Advice

Guest of honor at a luncheon given in Manhattan by the students of the Fordham Law School was Max D. Steuer, famed "courtroom" lawyer. While the rapt students flicked ashes into their demi-tasse saucers, Mr. Steuer told them how to talk to a jury. Said he:

"Don't bring your papers into court in an expensive briefcase; bring them in an ordinary paper wrapping. Don't try to be important. Don't try to be a Joseph Choate. Few of us become Choates. "

Try to get a seat at a table near the jury and let the jury see what you are doing. . . . Have your papers open where the jury can see them; let anyone see them. You are not afraid to let others know about your case. Why should you ? . . . Nine out of ten times your opponent has someone on guard. The jury sees the difference; and at once catches the suggestion that he has something to hide. . . . "

Lean on the table and look the jury in the eye. . . . "If, while addressing them, you look at the other side of the room and the eyes of the jurymen follow you, then you have got them. . . . "

Don't use big words. The jury is made up of ordinary persons. Use, then, the same language that the jury men would use in telling your story to his wife and children. . . . "

Try to get along without much eating during the recess of a trial. . . . "

There will never be a case tried, whether you win or lose, after which you won't lie in bed and toss while you think of the things you could have done, the things you left unsaid."

A Record

Court proceedings, which began at Dedham, Mass., on Nov. 5, 1923, occupied 184 full days, involved 4,000,000 words of testimoony and 954 exhibits, last week came to a close. To arrive at a decision the jury deliberated four days before giving a verdict for the plaintiff--a record case for the U. S.*

Suit was brought by George F. Willett, Norwood manufacturer, against Robert F. Herrick, prominent Boston corporation lawyer, and the partners of the banking firm of F. S. Mosely & Co. and Kidder, Peabody & Co. for a conspiracy on the part of the defendant bankers and Mr. Herrick, their counsel, to get for themselves valuable manufacturing properties including the American Felt Co. and the Daniel Green Felt Shoe Co., belonging to the plaintiff and his partners.

Only eleven of the jurors impaneled for the trial decided on the verdict. The twelfth suffered a nervous collapse and was forced to leave the box, counsel agreeing to continue with a jury of eleven. Two of the jury were married during the trial. A special act of the Massachusetts Legislature gave the jurors extra compensation on account of the prolonged neglect of their business. Verdict was given for the plaintiff in $10,534,109 damages.

As far as the size of the award goes, it is hardly more than one-third the amount assessed against the Standard Oil Co. by Judge Landis ($29,000,000) at its dissolution in 1911. Of course, in the Standard Oil Case, a criminal case, the amount fixed was a fine and was set by the judge. In this case, a civil action, the $10,534,109 was damages and was fixed by the jury.

The jury filed out of the court and presented a leather satchel to the judge and leather pockets to the court attendants. The attorney for the plaintiff rushed to the telephone and telephoned to his client, Mr. Willett. Mr. Willett was at home seriously ill with typhoid fever, but the family physician decided to let him know. "Ten million dollars!" he muttered, and tried to write it on a piece of paper. Counsel for the defence prepared to appeal the case to the State Supreme Court. The judge granted them until June 1, 1925, to complete the preparation of their tremendous appeal.

--The suit is comparable to the celebrated Tichborne trial in London in 1874, which lasted 188 days. It is often said that the trial of such lengthy and complicated questions should not be before a judge and jury. In some states the statutes provide that when it appears that a trial will involve the examination of a long account the court has the power to send the matter to a referee who is authorized to hear and determine. The objections to this procedure is that it deprives the parties of their constitutional right to a trial by jury.