'••••.. Trying A Case Modern American Law Lecture Blackstone Institute, Chicago TRYING A CASE i BY 1LLIAM No GEMMILL, Ph.B., LL.B., LL.D. One of a Series of Lectures Especially Prepared for the Blackstone Institute BLACKSTONE INSTITUTE CHICAGO Copyright, 1920, by Blackstone Institute ' T \%0 WILLIAM N. GEMMILL WILLIAM N. GEMMILL Judge William N. Gemmill was born at Shan- non, Illinois, in 1860. After attending the com- mon schools, he entered Cornell College at Mt. Vernon, Iowa, from which he graduated in 1886. From 1886 to 1890 he was superintendent of pub- lic schools of Roekford, Iowa. From 1890 to 1892 he was superintendent of the public schools of Marion, Iowa. In 1892 he entered the law depart- ment of Northwestern University, from which he graduated and was admitted to the bar in 1892. After that he practiced law continuously in Chi- cago until 1906, when he was elected Judge of the Municipal Court of Chicago. He has held this position ever since, being the only Republican associate judge re-elected to that court in 1912. For one year he presided over the Court of Do- mestic Relations and tried during that time over one thousand cases of wife and child abandonment. He has been president of the Illinois branch of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, is the author of "Practice in Civil Actions" in Modern American Law, and has writ- ten many articles that have been widely published in various magazines and legal journals. He is a lecturer in the Chicago Kent College of Law, also in the Chicago Law School, from which, latter school he holds the degree of LL.D. TRYING A CASE By William N. Gemmill, Ph.B., LL.B., LL.D. The civilization of a people is measured by the qual- ity of justice administered in their courts. The uni- versal appeal of society has been to the courts, whose sole function is to establish rights and punish wrongs. A trial is the final process by which these rights and wrongs are determined. A man may be a great law- yer, but unless he has learned the means by which the laws are crystallized into concrete judgments, he will fail in the final test in the courts. No lawyer can discharge his duty to his client unless he has both the knowledge of the law and the skill necessary to apply that learning at the bar. He must know how to meet every situation that may arise during the trial of a case. He cannot be prepared in advance to answer all the legal questions that may arise, but he can and should know where the answers to these ques- tions may be found, and he can acquire a skill in find- ing them that will often win for him in the final contest. The lawyer who enters upon a trial without having mapped out every step of his advance and every pos- sible assault of his opponent, discredits the high pro- 6 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE fession to which he belongs. His acceptance of a fee for doing anything less than his best is obtaining money under false pretenses. The least that a client may expect is the best that his lawyer can do. More cases are lost in court because of a lack of preparation and skill on the part of the lawyer than because of a want of merit in the case itself. The following Lecture is designed to deal with questions that daily arise in court concerning which both laymen and lawyers show much ignorance and little skill. PREPARATION FOR TRIAL. A lawyer has no more right to enter upon the trial of a case without preparation than a surgeon has to operate for appendicitis without having made a care- ful diagnosis of his patient. Neither great learning nor skill can excuse one from the necessity of acquir- ing an intimate knowledge of the facts, and of making a special application of the law to those facts. Two things are imperative before a case is called for trial : First. The witnesses must be interviewed. Second. The law applicable to the facts must be studied and briefed. Interviewing Witnesses. A lawyer who would put a witness upon the stand without first having talked with him not only jeop- ardizes his own reputation but risks his client's cause. Success upon the trial requires that counsel possess an intimate knowledge of what every witness called by him knows about the case before such witness TRYING A CASE 7 takes the stand. The turning point in legal battles is often some bit of evidence discovered just before the trial by an earnest and skillful attorney. Witnesses should always be examined individually and never in groups. Scrupulous care must be taken that no witness may ever be able to say upon the stand that any part of his evidence was suggested by coun- sel. Every witness must be examined with reference to the particular knowledge he possesses. A serious mistake is often made by propounding the same ques- tions to all witnesses. This error will always be obviated if an attorney classifies his witnesses with reference to what each one knows of the facts in- volved. No witness should ever be called to the stand unless it has been explained to him in advance that it is not only the right but the duty of counsel to talk with him about the case. He should be warned to tell the truth frankly and fully if he is asked upon the stand whether he had talked with anyone about the case. Over one-half of the women, and many men, when asked on cross-examination whether they have talked about the case will unhesitatingly answer "No," when it is apparent to everybody present that such an answer is false. Such answers seriously prejudice the cause for which the witness has lied, and are made not because the witnesses aim to tes- tify falsely, but because of their ignorance, coupled with their fear that some wrong may be done to the cause they represent. 