“Yes,” said I, “and sometimes he’s both; and one judge will take one view of his case—his conduct out of Court, and his demeanour in—while another judge will take another; why, I have known a man lose his case through having a wart upon his nose.”
“Gracious!” exclaimed my wife, “is it possible?”
“Yes,” quoth I; “and another through having a twitch in his eye. Then you may have a foolish jury, who take a prejudice against a man. For instance, if a lawyer brings an action, he can seldom get justice before a common jury; and so if he be sued. A blue ribbon
man on the jury will be almost sure to carry his extreme virtue to the border of injustice against a publican. Masters decide against workmen, and so on.”
“Well, Mr. Bumpkin is not a lawyer, or a publican, or a blue ribbon man, so I hope he’ll win.”
“I don’t hope anything about it,” I replied. “I shall note down what takes place; I don’t care who wins.”
“When will his case at the Old Bailey come on? I think that’s the term you use.”
“It will be tried next week.”
“He is sure to punish that wicked thief who stole his watch.”
“One would think so: much will depend upon the way Mr. Bumpkin gives his evidence; much on the way in which the thief is defended; a good deal on the ability of the Counsel for the Prosecution; and very much on the class of man they get in the jury box.”