Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1907-02-01
SLIPS OF NOVELISTS.
LEGAL MISTAKES THAT HAVE BEEN
MADE BY GREAT AUTHORS.

LEGAL MISTAKES THAT HAVE BEEN
MADE BY GREAT AUTHORS. q
dickens and the Famous Case Of
BardeII versus The Trial
scene In Rende's NHard Cash.
Trollope,s Dip Into the Law.
Legal fictions, = says one Of Gilbert's
gondoliers, fare solemn things" Yet
lit 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
Mr.. Weller's of London, was .'exten-
siye 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
E'supon the record were not. competent
witnesses, their interest in the case be
ing regarded as too strong a tempta-
ton to, shall we say, inaccuracy. But
had Dickens been lawyer Mr.. Winkle
and his friends might also have been
spared the ordeal Of cross examination
and their friends and admirers de.
prived of many merry moments.
| In his anxiety to satirize the abuses
l Of cross examinat lion Dickens over.
looked the legal rule that the counsel
who calls "a 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 nc
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 q hostile
witness. Who could bear to be depriv-
ed Of the evidence of Mr.. Samuel Wei
\ Ter? M 5s
| Exactly the same mistake Is made by
Anthony Trollope in his well known
novel, The Three Clerks" There the
i hero, Alaric Tudor, is placed upon his
| trial for misappr prfating trust money
and defended by that famous leader,
Mr.. Chaffanhrass Of the Old Bailey.
4 Tudor's Mephistoph the Hon. I'm
4 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 equently expelled
from his club-po Justice which
4 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
i Hardy, who has been wrongfully i'm
prfsoned In an asylum by his wicked
/ father, comes at last to establish his
sanity before jury, his case is closed
4 by the reading Of q 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 a crowded court to tears and
goes far to secure her brother q trium-
plant verdict, with heavy damages.
Hard 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 esta blish that the
writer knew herself to be dying; but
he was unaware that dying declara-
ton" is only admissible in evidence
/ upon a charge Of murder or man
l 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-
{ TESS to be strictly accurate. Let me
point rather, to an interesting slip on
! the part Of that most careful Of nov
ellsts, 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 Capfui q Nails, !" has for It's hero
working mailer, who becomes an
4 agitator on behalf OF his much OPP
j pressed class. In consequence OF a
I speech denouncing an INSCRIPTIONS
employer he Is prosecuted on charge
of criminal libel; but, thanks to a faith
Y full friend and q smart lawyer, he
energies triumph
No fault can be found In this case
with the way In which the villain Ii
Y cross examined to- pieces. The DIM
Guilty Is that no such prosecution could
have been Instituted at all. You may
1 SANDER a man by defamatory speech.