8 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE Briefing the Law. No one knows all the law. This is just as true of a judge as of a lawyer. The volume of legal prece- dents is now so large that the wisest can know but a fraction of them. This makes it absolutely necessary that the law applicable to any given set of facts be carefully briefed before entering upon the trial. In order to do this every student of the law must possess an intimate acquaintance with all reference books and digests, although this acquisition alone will not enable even the most skillful lawyer to meet every emergency that may arise during the trial. In pre- paring a brief all cases cited should be classified as first, second, or third. In the first class should be all cases directly in point that have a binding author- ity upon the court. This class includes all decisions of the final court of review for that jurisdiction. The second class should include cases in other jurisdic- tions that are in point but are not binding upon the court. The third class should include cases that are not entirely in point but which bear upon some ques- tions that are common to the case at bar. By the use of this classification of cited cases the trial lawyer is well equipped for an emergency. DEMEANOR IN COURT. Few lawyers realize that when in court they, more than their clients, are upon trial. Justice is never achieved automatically. Its instruments are sensi- tive human beings, drawn from every walk and experience in life and animated by all sorts of TRYING A CASE 9 peculiar notions and prejudices. Verdicts are largely the result of impressions. These impres- sions begin the moment the trial opens. An un- favorable impression of a lawyer very often means an adverse verdict for his client. Every lawyer should seek the favorable considera- tion of the jurors. He must not be eccentric in manner, in speech, or in dress, lest he offend the simple-minded juror. He must be neat in dress. A sloven seldom fails to prejudice at least one of the twelve jurors. He must be clean of habit. The tobacco-cud lawyer, who squirts his tobacco juice before the court, no longer finds favor in the jury box or anywhere else. The time was when great lawyers were hard drinkers and their most spectacu- lar successes at the bar were often achieved while they were partly under the influence of liquor. That time has, happily, passed and a foul breath loaded with an intoxicant and wafted in an unnatural fervor to the jury box meets an indignant response from three-fourths of the jurors. The lawyer must always be courteous. Verdicts are never won by browbeating witnesses or by direct- ing contemptuous remarks to opposing counsel or by disrespect offered to the court. EXAMINATION OF JURY. No one should ever forget that jurors are sensitive beings. Some are proud. Some have false notions of their rights. All are independent. Whatever may be their moral standards at other times, as jurors they mean to be honest. A professional horse thief 10 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE is an honest man in the jury box unless his cupidity is aroused by an appeal to his self-interest. The greatest care must be exercised in asking ques- tions of prospective jurors. A lawyer should never ask a juror : ' ' Do you own any property V In four out of five cases jurors will mentally resent such a question. No man of thirty-five or forty years wants to acknowledge in public that he is a pauper. Always avoid asking: "Do you drink?" or "Do you smoke?" or "Have you ever had any trouble with your wife?" Jurors resent these questions as an improper inter- ference with their private affairs and as in no way affecting their eligibility. Never ask a question which conveys a suspicion that the juror is unfair. Never try to retain a juror who has manifested a prejudice against your oppo- nent. Remember always that every juror, whether honest or dishonest, demands fair play when he is the umpire and will resent every form of trickery and unfair advantage. Make your examination short. A long and tedious questioning seldom profits the examiner. The lawyer who most often succeeds is the one who gets the jury to believe that he has the utmost confidence in them. The only legitimate purpose of any question asked of a prospective juror is to determine his eligibility or his mental bias. No question should be asked or permitted which does not aim at one of these two things. TRYING A CASE 11 OPENING STATEMENT. A lawyer should never fail to make an opening statement to the court and jury. If this statement is well made the battle is half won. If it is addressed to the court, sitting without a jury, the issue should be made clear before any evidence is taken. If it is properly made to the jury and the cause is a merito- rious one an impression will be made that will be hard to eradicate later. Never overstate your case. It is this that equips your adversary with his sharpest arrows. Never attempt to argue the law in the opening statement nor to draw conclusions from the facts which you propose to prove. Let the jury draw its own conclu- sions. Make the facts so plain that there can be little doubt as to what ought to be the outcome of the trial. Do not try to become eloquent or make an impas- sioned appeal; both are ludicrous at this time, and you should reserve your best effort for the final argu- ment. The practice of the defendant of reserving his opening statement until the close of plaintiff's case is generally unwise, for until that time the for- mer is under suspicion. CALLING WITNESSES. Witnesses should be called in some logical order. Usually the plaintiif himself should be called first, especially if the suit is one for personal injuries, for of course he is familiar with all the circumstances surrounding the injury. Each witness thereafter should be called with reference to his ability to 12 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE strengthen the case made by the plaintiff. . The prac- tice of reserving the plaintiff