The Division of the Spoil.
“I am sure, if you go to law, you do not consider the appeals, degrees of jurisdiction, the intricate proceedings, the knaveries, the cravings of so many ravenous animals that will prey upon you, villainous harpies, promoters, tipstaves, and the like, none of which but will puff away the clearest right in the world for a bribe. On the other side, the proctor will side with your adversary, and sell your cause for ready money; your advocate shall be gained the same way, and shall not be found when your cause is to be heard. Law is a torment of all torments.”—Otway.
It should be mentioned that, although Mrs. Kilpatrick obtained verdicts in both trials (the first jury awarding her £600, and the second one awarding her £791, with costs in each case), still the money was not paid over. The necessary financial security was lodged by Messrs. Huddart, Parker & Co. in the Supreme Court, Melbourne, and steps taken to have the matter sent to England for decision there by the Privy Council. The hotel bar business, however, had meanwhile given a new turn to the legal kaleidoscope, and the defendants’ lawyers were placed in a pretty awkward position; for they had to face the expenses and risk of a new trial, or compromise the matter in some way. They wisely, no doubt, chose the latter course; and through a neutral friend of theirs I was communicated with, and requested to interview Mrs. Kilpatrick and Mr. Ponting for the purpose of ascertaining how much—or rather, how little—money they would take to settle matters, and stop all law proceedings. Why I was sent for I know not, seeing that I was opposed from the outset to law proceedings on the part of Mrs. Kilpatrick and Mr. Ponting too! Suffice it here to say that I did interview them both, and paved the way for the final settlement, which took place on May 20, 1897. Where the money came from is hard to say, but it is generally believed that Messrs. Huddart, Parker & Co. paid in the case of Mrs. Kilpatrick, and their lawyers paid in the case of Mr. Ponting. In dividing the “spoil,” the winning lawyers must have had a merry scramble, for they carried off more than two-thirds of the whole! The poet, Pope, was not very far wrong when he said, or wrote:—
“There, take, says Justice, take ye each a shell;
We thrive at Westminster on fools like you:
’Twas a fat oyster—live in peace—adieu!”
A little light is thrown on the subject by the following extract from the columns of the Melbourne Herald of June 1, 1897:—
THE “ALERT” LITIGATION.