Lewiston evening teller. [volume] (Lewiston, Idaho) 1903-1911, 1907-05-15
A Story OF
THE LAW.

centration of thought is one disadvan-
tage. Such concentration leads the
thinker to place an undue relative
vRlse upon the subject Of his thought.
A specialist In throat diseases is apt to
refer all the ills man is heir to to the
throat. The professor of ancient Ian
gauges cannot understand how man
can be properly equipped for any pro-
fesstOn without a knowledge OF Greek
and Latin. To the merchant the chief
end of man is to buy cheap and sell
dear.
| in the legal profession this species Of
! lnonomania tends to make the court
rom a tournament of lawyers. The
real object of court, to do justice, is
Luried under rank professionalism
that has grown up like weeds in a
| flower garden.
| Edward Avery, brilliant young
| 10 wyer, was especially under the intlu-
| ence of this professionalism. Having
been elected state attorney. he consid-
| cred it his duty to convict alike the
! innocent and the guilty. AS soon as
his duty to the state had ended and he
became an independent attorney he
considered it his duty to secure the
| acquittal of any client. whether inno-
cent or guilty. His friends used to re-
monstrate with him on the want of
| elasticity of his principles. but with
/ OUT avail. He was intensely logical
ard could give the best of reasons for
hts deductions. He forgot that logic
iii bit a machine which will grind out
anything that is put into it.
One day while Avery was practicing
ON his own account a man whose trial
] for burglary was to come off imme.
/ ciately sent for him and asked him to
/ make his defense.
But know nothing about the case"
"Don't want y to know nothin' about
the case. The more you know about
| Il the wo'se for me-"
Avery's fancy was tickled at going
into court to conduct case he didn't
know anything about. He prided him
self on his readiness and resource. He
| would add another to his already large
number of stories that he was used to
telling his friends illustrative of these
| faculties. The accused man had but
/ So to give him for a retainer, but
Avery was not after money. His OBJ
| ject was to have an opportunity to
show what he could do impromptu.
The case came off the same after
i noon. Avery was somewhat surprised
to see in the courtroom several of his
chums, mostly Of the legal profession.
and asked why they were there. He
was told that they had heard he had
taken case he didn't know anything
about, and they were curious to sea
how he would handle 1t. Avery was
pleased. This meant that they were
there to witness bit of professional
/ fireworks.
/ Avery In summer lived in hand
some suburban residence. In winter
he shut it up. went to the city and lived
In apartments till spring. When the
prisoner was brought into court and
the witnesses were got together, the
counsel for the defense was surprised
to see among the latter faces Of his
neighbors In the country. But what
was his establishment when the pros
i ecution brought out the fact that the
robbery had been committed in his own
house.
Ayery's friends were watching him,
aud when tfis fact dawned upon him
they snickered. The young attorney
saw at once that they had placed him
in position to defend his client from
robbing him. But he was game. Not
the slightest change of couRtenance IN
dicated that his professional equanim-
4 ity bud been disturbed He listened
calmly to the evidence against his eli.
ent. while the expression of his face
and quick fiashIngs In bis eyes told
that he was stralning his brain to find
some weak spot In the prosecution,
some technicallty by which he might
secure the acquittal of his client.
The burglar had been seen coming
down treliis from an upper story by
a man with whom Avery was we'll &C
quainted. He had been chased, but on
tina way had contrived to get rid of
some valuable articles When appre-
hcnded, he had nothing on him to con-
Wet him OF theft OF course the jury
were entirely ignorant of the situation
that had been brought about by Ay-
ery's friends. When, the prosecutors
evidence was all in, Avery took the wit
ness who had seen the burglar descend
the trellis and asked him how he knew
the prisoner was the same person. The
witness could not swear that he was.
He had seen him run, and he had been
followed by policeman and several
citizens. but the witness had merely
seen man descend the trellis. What
man he did not know. Avery trapped
him into saying what threw doubt on
the fact of the Identity between the
man who had descended the trelils and
the prisoner, then showed how easy II
would be for the one to be mistaken
for the other. He closed by powerful
4 argument against running mans life
by evidence that was defective and a
pathetic appeal for the prisoner. The