THE BENCH AND BAR.

Evening Star, Issue 3539, 26 June 1874, Page 2

THE BENCH AND BAR.

There are other Courts besides those of Dunedin in which the professional men make their quarrels public. We take the following instances from our Melbourne files:—

the retort courteous. The Melbourne ‘ Leader ’ of a recent date saye : It is not often that the serenity of Mr Justice Barry is disturbed when presidm the courts of law. He has been sorely tried m the interminable suits of black v. Winder and Quirk v. Watson, but in all those his Honor has possessed himself in patience, notwithstanding the blunderings of the amateur pleaders concerned. However, he became very emphatic during the progress of the suit of Meffernan v. O’Brien The husband of the plaintiff, during his cross-examination, made an allusion to a ciric dignitary residing in one of the suburbs His Honor remarked that a great deal of outside matter had been dragged into the evidence, and he did not see what this particutar gentieman had to do with the case. Mr Quinlan, who was one of the counsel lor the plaintiff, was proceeding to explain, though his senior, Mr Dobson, was crossexamining the witness, when his Honor said he had made his remark to the witness, and not to the counsel. Mr Quinlan continued his explanation, and his Honor cried out, m an authoritative and increasingly loud tone of voice •• Sit down, sir; p?ay sit down. Mr Quinlan objected to being ®P°. k * a *° T m that . way, and his Honor retorted, I repeat it, sir; sit down. There has been more than enough interruption in !hn„u a l e ’ and i . lt . is <l uite gentlemen should know their position.*’ To this Mr Quinlan replied, “Yes, and Judges too.” there was a brief pause when this retort fell on many astonished ears, and then Mr Ireland, Q. 0., in his meat persuasive whisper. Bai ~ * Keep quiet.” Bench and Bar did so, and the case proceeded. j

THE LIB DIRECT, According t° the ‘ Australasian,* during the tnalof the action Heffernan v. O’Brien, in the Supreme Court, Melbourne, a scene occurred that threatened at one time to have a very unpleasant termination. Dr Dobson who was counsel for the plaintiff, had in cross-examination asked, on the Friday, Mr Heffernan, the husband of the plaintiff whether he had ever caused his wife to enter’ tain any jealousy toward* a lady whose name was mentioned. Heffernan denied that there was any cause for jealousy. On Saturday the lady in question was put in the box, and Mr Ireland said that he must ask her a question which, under other circumstances, would have been impertinent, but which he was obliged to put, in consequence of the insinuations that had bean thrown out about her by the plaintiff’s counsel, namely, “Had she ever had any improper intimacy with Mr Heffernan?” Dr Dobson said, “We never made any insinuations.” Mr Ireland (to the witness): “ Answer the question.” The witness (emphatically): “No; certainly not.” Dr Dobson then said to the witness. “ Madam, I beg to inform you that whatever attack has been made on you was made by the defendants counsel.” Mr Ireland : “That is not true.” Dr Dobson excitedly) ; You he. Mr Ireland made some observation across the barristers’ table to Dr Dobson, which did not reach the ear of the Court. Mr Justice Barry, who was presiding, rose from his seat, closed his note-book, and said that during the twenty years of his experience on the Bench he had never heard such coarse language as that used by Dr Dobson, or witnessed such conduct. Dr Dobson replied that Mr Ireland began it, and he was bound to protect himself. Mr Justice Barry : * Nothing can justify such language as that. Dr Dobson: “It appears to me that your Honor is making fish of one and flesh of another.” Mr Justice Barry: “I no * propose to bandy vulgar proverbs with you, Dr Dobson. 1 think your observation was quite uncalled for.” Dr Dobson then said that, in deference to his Honor’s remarks, he would withdraw any offensive observations that be had made. His Honor said he was glad that the expression had been withdrawn ; he had' noticed lately a great dea! of coarse conduct and of acerbity of feeling by members of the Bar, which he much regretted. The discussion then dropped, and the trial was proceeded with. M U r b K en i t^ rou ,« h j, tko g°° d offices of MrMharland, Dr Dobson wrote a note to Mr Ireland, expressing his regret that, under a misapprehension of Mr Ireland’s remarks, he had u*ed the language referred to.