The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-02-13
SLIPS OF NONELISTS
LEGAL MISTAKES THAT HAVE BEEN
MADE BY GREAT AUTHORS.
Dickens md the Famous Case of
BardeII versus Pick ick-The Trial
Scene In Reade's "Hsrd Cash"
TroIIoPe's Dip Into the Law.

Legal actions. says one Of Gilbert
SondoIjcrS. are solemn things Yet
it is curious how seldom 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.. WelIer's OF London. was "exten-
sive 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 ap-
peared in the witness box. The eN-
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 tempta-
ton TO- shall we say. lu4ccuraCy. 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 a witness is not permitted to
cross examine him at all, but on the
contrary. is bound 10y his answers;
therefore had SERGEANT BuZfuZ permit
ted the Pick wiCkianS 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
al ~ n fhn first a +
tempt to badger either of them it would
have been the learned counsel for the
plaintiff who received his lordshipS in
junction Ito be careful
But all lovers of Dickens will rejoice
Mt his ignorance of the rule which
forces counsel never TO call hostile
witness. Who could bear to be depriv-
ed Of the evidence of Mr.. Samuel Vel
Ter?
Exactly the same mistake is made by
Anthony TrolIope in his well known
novel, 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. In
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 cluh-pOetic justice which
would have been defeated even by a
chairman Of quarter sessions.
thaaratioaI and nroHtio4
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 a 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 a crowded court to tears and
goes far to secure her brother trium
plant verdict. with heavy damages.
Hard Cash" is termed "a matter OF
| fact romance" but as a matter of fact
and law, no such letter could have beer
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 a dying declara
ton is only admissible in evidence
upon charge of murder or man
slaughter of the person who has made
it, 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 or
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 al
agitator on behalf of his much op
| pressed class. In consequence of {
speech denouncing an unsCrupulou:
employer he is prosecuted on charg,
of criminal libel; but, thanks to faith
full friend and a smart lawyer, h
energies triumphantly.
No fault can be found in this cas-.
| with the way in which the villain i
| cross examined TO pieces. The diff
Guilty is that no such prosecution coult
have been instituted at all. You ma,
SANDER a man by defamatory speech
but to libel him you must write. prin
or otherwise permanently record" you
| defamation of him, and. though Sian
der aud libel alike may expose you L
| an action for damages. it is libel aIon
that can bring you within the grasp o
the criminal law.
1t IS difficult to uphold this distinc
ton. A libel Is regarded as a publ
crime as we'll as a private wrong be
cause it tends to provoke a breach o
the peace. but one would think a
much might be said of SANDER. Stil
the distinction exists. and the az
gressor who confines his attack t
words may suffer in purse. but not Il