  [The plaintiff was committed to the Fleet Prison on Feb. 8, 1596, by order of the Lord Keeper, for drawing a replication of sixscore sheets containing much impertinent matter which might well have been contained in sixteen. On Feb. 10 the Lord Keeper ordered that on the following Saturday the Warden of the Fleet should cut a hole through the replication, and put the plaintiff's head through the hole and let it hang about his shoulders with the written side outwards, and lead the plaintiff bareheaded and barefaced round about Westminster Hall, and show him at the bar of all the courts, and so back to the Fleet.—Abridged from Spence's Equitable Jurisdiction, vol. i. p. 376.] 'Gainst Weldon Mylward files a bill, But doth his replication fill With scandalous and idle matter, That would disgrace the maddest hatter. Woe is me for Mylward! 'Twas sixscore sheets, it might have been Contained, and amply, in sixteen; So after that the court hath risen Must Mylward Fleetward go to prison. Woe is me for Mylward! And two days afterwards 'tis meet That by the Warden of the Fleet He be led on in slow progression Through every court that sits in session. Woe is me for Mylward! The pleading writ with words so fair Must Mylward like a tabard wear, A hole therein, the Warden cuts it, A head put through it, Mylward puts it. Woe is me for Mylward! The bar makes merry at his shame; What careth he? He winneth fame, Three hundred years his reputation Hath rested on that replication. Woe is me for Mylward! HAMPDEN v. WALSH(1 Queen's Bench Division, 189) "Five hundred pounds as stake I'll lay," Says Hampden, "that by such a day No man of science proves to me That earth not flat but round must be; The earth is flat, and flats are they." The sum Walsh holds right willingly; But Wallace by philosophy Proves roundness, and would take away Five hundred pounds. "Proof me no proofs," quoth Hampden, "Nay, Let Wallace get it if he may, I'll sue Walsh for it." So sues he. "Let Wallace," hold the judges three, "Take nought, let Walsh to Hampden pay Five hundred pounds." WILLIS v. THE BISHOP OF OXFORD(2 Probate Division, 192) Aid me, Muses! my endeavour is to sing a woful song, How a very learned bishop in the Arches Court went wrong. Aid me, for duplex querela is an uninviting theme, And the practice of the Arches raises no poetic dream. Comes he to the Court of Arches burning with a noble rage, Filing his duplex querela, claiming for himself thereby Vicarage of Drayton Parslow, or to know the reason why. "Reason why?" the bishop answers; "that is not so far to seek. Little Latin have you, Willis, innocent are you of Greek. You were specially examined by my good Archdeacon Pott; He reported to me promptly, 'Greek and Latin all forgot, Non idoneus is Willis, minus et sufficiens, He may have a sanum corpus, but he lacks a sana mens.'" I have preached a Latin sermon, and the classics are my forte, You must name the books I failed in, you must give me every chance Of a fresh examination at the hands of Lord Penzance." Lord Penzance supported Willis: "Bishop, you must file," said he, "Some more tangible objection, some less vague and general plea. As it stands I cannot gather what it is you ploughed him in, Whether Hellenistic aorists or the Latin word for sin." But alas! the world has never known as yet what Willis did, In the breast of the Archdeacon still it lies a secret hid. More resemblance to Tertullian than to Tullius Cicero? Were his dates a little shaky? Could it, could it be that he Confidently made Augustine flourish at a date B.C.? None will know save Pott, Archdeacon, for alas! the patroness Showed no mercy to Child Willis in the day of his distress. She revoked the presentation, leaving Willis in the lurch, One of undisputed learning preached in Drayton Parslow church. Doubly barren was his triumph, it was not a twelve-month ere Death set up his Court of Arches, Willis did not triumph there. DASHWOOD v. JERMYN(12 Chancery Division, 776) Captain Dashwood, who had been In the service of the Queen, Sick of "Eyes front" and "Attention," Came to London on his pension. At the "Portland" as he stayed, Firm the friendship that he made With one William Richards, who Put up at the "Portland" too. Passed six years, then he was wrapped in Love's embraces, vanquished captain! "Yes," he cried, "I will; no bar shall Stop my wedding Edith Marshall." But there was a bar, 'twas that He was poorer than a rat; Indian pensions do not run More than just enough for one. Who would pay the rates and rent? Two more years, and Richards moved (He perchance had sometime loved), Promised them an income clear, 'Twas five hundred pounds a year For his life; when he was dead, Then ten thousand pounds instead. This to Dashwood in a letter Wrote he, deeming it was better They should marry soon while he Lived their happiness to see. 'Twas a modest sum, but marriage May be blest without a carriage, Forty pounds a month and more Keep the wolf from near the door. So they wed for worse or better, On the faith of Richards' letter. Due when mourning was their raiment. Richards died. Alas! no cash would Find its way to Captain Dashwood. Dashwood's head began to swim— Not a shilling left to him! "Ha, I'll have it still," cried he; "Justice dwells in Chancery." So the case was straightway taken To the court of V.