At last, worn out with their efforts, they finally induced the old Teuton to compromise with them on a verdict of manslaughter.  Wearily they straggled in, the old native of Schleswig-Holstein bringing up the rear, bursting with exultation and with victory in his eye.

“Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed upon a verdict?” inquired the clerk.

“We have,” replied the foreman.

“How say you, do you find the defendant guilty or not guilty?”

“Guilty—­of manslaughter,” returned the foreman feebly.

The district attorney was aghast at such a miscarriage of justice, and the judge showed plainly by his demeanor his opinion of such a verdict.  But the old inhabitant of Schleswig-Holstein cared for this not a whit.  The old mother in Schleswig-Holstein might still clasp her son in her arms before she died!  The defendant was arraigned at the bar.  Then for the first time, and to the surprise and disgust of No. 11, he admitted in answer to the questions of the clerk that his parents were both dead and that he was born in Hamburg, a town for whose inhabitants the old juryman had, like others of his compatriots, a constitutional antipathy.

The “tricks” of the trade as practised by the astute and unscrupulous criminal lawyer vary with the stage of the case and the character of the crime charged.  They are also adapted with careful attention to the disposition, experience and capacity of the particular district attorney who happens to be trying the case against the defendant.  An illustration of one of these occurred during the prosecution of a bartender for selling “spirituous liquors” without a proper license.  He was defended by an old war-horse of the criminal bar famous for his astuteness and ability to laugh a case out of court.  The assistant district attorney who appeared against him was a young man recently appointed to office, and who was almost overcome at the idea of trying a case against so well known a practitioner.  He had personally conducted but very few cases, had an excessive conception of his own dignity, and dreaded nothing so much as to appear ridiculous.  Everything, except the evidence, favored the defendant, who, however, was, beyond every doubt, guilty of the offence charged.

The young assistant put in his case, calling his witnesses one by one, and examining them with the most feverish anxiety lest he should forget something.  The lawyer for the defence made no cross-examination and contented himself with smiling blandly as each witness left the stand.  The youthful prosecutor became more and more nervous.  He was sure that something was wrong, but he couldn’t just make out what.  At the conclusion of the People’s case the lawyer inquired, with a broad grin, “if that was all.”

The young assistant replied that it was, and that, in his opinion, it was “quite enough.”