Page images
PDF
EPUB

arbitrators, to whose judgment the controversy has been left; and the counsellor announces to Compass that the decision is against him, and gives him the prevailing

reasons:

"A child that's base and illegitimate born,

The father found, who (if the need required it)
Secures the charge and damage of the parish,
But the father? who charged with education
But the father? then, by clear consequence,
He ought, for what he pays for to enjoy.
Come to the strength of reason, upon which
The law is grounded: the earth brings forth,
This ground or that, her crop of wheat or rye;
Whether shall the seedsman enjoy the sheaf,
Or leave it to the earth that brings it forth?
The summer tree brings forth her natural fruit,
Spreads her large arms: who but the lord of it
Shall pluck the apples or command the lops ?
Or shall they sink into the root again?

'Tis still most clear upon the father's part."

But Compass retorts, "All this law I deny, and will be mine own lawyer. Is not the earth our mother? and shall not the earth have all her children again? I would see that law durst keep any of us back: she'll have lawyers and all first, though they be none of her best children. My wife is the mother; and so much for the civil law. Now I come again, and y' are gone at the common law." He then adduces a striking illustration derived from the natural history of domestic animals, in which he supposes one man's gentleman-pig to associate with another man's lady-pig, and, in respect to their progeny, asks with great force, "Who shall keep these pigs?" This course of reasoning convinces both the justice and

the counsellor: they revoke their former opinion, and the child is adjudged to Compass.

In the Duchess of Malfi, Webster draws the character of an unjust prince and, among other things, says,

"Hears men's suits

With others' ears; will seem to sleep o' the bench

Only to entrap offenders in their answers;

Dooms men to death by information,

Rewards by hearsay.

"The law to him

Is like a foul black cobweb to a spider:
He makes it his dwelling, and a prison
To entangle those shall feed him."

SHAKSPEARE.

The most universal genius in literature could not have failed to have something to say of law and lawyers. I presume that what he has said is so familiar to our profession as not to justify a particular review. Shakspeare's frequent use of law-terms is so accurate that some have conjectured that he must have studied law; and in this circumstance, the infidels who believe that his plays were written by Bacon think they find strong confirmation. Lord Campbell has written a pamphlet on the Legal Acquirements of Shakspeare, in which he considers the question whether he probably had studied law, and concludes that there is much to be urged in support of that conjecture, but that he would not blame a jury for disagreeing about it. The most celebrated law-trial scene in literature unquestionably is that in "The Merchant of Venice." Certainly a more utterly absurd one was never depicted. Bacon never could have brought himself to

write such nonsense. Of course we must presume that Shakspeare knew better; he simply adopted the old story but a trained lawyer like Bacon could never have abandoned himself to do it. This trial scene has been humorously and seriously reviewed by lawyers. Mr. Esek Cowen, of Troy, N.Y., some years ago published in "The Albany Law Journal" a burlesque of this scene so clever that it should be reproduced as part of our subject. If I were given to punning, I should pronounce it a jew d'esprit. It is in the form of a pretended opinion of court, and runs as follows:

"COMMISSION OF APPEALS.

"LEVI SHYLOCK, appellant, v. ANGELO ANTONIO, respondent.

"This was an appeal from the judgment of the general term of the first district, affirming the report of a referee, which report contained directions for very peculiar and unusual legal remedies. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

"JOHN GRAHAM,' for the appellant.

"CHARLES S. SPENCER,' for the respondent.

[ocr errors]

"(BY THE COURT.) In order to fully understand this case, it will be necessary to refer to certain facts, not very material, perhaps, to its final determination. The defendant Antonio is an Italian merchant, doing an extensive business in the city of New York as an importer. Prior to the transactions which resulted in this suit, he had been remarkably successful, — had made much money, which he spent in a princely manner, and stood well in society,

A prominent criminal lawyer of the city of New York.

in spite of a decided tendency to mental unsoundness. We say 'mental unsoundness,' though there is no direct proof on the subject; because it seems to be conceded that he lent money to his friends without interest, which would, in most business circles, be considered evidence to warrant a commission de lunatico. He had a sporting friend of the same nationality, by the name of Bassanio, who, having been completely cleaned out' (as the vile phrase is) by a season at Saratoga, conceived a novel method of restoring his fortunes. It seems that an eccentric resident of Venango County, Penn., having made a large fortune by speculations in oil-lands, left the whole of it to his daughter, on condition that she should take for her husband the suitor who should prove most proficient in the ancient and noble game of 'Thimble Rig.' As Bassanio had been accustomed to witness this game at horse-races, he felt confident, that if he had an opportunity, he could tell in which box the 'little joker' was. But he had no money to take him to Venango County, and his acquaintance with Col. Thomas A. Scott was not sufficiently intimate to justify him in asking for a pass. In this extremity he applied to the defendant for a loan. Antonio would gladly have complied; but just before, he had invested every dollar he could raise in contraband goods, and vessels built for running the Southern blockade. Bassanio naturally suggested a note at six months; but the defendant was prohibited, by his partnership articles, from making or indorsing commercial paper outside of the business of the firm. The two friends then applied to the plaintiff, a gentleman of the Hebrew persuasion, doing business in Chatham Street, for a loan of three thousand dollars upon Antonio's credit. For several

reasons the plaintiff was little inclined to look upon the defendant with favor. Besides his unjustifiable habit of lending money without interest, which, as Shylock very properly observed, had a tendency to 'lower the rate of usance,' Antonio chewed tobacco freely, and expectorated with great carelessness upon all objects in his vicinity. Indeed, it appeared in evidence, without objection, that the defendant had frequently spit upon Shylock's 'Jewish gaberdine.' The court is not exactly certain as to what a 'gaberdine' is; no definition was attempted by either counsel upon the argument; but we may safely assume that it is a garment which is not improved by contact with tobacco-juice: and such incidents will go far to excuse, if they do not justify, the somewhat vindictive manner in which this suit was prosecuted. The plaintiff, however, at the time of this application, concealed his feelings, and told Antonio that he would charge him no interest, but would merely take a bond conditioned to the effect, that if the loan was not paid when due, the borrower should forfeit a pound of flesh nearest his heart. Bassanio pretended to demur; but Antonio was confident that the loan would be paid when due, and this somewhat singular business transaction was concluded as above stated. Bassanio went to Venango County, guessed the right box, and married the heiress. Antonio's fate was far different. He quarrelled with several members of Congress about the division of the expected profits of his venture, his understanding with the government was broken up, and his ships were sunk by the blockading squadron. And, when Bassanio returned from his wedding-tour, he found all Antonio's effects sold out by the sheriff, and numerous executions

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »