witness, though not without repeated injunctions to unbutton, at last compelled them to disclose.

Lord Norbury, however, when he saw Mr. Grady pushing the plaintiff to extremities, used to come to his aid, and rally the broken recollections of the witness. This interposition called the defendant's counsel into stronger action, and they were as vigorously encountered by the counsel on the other side. Interruption created remonstrance; remonstrance called forth retort; retort generated sarcasm; and at length voices were raised so loud, and the blood of the forensic combatants was so warm, that a general scene of confusion, to which Lord Norbury most amply contributed, took place. The uproar gradually increased till it became tremendous; and, to add to the tumult, a question of law, which threw Lord Norbury's faculties into complete chaos, was thrown into the conflict. Mr. Grady and Mr. O'Connell shouted upon one side, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Gould upon the other, and at last, Lord Norbury, the witnesses, the counsel, and parties, and the audience, were involved in one universal riot, in which it was difficult to determine whether the laughter of the audience, the exclamations of the parties, the protestations of the witnesses, the cries of the counsel, or the bellowing of Lord Norbury, predominated. At length, however, his Lordship's superiority of lungs prevailed; and, like olus in his cavern (of whom, with his puffed cheeks and inflamed visage, he would furnish a painter with a model), he shouted his stormy subjects into peace.

NORBURY'S HUMOUR.

Lord Norbury was perhaps the most inveterate punster that ever sat upon the bench. When Cobbett brought over the remains of Tom Paine's bones, Lord Norbury, on being asked what could be meant by such an importation of bones, is said to have answered that he supposed that Cobbett "wanted to make a broil."

A counsel thought that he could overcome the punster on the bench. So on one day, when Lord Norbury was charging a jury, and the address was interrupted by the braying of a donkey: "What noise is that?" cried Lord Norbury." "Tis only the echo of the court, my lord," auswered Counsellor Readytongue. Nothing disconcerted, the judge resumed his address; but soon the barrister had to interpose with technical objections. While putting them, again the donkey brayed. "One at a time, if you please," said the retaliating joker.

On pressing a reluctant witness, one day, to get at his profession, and being, at length, told he kept a racket-court; "And a very good trade, too," replied the judge; "so do I, so do I."

The registrar of one of the Irish criminal courts complained to his lordship, that the witnesses were in the habit of stealing the Testament after they had been sworn upon it. "Never mind," said his lordship; "if the rascals read the book, it will do them more good than the petty larceny will do them mischief. However, if they are not afraid of the cord, hang your book in chains, and that, perhaps, by reminding the fellows of the fate of their fathers and grandfathers, may make them behave themselves." This strange expedient was adopted, and the Testament remained afterwards secure.

ONE SHILLING EACH.

An attorney in Dublin having died exceedingly poor, a shilling subscription was set afoot, to pay the expense of his funeral. Most of the attorneys and barristers having subscribed, one of them applied to Toler, afterwards Lord Chief Justice Norbury, expressing a hope that he would also subscribe his shilling. "Only a shilling!" said Toler; "only a shilling to bury an attorney? Here is a guinea; go and bury one-and-twenty of them."

JUDGE MAULE-HIS STRAW-SPLITTING AND IRONY.

Sir William Maule was noted for splitting straws on the bench, an instance of which is related in connexion with special demurrers. A man was described in a plea as "I. Jones," and the pleader, probably, not knowing his name, referred, in another part of the plea to "I" as an initial. The plaintiff demurred, (i.e. said that the plea was bad,) because "I" was not an initial. Sir W. Maule said that there was no reason why a man might not be christened "I" as well as Isaac, inasmuch as either could be pronounced alone. The counsel for the plaintiff then objected that the plea admitted that "I" was not a name by describing it as an initial. "Yes," retorted the judge, "but it does not aver that it is not a final as well as an

initial letter."

Judge Maule's humour, though often coarse, was genuine, and very amusing. An admirable specimen of it is given in one of the wittiest speeches ever made. A man being convicted of bigamy, the following conversation took place :

:

Clerk of Assize. What have you to say why judgment should not be passed upon you according to law?

Prisoner. Well, my lord, my wife took up with a hawker, and ran away five years ago, and I have never seen her since, and I married this other woman last winter.

Mr. Justice Maule.-I will tell you what you ought to have done; and if you say you did not know, I must tell you the law con

clusively presumes that you did. You ought to have instructed your attorney to bring an action against the hawker for criminal conversation with your wife. That would have cost you about 1007. When you had recovered substantial damages against the hawker, you would have instructed your proctor to sue in the ecclesiastical courts for a divorce a mensâ atque thoro. That would have cost you 2001. or 3001. more. When you had obtained a divorce a mensâ atque thoro, you would have had to appear by counsel before the House of Lords for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. The bill might have been opposed in all its stages in both Houses of Parliament; and altogether you would have had to spend about 10007. or 12007. You will probably tell me that you never had a thousand farthings of your own in the world; but, prisoner, that makes no difference. Sitting here as a British judge, it is my duty to tell you that this is not a country in which there is one law for the rich and another for the

poor.

