He pursed shrewd lips and said, “And in what way may I have the honor of serving you, sir?” in a solemn court-room voice.
Ug, overawed, got out, “Patsy Duffy stole General Grant.”
“Ah?” said Mr. Wigmore. “Ah?”
“He said he et his parsnips,” hurried on Ug. “But General Grant never et them. He hated parsnips—honest.”
“Ah,” said Mr. Wigmore, “an interesting historical fact. But how, may I inquire, do the tastes of the late general concern me?”
Ug poured out his story of the abduction of his pig. Mr. Wigmore said, to himself, “Patsy Duffy? Ah, yes; ah, yes.” Then he addressed Ug, as if he were a jury.
“My dear sir,” said Attorney and Counselor Wigmore gravely, “this is indeed a pretty legal problem. Hur-r-rumph! Yes, a pretty legal problem. I hesitate to give an ex-cathedra opinion on a question involving so moot a point of jurisprudence. Hur-r-rumph!”
Ug listened, confused but fascinated. The eyes of Mr. Wigmore searched the grimy ceiling.
“Hur-r-rumph!” he said, with a bass judicial clearing of the throat. “Let us put the case in its simplest terms. We have you, the plaintiff, the party of the first part; we have one Patrick Duffy, defendant, party of the second part; we have one General Grant, pig, casus belli, party of the third part; we have certain parsnips, party of the fourth part. It is alleged by the party of the first part that the party of the second part did feloniously steal, make away with and confiscate the party of the third part because said Duffy alleges said General Grant did unlawfully eat, devour and consume or cause to be consumed the party of the fourth part. The plaintiff contends that he can prove an alibi for the aforementioned General Grant and that the said General Grant is innocent of the overt act imputed to him by the party of the second part. Is that not correctly stated, sir?”
“Yes, sir,” said Ug, by now dizzy.