-C. Bacon. Vainly Dashwood cash expended The executors defended, Claiming that what Richards wrote Was not worth a five-pound note; First because the dead testator Well, not wisely, loved the "cratur," More than that, had often been In delirium tremens seen; When he did not know his mind; Third, because pollicitation Is not good consideration. Law, of justice independent, Gave its judgment for defendant. Poorer than he was at first, That unhappy plaintiff cursed, With a special satisfaction Cursed the day he brought his action. Would that he'd in India tarried! Would that he had never married! He, alas, is tied for life Pauper to a pauper wife, Scarce consoled that on his name Equity reports shower fame, Bearing down to endless ages Dashwood's story on their pages. EX PARTE JONES(18 Chancery Division, 109) Oh for the wily infant who married the widow and made Profit of coke and of breeze, and never a penny he paid! Oh for the Corporation of Birmingham cheated and snared, Taking orders for coke that the widow and infant prepared! Oh for the Court of Appeal, and oh for Lords Justices three! Oh for the Act that infants from contracts may shake themselves free! Oh for the common law with its store of things old and new! Birmingham coke is good and good Coke upon Littleton too. FINLAY v. CHIRNEY(20 Queen's Bench Division, 494) When love-sick man descends to folly And gets engaged, he must not stray, The jury takes the part of Polly, And if he jilts her, he must pay. The only way his fault to cover, From damages and costs to fly, To leave his jilted lady-lover Without an action is—to die! POLLARD v. PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPANY(40 Chancery Division, 345) "Shall I take your photograph, my pretty maid?" "You may if you like, kind sir," she said. "Do you like your photograph, my pretty maid?" "It is more than flattering, sir," she said. "I'll publish your photograph, my pretty maid." "Indeed but you won't, kind sir," she said. "As a Christmas card, my pretty maid." "The very idea, kind sir!" she said. "But what if I've done it, my pretty maid?" "I'll get an injunction, sir," she said. "The law is with you, my pretty maid," The learned judge of the Chancery said. "You have proved the negative, my pretty maid, A difficult thing in law," he said. THE MINNEAPOLIS CASE(Tried in Minnesota in 1892) Kind reader, tarry here, nor miss The law of Minneapolis. There was a carpenter called Brown, A citizen of that great town, Who stood his "inexpressive she" A dollar's worth of comedy. Was it a Gaiety burlesque, Or labour of Norwegian desk? Or did they spout in stagey tones Morality by H. A. Jones? Or tear romance to rags and set it In heavy platitudes by Pettit? I know not, and it matters not, The subject I have clean forgot. In expectation in the pit, An expectation not fulfilled, 'Twas otherwise by fortune willed. Before this loving couple sat In solitary state a hat— A hat, I say, for in their wonder They never noticed what was under, The wearer must have been a "human," But might have been a man or woman. 'Twas like a mountain crowned with trees Amid the pathless Pyrenees, Or like a garden planned by Paxton, Or colophon designed by Caxton, So intricate the work; and flowers Were trained to climb its soaring towers, Convolvulus and candytuft, And 'mid them water-wagtails stuffed. Had shone in Minneapolis. But Brown was in a sore dilemma, A dollar he had paid for Emma To see a play, and not a hat; A dollar, it was dear at that. And Emma—disappointment racked her, She never saw a single actor. So Brown, with visage thunder-black, Demanded both his dollars back. The man who took the cash said, "Sonny, Our rule is not to give back money. But if you'll come another night, Maybe you'll get a better sight." So Brown went home and nursed his sorrow, His writ he issued on the morrow. A hundred dollars was his claim, And the young lady claimed the same. Of pleadings, this was the decision: "The theatre's defence is bad, Brown paid for what he never had, He paid when in the pit he sat To see a play and not a hat. To bring defendants to their senses, I find for plaintiffs with expenses." JustitiÆ columna sis, Wise judge of Minneapolis! COMMONWEALTH v. MARZYNSKI(21 New England Reports, 228 [Massachusetts, 1893]) [On a complaint for keeping open a tobacconist's shop on Sunday, contrary to the law of Massachusetts, it was held that the court will take judicial notice that tobacco and cigars are not drugs and medicines, and will exclude the testimony of a witness who offers evidence that they are.] Against the statutes of the Old Bay State Marzynski on a Sunday stood behind His counter, well content his gain to find In pipes not pills, cigars not carbonate. From breakfast till 'twas dusk at half-past eight Tobacco cheered this hardened sinner's mind, The price of it his pockets, disinclined To add their dime to the collection plate. The State Attorney claimed the penalty; "Cigars are no cigars," said the defence, "But drugs, and we have witnesses to prove it." "Cigars to be cigars judicially We notice, and reject the evidence." So said the Court, and spat, and nought could move it. |
|
