The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1906-09-07
SLIPS OF NOVELISTS
LEGAL MISTAKES THAT HAVE BEEN
MADE BY GREAT AUTHORS.


Dickens and the Famous Case of
BardcII Versus Pickwick-The Trial
scene In Reade's "Hard Cash"
Trouope's Dip Into the Law.
Legal fictions," says one of Gilbert's
yondoiiers, ARE solemn things" Yet
Il is curious how seldom a novelist
centuries into 4 law court without driv-
Ing his quill through acts of parliament
ind rules of law alike.
That Dickens knowledge Of law, like
Mr.. Weller's of London, was "eXten-
siva and peculiar" is amply demon
strated by the famous case of Bardell
versus Pickwick. Students of that re-
port may have been struck by the fact
that neither plaintiff nor defendant APP
peared in the witness box. The ex-
PLANTATION is that at that time parties
upon the record We're not competent
witnesses, their interest in the case be
ing regarded as too strong Il tempta-
ton to, shall we say, inaccuracy. But
had Dickens been lawyer Mr.. Wrinkle
and his friends might also have been
spared the ordeal of cross examination
AMI their friends and admirers de-
prived Of many merry moments.
In his anxiety to satiriZe the abuses
of cross examination Dickens over
looked the legal rule that the counsel
who calls witness is not permitted to
cross examine him at all, but, on the
contrary, is bound by his answers;
therefore had SERGEANT Buzfuz permit
ted the pickwickians to be called as
witnesses for the plaintiff (Which he
would have known better than to do)
their version of the words heard
through the door ION the jar must
have been accepted, and at the first at
tempt to badger either of them 1t would
have been the learned counsel for the
plaintiff who received his lordship's in
junction ito be careful
But all lovers of Dickens will rejoice
at his ignorance of the rule which
forces counsel never to call hostile
witness. Who could bear TO be deprly-
cC of the evidence of Mr.. Samuel Wei
Ter?
Anthony Trollope in his we'll known
novel. The Three Clerks" There the
Lero, Alaric Tudor, is placed upon his
trial for misappropriating trust money
and defended by that famous leader,
Mr.. Chaffanbrass of the Old Bailey.
Tudor's Mephistopheles, the Hon. Tn
decimus Scott, Is called. much against
his will, as a witness for the defense,
cross examined by the celebrated Chat
fanbrass, forced to confess his mis-
deeds and dismissed covered with
ignominy, to be subsequently expelled
from his club-poetic justice which
would have been defeated even by q
chairman of quarter sessions.
The great theoretical and practical
knowledge of law possessed by Charles
Reade saved him from this error, as
from many others. Yet the famous
trial scene in Hard CASH would have
been ruthlessly deprived OF its most
dramatic moment by any judge of the
high court When the hapless Alfred
Hardy, who has been wrongfully i'm
prisoned In an asylum by his wicked
father, comes at last to establish his
sanity before Il jury, his case Is closed
by the reading of letter from his
dead sister. Writing at the point of
death, she solemnly denies his insanity
and begs him to show her words to his
accusers when she is no more. Read
aloud by the Judge himself, her letter
reduces Il crowded court to tears and
goes far 10 secure her brother trium-
plant verdict, with heavy damages.
Hard CASH is termed "A matter of
fact romanee;" but, as a matter of fact
and law, no such letter could have been
received in evidence. Knowing that,
under ordinary circumstances, such
testimony would be inadmissible,
Reade is careful to establish that the
writer knew herself to be dying; but
lie was unaware that dying declara-
ton" is only admissible in evidence
upon Il charge Of murder or MAN
slaughter of the person who has made
ii, and cannot be laid before the jury
il any other case whatever
Numerous and entertaining are the
trial scenes which adOrn the works of
Mrs. Henry Wood but they hardly pro-
fess TO be strictly accurate. Let me
point. rather to an interesting slip on
the part of that most careful of nov
elists. David Christie Murray, who
shares TO some extent the popular con
fusion on the subject of the law of
libel and SANDER. His powerful story,
"A Capful O Nails" has for its hero
working mailer, who becomes an
agitator on behalf of his much OPP
pressed class. In consequence of Il
speech denOuncing an INSCRIPTIONS
employer he is prosecuted OH a charge
of criminal libel; but, thanks to n faith
full friend and n smart lawyer he
energies triumphantly.
No fault can lie found In this case
with the way In which the villain is
cross examined to pieces. The diff
Guilty is that no such prosecution could
have been Instituted at all. You may
SANDER Il man by defamatory speech,
but to libel him you must write, print
or otherwise permanently record your
defamation of him. and, though Sian
der and libel alike may expose you to
an action for damages, 1t is libel alone
that can bring you within the grasp Of
the criminal law.
1t Is difficult to uphold this distinc-
ton. \ libel Is regarded as II public
crime as well as a private wrong be
cause it tends to provoke a breach of
the peace, but one would think az
much might be said of SANDER. Still
the distinction exists, ana the ag-
gressor' who confines his attack to
words may suffer in purse, but not in
person.
Such are few of the slips to which
the novelist is liable who unwarily
trespasses upon legal preserves.-Pear.
sons Weekly.