own taken from him by the
Benchers; driven to America by his creditors to get his living; not
allowed to practise in the Supreme Court in America. At forty-five
years of age his life had foundered. He returns to England--for what!
Simply to find his recklessness had blasted his life, and then--?
"Sometimes, in spite of _all_, I feel a moisture in my eye when I
think of him. Had he been true to himself what a brilliant life was
open to him! What a practice he had! Up to the last he told me that he
turned L14,000 a year. He worked hard, very hard, and his gains went
to ---- or to chicken-hazard! Poor fellow!"
CHAPTER XIV.
PETER RYLAND--THE REV. MR. FAKER AND THE WELSH WILL.
I was retained at Hertford Assizes, with Peter Ryland as my leader, to
prosecute a man for perjury, which was alleged to have been committed
in an action in which a cantankerous man, who had once filled the
office of High Sheriff for the county, was the prosecutor. Wealthy and
disagreeable, he was nevertheless a henpecked tyrant.
Mrs. Brown, his wife, was a witness for the prosecution in the alleged
perjury--which was unfortunate for her husband, because she had the
greatest knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the case; while
Mr. Brown had the best knowledge of the probable quality of his wife's
evidence.
When we were in consultation and considering the nature of this
evidence, and arranging the best mode of presenting our case to the
jury, Brown interposed, and begged that Mr. Ryland should call Mrs.
Brown as the _last_ witness, instead of first, which was the proper
course. "Because," said he, "_if anything goes wrong during the trial
or anything is wanting, Mrs. Brown will be quite ready to mop it all
up_."
This in a prosecution for _perjury_ was one of the boldest
propositions I had ever heard.
I need not say that good Mrs. Brown was called, as she ought to have
been, first. The lady's mop was not in requisition at that stage of
the trial, and the jury decided against her.
I was sometimes in the Divorce Court, and old Jack Holker was
generally my opponent. He was called "Long Odds." In one particular
case I won some _eclat_. It is not related on that account, however,
but simply in consequence of its remarkable incidents. No case is
interesting unless it is outside the ordinary stock-in-trade of the
Law Courts, and I think this was.
The details are not worth telling, and I therefore pass them by.
Cresswell was
|