in "Broughton's Reports," Slack v. Smallwood, it is said, primus strocus, sine jocus, absolutus est provocus (i.e., the first stroke, without joke, gives the provoke). Now, who gave the primus strocus, who gave the first offence? Why, the cook; she brought the dripping-pan there; for, my lo'd, though we will allow, if we had not been there, we couldn't have been thrown down there; yet, my lo'd, if the drippingpan had not been there for us to have tumbled down into, we could not have tumbled into the dripping-pan.'

The next counsel on the same side began with :-'My lud, he who makes use of many words to no purpose has not much to say for himself; therefore I shall come to the point at once-at once and immediately shall I come to the point. My client was in liquor; the liquor in him served an ejectment upon his understanding, common sense was nonsuited, and he was a man beside himself. As Dr. Biblibus declares, in his Dissertation upon Bumpers, in the 139th fol. vol. of the Abridgement of the Statutes, p. 1286, where he says that a drunken man is homo duplicans, or a double man ; not only because he sees things double, but also because he is not as he should be, profecto ipse he; but is as he should not be, defecto tipse he.'

The counsel on the other side rose up gracefully, playing with his ruffles prettily, and tossing the ties of his wig about emphatically. He began with, 'My lud, and you gem'men of the jury, I humbly do conceive, I have the authority to declare, that I am counsel in this case for the defendant. Therefore, my lud, I shall not flourish away in words; words are no more than filigree work. Some people may think them an embellishment; but to me it is a matter of astonishment how anyone can be so impertinent, to the detriment of all rudiment. But, my lud, this is not to be looked at through the medium of right and wrong: for the law knows no medium, and right and wrong are but its shadows. Now, in the first place, they have called a kitchen my client's premises. Now a kitchen is nobody's premises; a kitchen is not a warehouse nor a washhouse, a brew-house nor a bake-house, an inn-house nor an out-house, nor a dwelling-house. No, my lud, 'tis absolutely and bonâ fide neither more or less than a kitchen, or, as the law more classically expresses it, a kitchen is-camera necessaria pro usus cookare; cum saucepannis, stew-pannis, scullero, dressero, coal-holo, stovis, smoak-jacko; pro roastandum, boilandum, fryandum, et plum-pudding-andum mixandum; pro turtle-soupos, calves-head-ashibus, cum calipee et caleapshibus; but we shall not avail ourselves of an alibi, but

admit of the existence of a cook-maid. Now, my lud, we shall take it upon a new ground, and beg a new trial; for as they have curtailed our name from plain Mary into Moll, I hope the court will not admit of this; for if the court were to allow of mistakes, what would the law do? For when the law don't find mistakes, it is the business of the law to make them.'

Therefore, the court allowed them the liberty of a new trial; for the law is our liberty, and it is happy for us we have the liberty to go to law.

Ex. 217.

Bullum v. Boatum.

Stevens.

There were two farmers; farmer A. and farmer B. Farmer A. was seised or possessed of a bull; farmer B. was seised or possessed of a ferry-boat. Now the owner of the ferryboat, having made his boat fast to a post on shore with a piece of hay, twisted rope-fashion, or, as we say, vulgo vocato, a hayband. After he had made his boat fast to a post on shore (as it was very natural for a hungry man to do), he went up town to dinner. Farmer A.'s bull (as it was very natural for a hungry bull to do), came down town to look for a dinner; and observing, discovering, seeing, and spying out some turnips in the bottom of the ferry-boat, the bull scrambled into the ferry-boat-he ate up the turnips, and, to make an end of his meal, fell to work upon the hayband. The boat, being eaten from its moorings, floated down the river with the bull in it. It struck against a rock, beat a hole in the bottom of the boat, and tossed the bull overboard; whereupon the owner of the bull brought an action against the boat for running away with the bull. The owner of the boat brought his action against the bull for running away with the boat. And thus notice of trial was given, Bullum v. Boatum, and Boatum v. Bullum.

The counsel for the bull began with saying :— 'My lord, and you, gentlemen of the jury, we are counsel in this cause for the bull. We are indicted for running away with the boat. Now, my lord, we have heard of running horses, but never of running bulls before. Now, my lord, the bull could no more run away with the boat than a man in a coach may be said to run away with the horses. Therefore, my lord, how can we punish what is not punishable? How can we eat what is not eatable? or how can we drink what is not drinkable? or, as the law says, how can we think what is not thinkable? Therefore, my lord, as we are

counsel in this cause for the bull, if the jury should bring the bull in guilty, the jury would be guilty of a bull.'

The counsel for the boat observed,―That the bull should be nonsuited, because, in his declaration, he had not specified what colour he was off; for thus wisely and thus learnedly spoke the counsel :-- -'My lord, if the bull was of no colour, he must be of some colour; and if he was of no colour, what colour could the bull be of?' I overruled this motion myself, by observing that the bull was a white bull, and that white is no colour; besides, as I told my brethren, they should not trouble their heads to talk of colour in the law, for the law can colour anything. This cause being afterwards left to a reference, upon the award, both bull and boat were acquitted, it being proved that the tide of the river carried them both away; upon which I gave it as my opinion, that, as the tide of the river carried both bull and boat away, both bull and boat had a good action against the water-bailiff.

My opinion being taken, an action was issued; and upon the traverse, this point of the law arose: How, wherefore, and whether, why, when, and what, whatsoever, whereas, and whereby, as the boat was not a compos mentis evidence, how could an oath be administered? That point was soon settled by Boatum's attorney declaring, that for his client he would swear anything.