for the climax in the trial is dangerous. If the first witnesses appear in- different an unfavorable impression will be gained of the whole case which will be hard to remove. Jurors should never be permitted to lose their in- terest during the progress of a trial. All expert witnesses should be reserved for the last. A doctor should never be called to testify concerning the inju- ries of a plaintiff until after the plaintiff has been upon the stand. Never have your witnesses talk through an interpreter if they can make themselves understood in the English language. Asking questions is an art which but few lawyers have mastered. It is so much easier to cross-examine a witness than it is to examine him in chief that the weak lawyer spends most of his time during the trial indulging in what he calls ' ' cross-examination. ' ' For a lawyer to bring out all that his witnesses know upon a given subject without asking leading questions requires great skill. A leading question is one which contains a suggestion of the answer desired; it is never proper on direct examination unless it is evi- dent the witness is hostile or the answer called for is merely preliminary or it is sought to contradict directly some testimony previously given. Leading questions must especially be avoided in the direct examination of children and others who may be under disability. Always avoid asking insulting questions of a witness. A lawyer's license was never intended to give him that privilege. These questions never injure the witness half so much as they do the ques- TRYING A CASE 13 tioner. It is bad practice to ask the same questions of every witness. Seldom can all witnesses testify to the same facts. The questions to each witness should be confined to the particular facts with which he is conversant. GROSS-EXAMINATION. Most lawyers cross-examine simply because the witness has been turned over to them and it is their turn. They usually begin by asking the same ques- tions asked by opposing counsel and thus give the witness an opportunity to impress further upon the minds of the jury his former testimony. The sole object of cross-examination is to weaken the case of your adversary. Unless you are reasonably sure of doing this do not cross-examine. The writer is con- vinced that in over one-half of the cases tried cross- examination has strengthened the opposition. No lawyer should cross-examine unless he has a definite purpose in every question asked, and unless he is reasonably certain that his client will be the gainer thereby. His purpose should be to break down the story of a witness or to gain an admission which will be of advantage to his cause. The defendant has no right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses upon matters pertaining wholly to the defense. Leading questions may be asked in examining an adverse witness and a foundation may thus be laid for impeaching such witness. In order to lay this foundation the questions asked must al- ways include the time when, the place where, and 14 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE the persons with whom the conversation occurred by- means of which the witness is to be impeached. THE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION. Few realize how large a factor the expert witness has become in our judicial procedure. In every case where professional, mechanical, or scientific knowl- edge is required, the expert is indispensable. A case is now rarely tried where the rules of procedure do not require that certain proof be made by means of hypothetical questions, and few trial lawyers there are who have given this subject sufficient considera- tion properly to propound such questions. A hypothetical question must always be abstract and must assume all the facts stated therein to be true. The difficulty that generally arises in stating such questions is that some of the facts assumed are not sufficiently proved by the evidence in the case and the answers based upon such questions are, there- fore, misleading. No facts should be assumed that might not be reasonably found by the jury from the evidence in the case, nor should facts be omitted from the questions which are necessary to establish the theory of the case and which appear to be proved by the evidence offered. It is never safe to ask a mixed question, part of which is hypothetical and part based upon evidence offered, for no one can tell just how much of the answer is based upon the evi- dence and how much upon the expert knowledge of the witness. TRYING A CASE 15 RECOLLECTIONS REFRESHED FROM MEMORANDA. Great uncertainty exists among lawyers as to how far a witness may go in refreshing his memory from memoranda. The most general belief exists among the members of the bar that the only memoranda that may be used by a witness are such as were made by himself at the time the transactions occurred. The rule, however, is much broader. When it has been shown that a witness cannot testify correctly without refreshing his recollection he may have access to any writing or memorandum which he knows to be cor- rect, whether made by him or by someone else, and whether made at the time of the transaction or at any subsequent time, and whether such memorandum be an original or a copy, the only test being whether, after examining the document, the witness can truth- fully say that his memory has been refreshed thereby. The memorandum thus used must always be shown to the opposing counsel and may be offered in evi- dence if the witness's recollection is based entirely upon it. A witness may be permitted to look at a book con- taining memoranda which he knows to be correct and to testify to the entries in the same, if by looking at the book his memory of the original transaction has been refreshed. