Legal Redress.

in Westminster Hall , met his late opponent with the observation , "What a delicious toss up the law is . " "Yes , " said the learned counsel for the plaintiff , " it is quite refreshing . " But we doubt if the results were " refreshing" to the claimant .

This incident led us to reflect upon some of the uncertainties of the law , and upon the numerous body of practitioners who live by it , to try and reason out why there should be so many disappointments attributed to the professional agents . Of course wherever a lawsuit is established one of

the parties must lose , and that party will probably at the time blame the law , the judge , counsel , and attorney , but not himself : of course we are speaking of bona fide cases , not those nefarious transactions where an action is fought merely to gain time , or in hopes of wearing out the opponent ' s purse .

lhere are , however , some persons who . having lost through a point of law , not by the jury giving the verdict against them , but b } ' a summary decision of the judge , say , not only at the time but ever afterwards , " My attorney should have known

this , and advised me not to go into court" —not searching their own conduct to see if they did not , however unintentionally , in some way misrepresent the case to their professional representative . A suitor is sanguine , and therefore may possibly take

the brightest ( and wrong ) view of his case ; and , perchance , if one attorney tells him he has no legal ground he Avill doubt it , and go out to seek ono who Avill " prophesy soft things unto him , " and , seeing him determined to go on , undertake the case , even against his own opinion , and perhaps without such stroiiQ- assurance of success as a

certain Scotch suitor is said to have given when he replied to his lawyer : " Ye see , nion , I'll win , right or Avrong , for it just depends upon my aiu oath . " A great deal of complication in law proceedings

arises , we think , from folks drawing up agreements themselves—a practice much encouraged by the publication of " handy" law treatises , which , however useful they may be to students , appear in the hands of those who aro not aspirants to legal

honours but as weapons to be turned against themselves . Then , moreover , these pseudo-lawyers are apt to have recourse to ingenious devices for avoiding certain stamp duties by substituting them by lighter ones , which deAaces cause the issue to be against them if a trial depends upon a deed so drawn .

Then , again , there is another point to be remembered , and that is the possibility of inserting some clause or clauses not in themselves authorised by law , as the eviction of a tenant without legal process , in which case the tenant so going out will be still responsible for the rent unless the landlord has agreed to give him quittance for it . We mention this point because one or two instances wherein this has been done have come

under our notice . There can be but little doubt that arbitration , wherever it is available , is preferable to endeavouring to obtain legal redress ; but it not un frequently happens that the arbitration is refused , and then its cost is incurred in addition to those ofthe

subsequent trial . A very fallacious and often suicidal policy consists in laying an action in a lighter court than is necessary or desirable , for the costs are necessarily iucreased disproportionately to the amount sued for , and if tho plaintiff loses , probably all the costs

fall upon him , and he appearing to be vindictive , somewhat prejudices the jury against himself , as well as their being annoyed at feeling that their time is occupied by matters of trifling moment ; and , liowever honourable and anxious to do their dntjr honestly men may be , it is a certain fact that they unconsciously and contrary to their own wills are biassed by prejudices of this character .

Having given these feAV brief hints to intending suitors , we will conclude these remarks with one or two curious instances that have at different times been reported . Actions for breach of promise of marriage appear to possess a peculiar charm for the general public ,

insomuch that it is difficult to get into court to hear one of particular interest . . But some years since our attention was called to one brought by a lady against a gentleman who had promised her marriage at the end of three years . Six months be fore the appointed time arrived , the gentleman

married some one else . The action Avas laid , but the defendant ' s plea amounted to this—that the time allowed him had not yet expired ( when the action was tried it had about three months to run ) , and there was yet time for his present wife to die , and leave him free to fulfil his promise . The plaintiff was non-suited .

A coal merchant erroneously sued a farmer for a load of coals , which the former believed he had delivered ; and he brought forward a witness to swear to the said delivery . " The fanner consulted his lawyer as to what to do iu defence , saying it was impossible he could prove he had not received

them . The attorney said he could win the suit notwithstanding , and he accordingly , when the plaintiff ' s case had been heard admitted the delivery of the coals to his client as sworn to , and brought tivo Avitncsses into court who swore they saAV the farmer pay for them , and their evidence carried the day .