“Let me give you an instance:  In Lady D——­’s case, which has recently been tried, did not your son swear one way and you another?”

He did not deny it, whereupon I added:  “It seems strange that two infallibles should contradict one another?”

The case was at an end.

* * * * *

One evening, after a good hard day’s work, I was sitting in my easy-chair after dinner, comfortably enjoying myself, when a man, who was quite a respectable working man, came in.  I had known him for a considerable time.

“What’s the matter, Jenkins?” I inquired, seeing he was somewhat troubled.

“Well, Mr. Hawkins, it’s a terrible job, this ’ere.  I wants you to appear for me.”

“Where?” I inquired.

“At Bow Street, Mr. Hawkins.”

“Bow Street!  What have you been doing, Jenkins?”

“Why, nothing, sir; but it’s a put-up job.  You knows my James, I dessay.  Well, sir, that there boy, my son James, have been brought up, I might say, on the Church Catechism.”

“There’s not much in that,” I said, meaning nothing they could take him to Bow Street for.  “Is that the charge against him?”

“No, sir; but from a babby, sir, his poor mother have brought that there boy up to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  And it’s a curious thing, Mr. Hawkins—­a very curious thing, sir—­that arter all his poor mother’s care and James’s desire to speak the truth, they’ve gone and charged that there boy with perjury!  ’At all times,’ says his mother, ’James, speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth;’ and this is what it’s come to—­would anybody believe it, sir? Could anybody believe it?  It’s enough to make anybody disbelieve in Christianity.  And what’s more, sir, that there boy was so eager at all times to tell the whole truth that, to make quite sure he told it all, he’d go a little beyond on the other side, sir—­he would, indeed.”

When he heard my fee was a hundred guineas to appear at the police court, I heard no more of truthful James.

* * * * *

In dealing with a case where there is really no substantial defence, it is sometimes necessary to throw a little ridicule over the proceedings, taking care, first, to see what is the humour of the jury.  I remember trying this with great success, and reducing a verdict which might have been considerable to a comparatively trifling amount.

[In illustration of this Mr. Cecil A. Coward has given an incident that occurred in an action for slander tried at the Guildhall many years ago, in which Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., was for the defendant, and Mr. Joseph Brown, Q.C., for the plaintiff.  The slander consisted in the defendant pointing his thumb over his shoulder and asking another man, “Do you know him?  That’s Joe Smith.”

Mr. Joseph Brown, Q.C., had to rely upon his innuendo—­“meaning thereby Joe Smith was a rogue”—­and was very eloquent as to slander unspoken but expressed by signs and tone.  After an exhausting speech he sat down and buried his head in his bandana, as his habit was.