Legal amusements from early area lawyers
The legal profession has a long and distinguished history in Columbus and central Ohio. Many of the cases resolved here had notable effects, and the members of the local bar \established themselves as able practitioners of the law.
Having said all of that, there were times when a little amusement enters into the legal process, either by what was said or why it came to court in the first place. A few examples from the period after the Civil War from a local history written at that time illustrate the point.
“In the spring of 1875, Corbin’s saloon in Westerville was considerably wrecked by an explosion of gunpowder. For this act, Corbin caused seven of the leading citizens and temperance people of the village to be arrested and brought before Judge Remmy of Columbus on a charge of riotous destruction of property. The Justice put the arrested persons under bond to appear at the Court of Common Pleas to answer to an indictment that might be presented against them by the Grand Jury. No indictment was found and the defendants were discharged; but some of them and others to the number of nine had also been arrested on a peace warrant on Corbin’s complaint and brought before Judge Remmy, who put them under bond to answer the complaint in the Court of Common Pleas.
“On a plea of ‘not guilty’ the defendants came to trial before Judge Edward Bingham, and after full hearing were discharged with judgment against Corbin for costs. During the progress of this trial one of the attorneys for the prosecution intimated pretty strongly by his questions that one of the defendants, a pronounced temperance man, would himself occasionally take a drink. Finally, the time came for this attorney … to make a bold charge in the form of this
interrogatory, ‘Now. Mr. ________, don’t you think that you and I can drink more whisky in a given time than any other two men in the state?’ The court, counsel and large audience were appalled at such a question to such a man, but not so the gentleman addressed, who, adjusting his spectacles to a proper focus, slowly and deliberately replied to his accuser, “I don’t know but that is so, and I wouldn’t have to drink any either.”
“Many amusing things occur in court proceedings. On a certain occasion, a man was on trial for stealing hogs, and in the course of his testimony in his own behalf declared that he bought the hogs of a stranger and gave his note for the purchase price in whole or part. He then left the witness stand with a fair prospect of acquittal, but his counsel had omitted to ask him when he gave the note and recalled him in order to make inquiry on that point, saying, ‘I forgot to ask you when it was you gave the note, was it before or after you stole the hogs?’ The answer was, ‘It was before.’ The court, counsel and bystanders exploded with laughter and the jury returned a verdict of ‘guilty as charged in the indictment.’”
A different incident occurred in the court of Judge J.R. Swan:
“Elijah Backus, then at the bar, presented the application of a native of Ireland to become a citizen of the United States, and requested the court to have the requisite oath to support the Constitution of the United States administered to the applicant, to whom, Judge Swan, before swearing him, addressed the inquiry whether he had ever read the Constitution.
“The man replied that he had not, and that he could not read, whereupon the judge suggested that this proposed oath would not amount to much unless the man taking it should know what he was swearing to support, and that he had better first inform himself as to what the Constitution was. This was shortly before the noon recess, during which Mr. Backus took his client out into the back yard and read the Constitution to him from beginning to end.”
“When the court reconvened in the afternoon, Mr. Backus addressed Judge Swan as follows: ‘May it please your Honor, during the recess of this court I have read to my Irish friend here the Constitution of the United States from beginning to end, and he seems to be very much pleased with it. I renew my motion that the requisite oath to support the Constitution of the United States be now administered to him, and that he be admitted to citizenship.’ Judge Swan enjoyed the joke and granted the motion.”
And finally, there is the question of ability:
“The Supreme Court some years ago decided a case in which Chauncy Olds presented a printed argument for his client. After due consideration, the court decided the case against Olds. Soon afterward one of the judges in the case … complimented him on the “able” argument he had presented … Mr. Olds replied, ‘Yes, my argument was able; I am sorry that its ability did not get into the decision.’ The joke was on the judges and they frequently told it on themselves.”
Local historian and author Ed Lentz writes this “As It Were” column for The Columbus Dispatch.