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 non-suited, because in his declaration, he had not specified what color he was of: for thus wisely and thus learnedly spoke the counsel:- My lord, if the bull was of no color, he must be of some color; and if he was of no color, what color could the bull be of?" I overruled this motion myself, by observing the bull was a white bull, and that white is no color: besides, as I told my brethren, they should not trouble their heads to talk of color in the law, for the law can color 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-baliff'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.

G. A. STEVENS.

DANIEL v. DISHCLOUT.

WE shall now consider the law, as our laws are very considerable, both in bulk and number, according as the statutes declare; considerandi, considerando, considerandum, and not to be meddled with by those that don't understand 'em. Law always expresses itself in true grammatical precision, never confounding moods, cases, or genders, except indeed when a woman happens accidentally to be slain, then the verdict is always brought in Manslaughter. The essence of law is altercation; for the law can altercate, fulminate, deprecate, irritate, and go on at any rate. 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 puzzliendum; fourthly, replication without endum; and fifthly, monstrum et horrendum; all which are exemplified in the following case of Daniel against

Dishclout. Daniel was groom in the same family wherein Dishclout was cookmaid; and Daniel, returning home one day fuddled, he stooped down to take a sop out of the dripping-pan; Dishclout pushed him into the dripping-pan, which spoiled his clothes; and he was advised to bring his action against the cookmaid; the pleadings of which were as follow. The first person who spoke was Mr. Serjeant Snuffle. He began, saying, “My lo'd, since I have the honour to be pitched upon to open this cause to your lo'dship, I shall not impertinently presume to take up any of your lo'dship's time by a round-about circumlocutory manner of speaking or talking, quite foreign to the purpose, and not any way relating to the matter in hand, I shall, I will, I design to show what damages my client has sustained hereupon, whereupon, and thereupon. Now, my lo'd, my client being a servant in the same family with Dishclout, and not being at board wages, imagined he had a right to the fee-simple of the dripping-pan, therefore he made an attempt on the sop with his right hand, which the defendant replevied with her left, tripped us up, and tumbled us into the dripping-pan. Now, 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 dripping-pan 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 serving 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 Abridgment 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 any one 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 ware-house nor a wash-house, a brew-house nor a bake-house, an inn-house nor an out-house, nor a dwelling-house; no, my lud, 'tis absolutely and bona 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 sauce. pannis, stew-pannis, scullero, dressero, coal-holo, stovis, smoak-jacko; pro roastandum, boilandum, fryandum, et plum-pudding-andum mixandum; pro turtle-soupos, calveshead-ashibus, cum calipee et calepashibus; 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.

G. A. STEVENS.

DRUNKEN POLITENESS.

CENTRIC in London noise and London folly,
Proud Covent Garden blooms in smoky glory;
For chairmen, coffee-rooms, piazzas, holly,
Cabbages and comedians famed in story.

Near this famed spot, upon a sober plan,
Dwelt a right regular and staid young man ;-
Much did he early hours and quiet love,
And was entitled, Mr. Isaac Shove.

He had apartments up two pair of stairs ;
On the first floor lodged Dr. Crow ;-
The landlord was a torturer of hairs,
And made a grand display of wigs below,

From the Beau's Brutus to the parson's frizzle ;-
Over the doorway was his name; 'twas Twizzle.

Now, Isaac Shove living above this Dr. Crow,—
And knowing barber Twizzle lived below,-
Thought it might be as well,

Hearing so many knocks, single and double,
To buy at his own cost a street-door bell,
And save confusion in the house, and trouble.

Whereby his (Isaac's) visitors might know,
Without long waiting in the dirt or drizzle,
To ring for him at once,

And not to knock for Crow or Twizzle.

Besides, he now began to feel

The want of it was rather ungenteel ;-
For he had often thought it a disgrace,
To hear, while sitting in his room above,
Twizzle's shrill maid on the first landing-place,
Screaming, "A man below vants Mr. Shove.'

The bell was bought ;-the wire was made to steal
Round the dark staircase like a tortured eel