Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1905-10-16
TART REMARKS IN COURT
How Lawyers Try TO "Get Even" with
JudEes-ssmpIes of Legal
Sarcasm,

Sarcasm.
stories are often told OF the sarcastic
shafts Of wit which lawyers have shot IN
the direction of the bench when drIven IN
resentment (sxcusably or otherwise) nv
rulings which they considered unwar-
ranted, but It is suspected that the warns.
however good as stories, are heard much
oftener outside than inside the court room
They are invariably coupled with the names
OF leaders OF the bar. as. of course, in any
other connection they would sound Alto
Sether too improbable to be even good
stories.
Thus the name Of Joseph Fl. Choate has
been used In connection with one Of the
lesser courts in New York City in the story
OF the lawyer who was called to order for
some derogatory remarks addressed to the
bench in the following manner:
Mr.. Choate, you are showing your con.
tempt for the court"
Whereupon Mr.. Choate replied.
On the contrary. your honor, am doins
my best to conceal It."
A story is told of an attorney in the
western part OF Pennsylvania who, when
the judge apparently took sides with the
defendant (his opponent). remarked:
I should like TO ask. and have It noted
on the record for the purpose Of having
complete, what other counsel appears
for the defendant besides the presiding
1udge?"
To the same counsel r. ascrtbed another
remark OF somewhat similar nature He
appeared for the defendant, and the court.
In the attorneys opinion at least, seemed
to have constantly favored his opponent,
and In charging the jury the judge had all
but told them to bring in a verdict for
the plaintiff. The jury. however, disre-
garded the judges opinion and brought in
verdict for the defendant. The Judge
was obviously annoyed. and made some
remarks disparaging to the jury, where
upon the plaintiffs counsel said:
Pardon me, your honor, but this case
was Of very little Importance. and trust
you will not take the losing of It too much
to heart"
The caustic remark OF an attorney in an
appellate tribunal suggesting that the court
was making statutes instead Of constituting
or following those already enacted is cred
tied to several we'll known lawyers. and
has generally taken the following form:
Your honor will pardon my ignorance, I
hope, In being unfamiliar with the law as
the chief Justice has just stated It; no
doubt 1t Is not an extraordinary occur
renee for counsel to be taken unawares of
the existence OF a statute while practicing
before a legislative body, which produces
new law while the case is in progress
Another rejoinder of a somewhat similar
strain is said to have been made in the SUI
preme court of the United States and has
also been repeated with local color" In
reply to one portion OF the attorneys argu-
ment member OF the court said:
THE trouble with your contention, Mr..
Blank. is that 1t is not the law"
To which the lawyer responded after a
silence lasting scarcely two seconds:
II recognize that fact at this instant.
your honor; but it was the law until your
honor spoke"
One sarcasm rejecting on the courts
knowledge of the law has been put in an
epigram to the effect that:
Love, like many judges, knows no law"
Another remark having the same object
is the reply made by counsel to the judges
remonstrance with the attorney for going
so much into detail as to elementary prin-
ciples of the law, to the effect that:
1.-The counsel should give the court credit
for knowing a little law"
To which the attorney rejoined:
THE counsel does. your honor"
The truth of a colloquy said to have taken
pldCt III lHc court OF appeals OF New york
between the chief justice and an attorney is
easier to believe than some OF the other
| stories, frequently heard. mainly because
the sarcasm came from the court Upon
the closing of the argument of the appel
lant's counsel the chief justice remarked,
after whispering to his colleague:
Mr.. X, the court is OF opinion that II is
| unnecessary to hear anything from your
side, as we have decided the case in your
| favor"
The attorney. however. not being salts
( fed, pleaded that he had taken great deal
Of time in preparing his argument and de-
| clared that his client would not be salts
fed unless he said something and the chief
justice finally said, somewhat Jelly:
Very well, Mr.. X we will hear briefly
what you have TO say"
| At the end OF the argument the chief 1us-
| tice again remarked:
well. Mr.. X. the court is still inclined TO
decide in your favor. in spite of your argu-
ment."
| justice OF the peace in the western part
Of New York, being new TO judicial hon
ors and having somewhat exalted opinion
OF his own Importance and knowledge Of
| the law, took cognizance OF a divorce suit
and had the temerity to bring the defendant
before him in answer to a summons The
| DEFENDANT appeared with HIS attorney. who
demonstrated with the Justice.
! You have no legal power to try a divorce
case said the attorney. such suits are
only cognizabe in a court OF equity Why"
he finally exclaimed, somewhat out Of pa
thence, you cannot try this case"
The judicial ire was aroused and the JUS
tice bristied up:
! Il can't eh?' he said. "You Just watch
me and see whether can or not"
Whereupon he proceeded to try the case
so far as the plaintiff went but how he was
finally convinced that the judgment was
void alb initio history sayeth not.
Although II is not often that the integrity
OF judges particularly OF the higher courts,
is called in question. there is a sarcastic
rhetorical paradox which is old enough to
be respectable and which goes:
| His honor rooted in dlshonor stood
And faith unfaithfully kept him falsely
true.
| New York Tribune