New-York tribune., 1897-07-17
NEW.JERSEY NEWS.
4 LIVELY TILT IN COURT.
LAWYER AND JUDGE EXCHANGE WORLDS
OVER THE ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY.

OVER THE ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY.
New Brunswick. July 10 (speciaD-There was
lively time in the Mddlesex County Court to-ua''
Judge Woodbridge Strong and George beroihe were
the principals. The appeal case was being hearo
Of Mrs Elizabeth weiland against Sheriff George j.
Litterst. The case is peculiar and complicated
George Krause sued George Weiland baker for a
-four BILL He secured Judgment. Sheriff George
J Litterst owed to the Weland bakery $tl lor
bread for the prisoners In the jail. Wheh M
Krause secured Judgment against Ieorse "e'-
land, he also secured an order from the court re-
s,ranng the Sheriff from paying the sSl 10 any one
This was done account OF the claim OF the
We,land, that the Sher,ffs money was owing TO
Mrs Elizabeth Weiand. while Mr. Krause wanted
To attach the bill 10 satisfy his judgment Tor the
flour bill against George Weiand. The Sher'it
was then powcrless to pay the bill to any one.
Mrs Weiland Instituted suit before Justice Har-
kins against the Sheriff for the bread bill, ana
secured Judgment. still this Judgment could not
be executed because the Sheriff was restrained
from paying the bill by the Courts order. In order
20 settle the question to who the money shouid De
paid TO- he carried the case to the Common fieas
Court and 1t came up for trial this morning
The case resolved itself into one OF krause
agains; Weiland the Sheriff not disputing the Dill
at ALI The only question raised was whether the
money was owing to George Weand or 10 MS
mother. Mrs Elizabeth Weiiand George berdne'
representing Mrs Weiland, alleges that the money
10 owing 10 her, while Freeman WoOdDridge LOT
George Krause who has judgment against
George Weand. the business having always been
conducted in his name. said 1t belonged to the son.
A clerk in Woodbrdges office was on the stand
Mr.. Berdine objected the production OF the law
yer's records in court, but Judge Strong overrued
the objection Soon anerward he made objec-
tions to questions asked by Mr.. Woodbridge Of
his clerk, but Mr.. Woodbridge thinking the OBJ
jections to be the same those overruled by the
Court. did not stop the questioning. Mr.. Berdine
abruptly demanded: Have 1 any right to practise
In this court? II not will go out Am l going
to be entitled TO represent my client or am TO be
considered in a perfunctory manner"
You have the same rights in this court as any
other counsellor" quickly responded the Court,
land you will proceed with the case"
Il have made repeated objections TO the line OF
questioning and have not been recognized any more
than IL was not present" said Mr.. Berdne.
Whose fault is that? Why did you not press
your objections" asked the Court
II did shout at you loud as could, but you
would not hear me-" retorted the lawyer
You must conduct your case without insulting
or impeachng the motives Of the Court" declared
Il offered no insult" insisted Mr.. Berdine
When you ask II you have any rights mere you you
Judge. bringing his gavel down on the marble
block with two three sharp raps.
II intended no insult
'"rhe Court accepts your apology.
Il will make an apology when an apology is
needed, and when 1t is not l WON'T retorted the
lawyer
He was called to order again by the Court and
asked If he withdrew pressed his objection. Mr.
Berdne pressed the objection which was that the
questions leading. The objection was sus
continued until Tuesday to enable Mr. Berdne to
introduce more witnesses.