Highland recorder. (Monterey, Highland County, Va.) 1877-1972, 1906-09-21
SLIPS OF NOVELISTS
LEGAL MISTAKES THAT HAVE BEEN
MADE BY GREAT AUTHORS.
dickens and the Famous Case of
BardeIl Versus Picl<wicL-The Trial
Scene In Reade's "Hard Cash."
TrolIope's Dip Into the Law.

Scene In Reade's "Hard Cash.
| TroIIope's Dip Into the Law.
legal fctions," says one of Giibert's
Sondoliers, "are solemn things" Yet
It is curious how seldom a novelist
ventures into law court without driv-
Ing his quill through acts of parliament
and rules Of law alike.
That Dickens knowledge Of law, like
ND. Weller's Of London, was "exten-
ske and peculiar" is amply demon
srated 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 were not competent
witnesses, their interest In the case be-
ing regarded as too strong 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
and their friends and admirers de-
priyed 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 10
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 "on 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 lordships IN
junction "to be careful"
But all lovers Of Dickens will rejoice
at his ignorance Of the rule when
forces counsel never to call hostile
witness. Who could bear to be depriv'
ed of the evidence Of Mr.. Samuel Wei
Ter?
Exactly the same mistake is made by
Anthony Trollope in his well known
rovel "The Three Clerks" There the
hero, 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. Un'
decimus Scott, is called, much against
his will, as witness for the defense,
cross examined by the celebrated Char-
fanbrass, forced to confess his mis-
deeds and dismissed covered VIVID
ignominy, to be subsequently expelled
from his club-pOetic justice WHICH
would have been defeated even by a
chairman Of quarter sessions.
The great theoretical and practicai
knowledge of law possessed by Charies
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 jury, his case Is closed
by the reading Of a 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 crowded court to tears and
goes far to secure her brother q trium'
phant verdict, with heavy damages.
lizard Cash" is termed "a matter Of
fact romance" but, as 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
he was unaware that dying declara-
| ton" is only admissible in evidence
upon charge Of murder or man.
slaughter of the person who has made
1t, and cannot be laid before the jury
in 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
speech denouncing an unscrupulous
employer he is prosecuted on a charge
of criminal libel; but, thanks to faith
full friend and smart lawyer, he
energies triumphantly.
No fault can be found in this case
with the way In which the villain is
cross examined to pieces. The din
Guilty ia that no such prosecution could
have been instituted at all. You may
SANDER a 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.
i 1t is difficult to uphold this distinc'
ton. A libel Is regarded as a public
crime as well as a private wrong be-
cause 1t tends to provoke breach Oh
the peace, but one would think as
much might be said OF SANDER. sun
the distinction exists. and the ag-
gressor who confines his attack 70