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. Little difficulty is encountered during a trial in making proof of original documents. If a document is one executed between the parties to the litigation 16 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE proof must be made of their signatures. If it is an original letter proof must be made of the genuineness of the signature thereto. The greatest difficulty, however, is encountered by lawyers when it is desired to offer in evidence copies of original instruments. Some of these difficulties will be referred to spe- cifically. It is never allowable to offer in evidence a part of a written document, but all of the document which forms the subject of dispute between the par- ties must be offered or none of it will be received. Notice to Produce. Whenever it is desired to produce in evidence a copy of an instrument in writing it is necessary that a notice be given in advance to produce in court the original of such writing. This notice must spe- cifically describe the instrument to be produced and reasonable time must be allowed between the giving of the notice and the date of trial for its production. If there is no copy of the instrument in existence and the original has been lost, proof must be clearly made that the original cannot be found and that a diligent search has been made for it in all places where the same might reasonably be expected to be found. The most frequent occasion for such a notice arises when it is desired to introduce in evidence copies of telegrams and letters. How to Prove a Telegram. No more frequent mistake is made by lawyers than assuming that the telegram received is always the TRYING A CASE 17 original and that no notice is necessary before offer- ing it in evidence. Whether the telegram received is the original or only a copy depends entirely upon the circumstances of each case. If the sender of a telegram acts upon his own initiative in sending it the instrument signed by him and delivered to the office of the telegraph company is the original and the one received at the other end of the line is a copy; but if the message has been sent in response to a request from the one receiving it, then the message received is the original. When one of two litigants has requested the other to use the telegraph in reply he thereby makes the telegraph company his agent for the purpose of that reply, and as between the two the message received is the original. How to Prove a Letter. Where correspondence has passed between the par- ties involved in a law suit and it is desired to offer all or any part of this in evidence, a careful tabula- tion of such correspondence should be made before the trial and a notice served on the opposite party to produce all original correspondence. Such notice must be specific as to the date and character of the communications. No lawyer should rely upon his opponent's pro- ducing the originals in compliance with the notice, but the former must carefully prepare himself to prove the contents of such letters by introducing copies of the same. In order to do this he must be able to show who wrote the letters, who signed them, and who mailed them. It is never sufficient simply 18 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE to testify that such letters were mailed, but it must be affirmatively shown that the letters were put in envelopes, the envelopes sealed and properly ad- dressed, then stamped and dropped into the post office. It is sufficient if a letter was put into the mail chute in an office building or business block. HOW TO PROVE A BOOK ACCOUNT. What books of account may be admitted in evi- dence? Great confusion exists in the minds of the legal fraternity on this subject and woeful blunders are daily made in court because attorneys erroneously suppose that any book in which is kept a memoran- dum of a transaction between the parties in the suit is admissible in evidence to prove such transaction. Book accounts are always self-serving declarations and are allowed in evidence only upon the theory that the entries in them were made in due course of business at the time the transactions occurred and are, therefore, entitled to much weight. Generally only such books are admissible as show a series of transactions between the parties, such as goods sold and delivered, or services performed from time to time. A mere entry in a book by one of the parties of a single isolated transaction, or the entry of an order or series of orders for goods, does not render such books admissible. The recording in a book of the number of hours or days spent in doing certain work does not make that book competent. It may be used to refresh the recollection, but it is not generally admissible in evidence. TRYING A CASE 19 In order to render a book of account admissible great care must be taken to lay the proper foundation by showing who made the entries, how and when they were made, and that the same are true and correct. The parties making the entries must testify to them unless it is shown they cannot be produced, in which event anyone who has personal knowledge of them and of their correctness may testify. HOW TO PROVE A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION. The fundamental rule governing all telephone con- versations is that before they can be admitted in evidence the parties to such conversations must be clearly identified. The general rule is that the party seeking to testify to such conversation must have recognized the voice of the person with whom he talked. This rule is not always controlling. If the identity can be reasonably established in any other way the conversation is competent. If a business house is equipped with telephones it thereby invites those dealing with it to use them, and if a course of business is established through telephone commu- nication one may testify to a conversation had with someone whose voice he recognizes as of one with whom he has talked before in the regular course of business with such house, although he may not know who the party is or what is the extent of his author- ity. The Supreme Court of Illinois said (225 111. 572) : " Where a person places himself in connection with the telephone system through an instrument in his 20 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE office he thereby invites communication through that channel. * * * The fact that the voice at the telephone was not identified does not render the con- versation inadmissible.' ' TESTIMONY OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. Every lawyer should familiarize himself with the law of his forum affecting the testimony of husband and wife for or against each other. Most lawyers, having become familiar with the common law rule which denies the right of either one to testify for or against the other, assume that this rule governs in all cases, when in fact the rule has been modified in nearly every state of the Union. In several states the relationship of husband and wife has no effect upon their competency as witnesses. This is true in New York, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Florida, and South Dakota. In Illinois the husband may testify for his wife in any case involving her private prop- erty. The wife, however, cannot testify for the husband under the same circumstances. If both are injured in an accident he may testify for her, but she cannot testify for him. In some forms of actions they may testify against each other, as in divorce proceedings or actions for wife abandonment, or for an injury to the person of one of them by the other. HOW TO IMPEACH A WITNESS. There are, in general, two ways to impeach a witness : 1. By showing that he has made statements at TRYING A CASE 21 other times and places different from those made upon the witness stand. 2. By showing that his reputation for truth and veracity is bad among his neighbors and business associates. In order to make the first proof it is always nec- essary to lay the proper foundation by asking the witness sought to be impeached whether or not he made the specific statements which it is claimed vary from his testimony given upon the trial. It is always essential that the time, place, and persons to whom such statements are alleged to have been made be included in the question put to the witness. When witnesses are afterwards called to prove the alleged contrary statements they must be asked the same question put to the witness sought to be impeached. They cannot be asked to relate a conversation had with such witness. If it is desired to impeach a witness by showing that he made a statement in writing at some previous time and signed it, such statement should be first shown to the witness, or his attention called to it, and he should be given an opportunity to explain or correct the statement. If he denies the statement contained in such writing the writing may then be offered in evidence, HOW TO PROVE DAMAGES. No other rules of procedure are as difficult of application as those having reference to the methods of proving damages. In nearly every case the plain- tiff is called upon to make proper proof of the 22 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE damages. If the issue is merely one involving a sale and delivery of goods at a fixed price the question does not arise. In more than four-fifths of all trials expert testimony is required to prove the damages before there can be a recovery. If one works by the hour, by the day, by the week, or by the month, with- out a specific contract, expert testimony is necessary to determine what is the usual and customary wages paid for that service. If work is performed by one party for another without a specific agreement as to price, the question of the value of such work must always be proved by one familiar with the usual and customary charge for doing the same. Thus, a doctor or lawyer must be called to prove the value of medical or legal services rendered. The bill ren- dered by the doctor or the lawyer involved in the litigation, or the amount paid by the patient or the client, are not competent evidence of the value of the services rendered. If a machinist works upon your machine without a specific contract he can only prove the value of his work by showing what is the usual and customary price for such work. His books are never admissible in evidence to prove his charge, nor is it proper for him or anyone to testify that any given number of hours or days were devoted to the work, unless the witness testifies that he either did the work himself or directly supervised it, and knows of his own knowledge that the work was done and the time was actually spent in doing the same. TRYING A CASE 23 HOW TO PROVE MARKET VALUE. If the article which is the subject of litigation has a market value, proof of such value must always be given by one familiar with the trade in such com- moditv. Bv reason of the fact that the market value of any article is always more or less fluctuating, the testimony given must be more or less uncertain and must, in a large degree, be the expression of the opinion of the witness. For this reason a proper foundation for the testimonv must be laid bv show- ing that the witness has had some experience and familiarity with the subject. Unless this is done he will not be permitted to testify. The greatest difficulty arises where the subject of the litigation has no established market value, such as second-hand goods, or the value of an employ- ment which is outside of the regular professions or trades. In these instances the damages can only be approximated and no lawyer should enter upon the trial of a case which involves such questions without having first carefully and thoroughly studied the precedents that have been established in his juris- diction for such