The water-bailiff's charter was then read, taken out of the original record in true law Latin; which set forth in their declaration that they were carried away by the tide of flood, or by the tide of ebb. The charter of the waterbailiff was as follows:-'Aquæ bailiffi est magistratus in choici, sapor omnibus fishibus, qui habuerunt finnos et scalos, claws, shells, et talos, qui swimmare in freshibus, vel saltibus riveris, lakis, pondis, canalibus et well-boats, sive oysteri, prawni, whitini, shrimpi, turbutus solus'-i.e., not turbots alone, but turbots and soles, both together. But now comes the nicety of the law, for the law is as nice as a new-laid egg. Bullum and Boatum mentioned both ebb and flood, to avoid quibbling; but, it being proved that they were carried away neither by the tide of flood, nor by the tide of ebb, but exactly on the top of high water, they were nonsuited; but such was the lenity of the court, that, upon paying all costs, they were allowed to begin again de novo.

Stevens.

Ex. 218. Report of a Lawsuit-Goody Grim v. Lapstone. What a profound study is the law! and how difficult to fathom! 'Your son follows the law, I think, Sir Thomas?' 'Yes, madam, but I am afraid he will never overtake it. A man following the law is like two boys running round a table; he follows the law, and the law follows him.' However, if you take away the whereofs, whereases, wherefores, and notwithstandings, the whole mystery vanishes; it is then plain and simple. Now the quintessence of the law has, according to its name, five parts:-The first is the beginning, or incipiendum; the second, the uncertainty, or dubitandum; the third, delay, or puzzle-endum; fourthly, replication without endum; and fifthly, monstrum et horrendum; all which are clearly exemplified in the following caseGOODY GRIM AGAINST LAPSTONE. This trial happened in a certain town, which, for reasons, shall be nameless, and is as follows:-Goody Grim inhabited an almshouse, No. 2. Will Lapstone, a superannuated cobbler, lived in No. 3, and a certain Jew pedlar, who happened to pass through the town where those almshouses were situated, could only think of number one. Goody Grim was in the act of killing one of her own proper pigs; but the animal, disliking the ceremony, burst from her hold-ran through the semicircular legs of the aforesaid Jew-knocked him in the mud-ran back to Will Lapstone's the cobbler-upset a quart bottle full of gin belonging to the said Lapstone, and took refuge in the cobbler's state bed.

The parties being, of course, in the most opulent circumstances, consulted counsel learned in the law. The result was, that Goody Grim was determined to bring an action against Lapstone for the loss of her pig with a curly tail;' and Lapstone to bring an action against Goody Grim for the loss of a quart bottle full of Hollands gin; and Mordecai to bring an action against them both for 'de losh of a tee-totum dat fell out of his pocket in the rencounter.' They all delivered their briefs to counsel; before it was considered they were all parties and no witnesses. But Goody Grim, like a wise old lady as she was, now changed her battery, determined to bring an action against Lapstone, and bind over Mordecai as an evidence.

The indictment set forth-That he, Lapstone, not having the fear of the assizes before his eyes, but being moved by pig and instigated by pruinsence, did, on the first day of April, a day sacred in the annals of the law, steal, pocket, hide, and crib divers, that is to say, five hundred hogs,

sows, boars, pigs, and porkers, with curly tails, and did secrete the said five hundred hogs, sows, boars, pigs, and porkers, with curly tails, in the said Lapstone's bed, against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.' Mordecai was examined by counsellor Puzzle.

'Well, sir, what are you?'

'I sells old clo' and sealing-vax, and puckles.'

'I did not ask you what you sold; I ask you what you are?'

'I am about five and forty.'

'I did not ask your age; I ask you what you are?' 'I am a Jew.'

( Why couldn't you tell me that at first? Well, then, sir, if you are a Jew, tell me what you know of this affair.' 'As I vas a valking along-'

'Man-I didn't want to know where you were walking.' 'Vel, vel, vel! As I vas a valking along '

So, you will walk along in spite of all that can be said.' 'Plesh ma heart, you frighten me out of my vits. As I vas a valking along, I seed de unclean animal coming towards me-and so, says I-Oh! Father Abraham, says I,'—

'Father Abraham, sir, is no evidence.'

'You must let me tell my story my own vay, or I cannot tell it at all. As I vas a valking along, I seed de unclean animal coming towards me-and so, says I-Oh, Father Abraham, says I, here comes de unclean animal towards me, and he runned between my legs, and upshet me in te mut.' 'Now, do you mean to say, upon your oath, that that little animal had the power to upset you in the mud?'

'I vill take my oash dat he upshet me in te mut.' " And pray, sir, on what side did you fall?'

6 On te mutty side.'

'I mean, on which of your own sides did you fall ?'

'I fell on my left side.'

Now, on your oath, was it your left side?'

‘I vill take ma oash it vas my left side.’

And, pray, what did you do when you fell down?'

'I got up again as fast as I could.'

'Perhaps you can tell me whether the pig had a curly tail?'

'I vill take ma oash his tail vas so curly as my peerd.' 'And, pray, where were you going when this happened?' 'I vas going to de sign of de Goose and Gridiron."

'Now, on your oath, what has a goose to do with a gridiron?'

'I don't know, only it vas de sign of de house. And all