the
HUMOUROUS STORY
of
FARMER BUMPKIN’S LAWSUIT:

by
RICHARD HARRIS,

barrister-at-law,
author of “hints on advocacy,” etc., etc.

SECOND EDITION.

LONDON:
STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE,
Law Publishers and Booksellers.
1883.

london:
bradbury, agnew, & co., printers, whitefriars.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

Considering the enormous interest which the Public have in “a more efficient and speedy administration of justice,” I am not surprised that a Second Edition of “Mr. Bumpkin’s Lawsuit” should be called for so soon after the publication of the first.  If any proof were wanting that I had not overstated the evils attendant on the present system, it would be found in the case of Smitherman v. The South Eastern Railway Company, which came before the House of Lords recently; and judgment in which was delivered on the 16th of July, 1883.  The facts of the case were extremely simple, and were as follow:—A man of the name of Smitherman was killed on a level crossing of

the South Eastern Railway Company at East Farleigh, in December, 1878.  His widow, on behalf of herself and four children, brought an action against the Company on the ground of negligence on the part of the defendants.  The case in due course was tried at the Maidstone Assizes, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict for £400 for herself and £125 for each of the children.  A rule for a new trial was granted by the Divisional Court: the rule for the new trial was discharged by the Court of Appeal.  The Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal, and ordered a new trial.  New trial took place at Guildhall, City of London, before Mr. Baron Pollock; jury again found for the plaintiff, with £700 agreed damages: Company thereby saving £200.  Once more rule for new trial granted by Divisional Court: once more rule discharged by Court of Appeal: once more House of Lords reverse decision of Court of Appeal, and order second new trial.  So

that after more than four years of harassing litigation, this poor widow and her children are left in the same position that they were in immediately after the accident—except that they are so much the worse as being liable for an amount of costs which need not be calculated.  The case was tried by competent judges and special juries; and yet, by the subtleties of the doctrine of contributory negligence, questions of such extreme nicety are raised that a third jury are required to give an opinion upon the same state of facts upon which two juries have already decided in favour of the plaintiff and her children.

Such is the power placed by our complicated, bewildering, and inartistic mode of procedure, in the hands of a rich Company.

No one can call in question the wisdom or the learning of the House of Lords: it is above criticism, and beyond censure; but the

House of Lords itself works upon the basis of our system of Procedure, and as that is neither beyond criticism nor censure, I unhesitatingly ask, Can Old Fogeyism and Pettifoggism further go?

RICHARD HARRIS.

Lamb Building, Temple,
   October, 1883.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

When Old Fogeyism is being lowered to his last resting place, Pettifoggism, being his chief mourner, will be so overwhelmed with grief that he will tumble into the same grave.  How then to hasten the demise of this venerable Humbug is the question.  Some are for letting him die a natural death, others for reducing him gradually by a system of slow starvation: for myself, I confess, I am for knocking him on the head at once.  Until this event, so long wished for by all the friends of Enlightenment and Progress, shall have happened, there will be no possibility of a Reform which will lessen the needless expense and shorten the unjustifiable delay which our present system of legal procedure occasions; a system which gives to the rich immeasurable

advantages over poor litigants; and amounts in many cases not only to a perversion of justice but to a denial of it altogether.

Old Fogeyism only tinkers at reform, and is so nervous and incompetent that in attempting to mend one hole he almost invariably makes two.  The Public, doubtless, will, before long, undertake the much needed reform and abolish some of the unnecessary business of “judges’ chambers,” where the ingenuity of the Pettifogging Pleader is so marvellously displayed.  How many righteous claims are smothered in their infancy at this stage of their existence!

I have endeavoured to bring the evils of our system before the Public in the story of Mr. Bumpkin.  The solicitors, equally with their clients, as a body, would welcome a change which would enable actions to be carried to a legitimate conclusion instead of being stifled by the “Priggs” and “Locusts” who will crawl into an honorable profession.  It is impossible to keep them out, but it is not impossible to prevent their using the profession to the injury of their clients.  All respectable solicitors would

be glad to see the powers of these unscrupulous gentlemen curtailed.

The verses at the end of the story have been so often favourably received at the Circuit Mess, that I thought an amplified version of them in prose would not be unacceptable to the general reader, and might ultimately awaken in the public mind a desire for the long-needed reform of our legal procedure.

RICHARD HARRIS.

Lamb Building, Temple,
   July, 1883.

ADVERTISEMENT.

On the 4th of December, 1882, Our Gracious Queen, on the occasion of the opening of the Royal Courts of Justice, said:—

“I trust that the uniting together in one place of the various branches of Judicature in this my Supreme Court, will conduce to the more efficient and speedy administration of justice to my subjects.”

On April 20th, 1883, in the House of Commons, Mr. H. H. Fowler asked the Attorney-General whether he was aware of the large number of causes waiting for trial in the Chancery Division of the High Court, and in the Court of Appeal; and whether the Government proposed to take any steps to remedy the delay and increased cost occasioned to the suitors by the present administration of the Judicature Acts.

The Attorney-General said the number of cases of all descriptions then waiting for trial in the Chancery Division was 848, and in the