proof. PREPARING INSTRUCTIONS. Where, under the prevailing practice, instructions are prepared by counsel for the respective parties and submitted to the court, the greatest care must be exercised in drafting them. As a rule the plain- tiff should submit but few instructions. He should 24 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE always remember that the burden is on him not only to obtain a judgment but to sustain that judgment in a court of review. A misstatement of the law in a single instruction offered on his behalf will very often defeat his cause. It is much better to rely for a verdict upon a clear and forceful argument to the jury. The defendant can afford to submit a larger number of instructions touching upon his theory of the case, for often delay by reversal of the cause means a victory for him. In drafting instructions much care should be exercised to make them as clear and comprehensive as possible. Involved instruc- tions are always to be avoided. Particular care should be taken to see that the instructions are drawn upon some logical theory of the case. Unless this is done the sum total effect upon the jury is to confuse it doubly. ARGUING A DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE. In all trials counsel should always be prepared to argue the legal questions that will be raised by a demurrer to the evidence either at the close of plain- tiff's case or at the close of all the evidence. In making this argument lawyers should remember that courts are not generally influenced by the number of cases presented but rather by the authority of such cases. It is of the utmost importance in an argument of this kind that the best case that counsel can pro- duce touching upon the questions involved be first TRYING A CASE 25 presented to the court. To cite as your first case one that is not in point or not binding upon the court at once leaves an impression upon the mind of the court that counsel citing it either does not understand his case or has but little faith in it. Courts continu- ally contend with this haphazard method. Too often it leads to hasty conclusions and ' l bad law. ' : No case should ever be cited as an authority that is not in point, for such conduct only weakens an argument. It may sometimes occur that no precedent can be found that will exactly fit the facts of the case at bar. Seldom, however, will a question be raised but that some authority can be found to throw light upon it. CLOSING ARGUMENT. A jury is like a great organ with twelve keys, each key connected with a thousand sensitive strings. The notable lawyers of the world have been the men who play upon this instrument in such a way that all its strings vibrate in perfect harmony. It takes only one discordant note to destroy the harmony. One juror unconvinced means defeat. Earnestness is the great- est asset of the lawyer at this stage of the trial. The jury must be made to feel that the lawyer means just what he says, and believes absolutely in the justice of his cause. In reviewing the evidence any attempt to misrep- resent an opponent or to treat him unfairly generally reacts with disastrous effect. One should always state his adversary's position fairly, then proceed to point out its weakness. 26 MODERN AMERICAN LAW LECTURE Lawyers often fail by attempting to discuss in detail the testimony of all the witnesses throughout the trial in the order in which thev were called to the stand. The greatest effectiveness, however, in the closing argument is achieved by putting the most emphasis upon the testimony of your own witnesses and then appropriating from the testimony of your opponent's witnesses whatever strengthens your cause. Beware of story-telling; this is a waste of precious time and detracts from your earnestness. A story that is in the slightest degree off-color will be re- sented by at least one man on the jury. Besides it is always difficult to tell a new story, and it is always unwise to tell an old one. Avoid calling witnesses " liars." They may be liars but your brutal frankness is more likely to arouse sympathy for them than to convict them of falsifying. CONCLUSION. Let none forget that the only purpose of a trial is to ascertain the truth. Every effort of judge, jury, and lawyers must be directed toward this end. It will often appear that an adherence to certain well-estab- lished rules of procedure will result in a miscarriage of justice. No law was ever made which did not operate unjustly at some time. All laws must be tested as to whether they work the greatest good to the greatest number. For instance, the innocent holder for value of a promissory note is often the guilty holder of it. But experience has shown that TRYING A CASE 27 the rule involved is the best to safeguard the rights of the general public. When Sir Walter Raleigh was upon trial for his life he demanded that the witnesses against him be compelled to face him in court. This demand was ignored by the Lord Chief Justice of England, who said that if such a rule was established it would result in freeing every guilty man then confined in English prisons. Sir Walter replied that if such a rule was not established it would result in filling English prisons with innocent men and women. Sub- sequent events have proved that Raleigh was right, and today the rule for which he contended lies at the foundation of our civil liberty. Every lawyer ought to feel that he belongs to the noblest of professions. For upon him, more than upon any other, rests the responsibility of preserv- ing to us our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Cjcfulora — — GAYLAMOUNT ty . PAM PHIET BINDER Syrocuse, N.Y. Stockton, Colif. ; UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY III II III III I III III I II II II II II I II I III I II II III III II III 111 I III I:! I II II II II III II I III I AA 000 176 827 4