To a man of less indomitable will and less transcendent legal abilities, a course such as O'Connell had adopted would have been utterly ruinous. Then, as now, but to a far greater extent, the Irish judges were the mere creatures of the castle, and their least frown or sneer was considered sufficient to blast the prospects of any young aspirant for professional honors, even if he were only suspected of patriotic leanings. But in the future Emancipator they met their equal, not only in point of legal knowledge, but their superior in moral courage and in that mental force which, like a torrent, swept everything before it. The following anecdotes, told of O'Connell while in active practice, illustrate his method of dealing with the government jurists:
"Happening to be one day present in the courts in Dublin, where a discussion arose on a motion for a new trial, a young attorney was called upon by the opposing counsel either to admit a statement as evidence, or hand in some document he could legally detain. O'Connell stood up, and told the attorney to make no admission.
"'Have you a brief in this case, Mr. O'Connell?' asked Baron McCleland, with very peculiar emphasis.
"'I have not, my lord; but I shall have one when the case goes down to the assizes.'
"'When I was at the bar, it was not my habit to anticipate briefs.'
"'When you were at the bar, I never chose you for a model; and now that you are on the bench, I shall not submit to your dictation.'
"Leaving the judge to digest this retort, he walked out of the court, accompanied by the young attorney.
"At a case tried at the Cork assizes, a point arose touching the legality of certain evidence, which O'Connell argued was clearly admissible. He sustained his own view very fully, reasoning with that force and clearness, and quoting precedent with that facility, for which he was distinguished. But it was to no purpose. The court ruled against him, and the witnesses were shut out. The trial was of extraordinary length, and at the close of the day the proceedings were not ended. On the following morning, when the case was about to be resumed, the judge addressed O'Connell:
"'I have reconsidered my decision of yesterday,' said his lordship, 'and my present opinion is that the evidence tendered by you should not have been rejected. You can, therefore, reproduce the evidence now.'
"Instead of obsequiously thanking him for his condescension, as another would have done, O'Connell's impatience broke out: