These rather scandalous attempts to convey to the jurymen who were awake Mr. Porter’s theory that the testimony for the prosecution was nonsense of the most absurd description, and to impress them with the belief that when Mr. Porter’s turn came, he would knock it, so to speak, higher than a kite, provoked Mr. Shreek to such an extent, that, finally, he stopped short in his examination of a witness, to snarl out to Mr. Porter:—
“What are you laughing at? I don’t notice anything in the testimony that is so very funny!”
“The muscles of my face are my own,” rejoined Mr. Porter, “and I will use them as I please.”
“But you have no right to divert the attention of the jury by your buffoonery!” replied Mr. Shreek, angrily.
“I will laugh when, and how, and at what I please,” said Mr. Porter. “I shall not accept any dictation from you. It’s not my fault if you have a ridiculous case!”
“I will show you how ridiculous it is before I get through,” answered Mr. Shreek.
“I know all about it already!” said Mr. Porter.
Then Mr. Shreek proceeded with his examination, and Mr. Porter laughed almost out loud two or three times, merely to show the jury that he regarded Mr. Shreek’s remonstrance with positive contempt. But it must be confessed that Mr. Porter’s mirthfulness, in this instance, seemed to lack heartiness and spontaneity.
But when Mr. Porter’s turn came to address the jury, his sense of humor had become completely benumbed, while that of Mr. Shreek had undergone really abnormal development; for Mr. Porter could hardly attempt to plunge into pathos, or to permit his unfettered imagination to take a little flight, without Mr. Shreek’s humorous susceptibilities being aroused in such a manner that the closure of his mouth with his handkerchief alone prevented him from offending the dignity of the Court.
Mr. Porter’s appeal to the jury in behalf of his client was based upon his asseveration that this was the most intelligent jury that he had ever had the honor of addressing, and upon his solemn conviction that the jurymen not only represented accurately the most respectable portion of the community, but that, as upon this occasion the jury system itself was upon trial to prove whether it truly was the bulwark of liberty, that barrier against injustice and oppression which it was vaunted to be, so this jury were, it might be said, called upon to determine whether the system was to retain the respect and confidence of mankind or to be branded by public sentiment as a wretched failure, and to be regarded in the future by all honorable men with loathing and contempt.