ves.
Lincoln, sitting behind him, took in the situation, and when his turn
came he remarked to the jury: "Gentlemen, Mr. Logan has been trying for
over an hour to make you believe he knows more about a horse than these
honest old farmers who are witnesses. He has quoted largely from his
'horse doctor,' and now, gentlemen, I submit to you," (here he lifted
Logan out of his chair, and turned him with his back to the jury and
the crowd, at the same time flapping up the enormous standing collar)
"what dependence can you place in his horse knowledge, when he _has not
sense enough to put on his shirt_?" Roars of laughter greeted this
exposition, and the verdict was given to Lincoln.

The preceding incident leads to another, in which Lincoln himself
figures as a horse-trader. The scene is a very humorous one; and, as
usual in an encounter of wit, Lincoln came out ahead. He and a certain
Judge once got to bantering each other about trading horses; and it was
agreed that the next morning at nine o'clock they should make a trade,
the horses to be unseen up to that hour,--and no backing out, under a
forfeit of twenty-five dollars. At the hour appointed the Judge came up,
leading the sorriest looking specimen of a nag ever seen in those parts.
In a few minutes Lincoln was seen approaching with a _wooden saw-horse_
upon his shoulders. Great were the shouts and the laughter of the crowd;
and these increased, when Lincoln, surveying the Judge's animal, set
down his saw-horse, and exclaimed: "Well, Judge, this is the first time
I ever _got the worst of it_ in a horse-trade!"

There has been much discussion as to Lincoln's rank and ability as a
lawyer. Opinion among his contemporaries seems to have been somewhat
divided. Mr. Herndon felt warranted in saying that he was at the same
time a very great and a very insignificant lawyer. His mind was logical
and direct. Generalities and platitudes had no charm for him. He had the
ability to seize the strong points of a case and present them with
clearness and compactness. His power of comparison was great. He rarely
failed in a legal discussion to use this mode of reasoning. Yet he knew
practically nothing of the rules of evidence, of pleading, of practice,
as laid down in the text-books, and seemed to care little about them.
Sometimes he lost cases of the plainest justice which the most
inexperienced lawyer could have won. He looked upon two things as
essential to his success in a case. One