guilty OF fraud. do yon think | would admit
1t No!no! Never! Ncrer! NEVER" Gerard here
looked at his watch. Gentlemen, he continued
excuse my brcvity; have an engagement to
dine to-day. and my time Is almost up 30 will
detain you no longer" Mr.. Clinton tells us that
despite the elaborate and able argument of
OConor to the jury he failed to impross than