Here is a specimen of his irony, in addressing a jury:-" Gentlemen,-The learned counsel is perfectly right in his law, there is some evidence upon that point; but he's a lawyer, and you're not, and you don't know what he means by some evidence, so I'll tell you. Suppose there was an action on a bill of exchange, and six people swore that they saw the defendant accept it, and six others swore they heard him say he should have to pay it, and six others knew him intimately, and swore to his handwriting; and suppose, on the other side, they called a poor old man, who had been at school with the defendant forty years before, and had not seen him since, and he said he rather thought the acceptance was not his writing, why there'd be some evidence that it was not, and that's what Mr. - means in this case."

A very stupid jury were called upon to convict a man on the plainest evidence. A previous conviction was proved against him by the production of the usual certificate, and by the evidence of the policeman who had had him in charge. The Judge summed up at great length. He told the jury that the certificate was not conclusive; that the question was entirely for them; that policemen sometimes told lies, and much else of the same kind, concluding as follows: "And, gentlemen, never forget that you are a British jury, and if you have any reasonable doubt on your minds, God forbid that the prisoner should not have the benefit of it." The jury retired, and were twenty minutes or more before they found out that the Judge had been laughing at them, and made up their minds that the identity was proved.

A CIRCUIT STORY.

Sir John Coleridge relates :-" In the County of Cornwall there lived a highly respectable family, named Robinson, consisting of two sons, William and Nicholas, and two daughters. The property was settled on the two sons and their male issue, and in case of death on the two daughters. William was to be the 'squire, and Nicholas was placed with an eminent attorney of St. Austell, as his clerk, but with a prospect of one day being admitted into partnership. The young man conducted himself well and respectably, and the attorney became much attached to him. The harmony, however, between the two, and between the family, was broken, for Nicholas had fallen in love with a young woman at St. Austell, who was a milliner or a milliner's apprentice. The result was that in November, 1782, the young man was sent to London to qualify himself as an attorney thence he wrote unhappy letters to his old master and others, but he was ultimately admitted an attorney of the Court of Queen's Bench and Common Pleas. Thenceforward he was never seen by any member of his family or former friends, and all search for him proved fruitless. In the course of time the old Robinson died. William, the eldest son, succeeded to the property; he never married, and died in May, 1802. As nothing was heard of Nicholas, the two sisters became entitled to the property, and they held possession of it for twenty years, no claim being made to disturb their enjoyment of it.

and

"In 1783, a young man, whose looks and manners were above his means and station, had made his appearance as a stranger at Liverpool. He called himself Nathaniel Richardson-the same initials as Nicholas Robinson. He bought a cab and horse, plied for hire in the streets of Liverpool. Being a civil, sober, and prudent man, he soon became prosperous, and drove a coach between London and Liverpool. He married, had children, and gradually acquired considerable property. Having gone to Wales to purchase horses in 1802, he was by an accident drowned in the Mersey. In the year 1821 it was said that this Nathaniel Richardson was no other than Nicholas Robinson, and his eldest son claimed the perty which was then inherited by the two daughters, and the action was tried in Cornwall. Nearly forty years had elapsed since any one had seen Nicholas Robinson, but it was made out conclusively, in a most remarkable way, and by a variety of small circumstances, all pointing to one conclusion, that Nathaniel Richardson was the identical Nicholas Robinson. The Cornish witnesses and the Liverpool witnesses agreed in the description of his person, his height,

pro

the colour of his hair, his general appearance, and more particularly it was mentioned that he had a peculiar habit of biting his nails, and that he had a great fondness for horses.

"In addition to other circumstances, there was this most remarkable one, that Nathaniel's widow married again, and the furniture and effects were taken to the second husband's house. Among the articles was an old trunk which she had never seen opened, but it happened one day that this old trunk was, through curiosity, examined, and among other letters and papers, the two certificates of Nicholas Robinson's admission as attorney to the Courts of Queen's Bench and Common Pleas were found. On the trial the old master of Nicholas Robinson, alias Nathaniel Richardson, swore to his handwriting, and so the property was recovered."

JESTING BY INCHES.

It being proved on a trial at Guildhall, that a man's name was really Inch, who pretended it was Linch; "I see," said the Judge, "the proverb is verified in this man, who being allowed an inch, has taken an L." Out of this joke of Joe Miller comes the jeu d'esprit of Liston upon his fascinating and petite wife. Some one having addressed the lively little lady as "Mrs. L," "Mrs. Ell!" said Liston, "I call her Mrs. Inch."-Family Joe Miller, p. 80.

CHARTIST TRIALS.

Sir John Coleridge, who presided as judge at the trials of Feargus O'Connor and O'Brien, observes that for the most part, its members appeared to have been honest, but misguided persons. He had no doubt if the movement had not been suppressed, that it would have led on to plunder and havoc, and that blood would have flowed like water, for the occupation and habits of these men made them a hard-handed and stern race. The way in which some of them defended themselves was remarkable; although speaking with a Lancashire pronunciation, which was very difficult to understand, they, nevertheless, spoke pure English, and quoted-not the words of Tom Paine and other infidel writers, but such writers as Algernon Sidney, Sir William Jones, John Locke, and John Milton. There were men among them who, after working ten or twelve hours a day, had been diligent readers, and were better English scholars than many of the jurymen who tried them.

CUPAR AND JEDBURGH JUSTICE.

It is an odd circumstance that Lord Campbell, to whom both as judge and legislator the law of England owes so much, was born at place which gives its name, "Cupar justice," to the peculiar