Moonshine
A London barrister indulges in courtroom theatrics to win a case, but it turns out that not everything is as it seems.
1837
A London barrister indulges in courtroom theatrics to win a case, but it turns out that not everything is as it seems.
1837
In 1858, a witness testified in a US court to seeing a man murdered in bright moonlight; but in a dramatic twist, defence attorney Abraham Lincoln swept out an almanac showing this was not possible, and the case fell through. Over twenty years earlier, Robert Southey had recorded a bizarre parallel involving a barrister at the Old Bailey, only there was an even more dramatic twist to that tale.
THIS brings to my recollection a legal anecdote, that may serve to exemplify how necessary it is upon any important occasion to scrutinize the accuracy of a statement before it is taken upon trust.
A fellow was tried (at the Old Bailey if I remember rightly) for high-way robbery, and the prosecutor* swore positively to him, saying he had seen his face distinctly, for it was a bright moon-light night. The counsel for the prisoner cross-questioned the man, so as to make him repeat that assertion, and insist upon it. He then affirmed that this was a most important circumstance, and a most fortunate one for the prisoner at the bar: because the night on which the alleged robbery was said to have been committed was one in which there had been no moon; it was during the dark quarter! In proof of this he handed an almanack to the bench, — and the prisoner was acquitted accordingly.
The prosecutor however had stated every thing truly; and it was known afterwards that the almanack with which the counsel came provided, had been prepared and printed for the occasion.*
In this anecdote, it is evident that the ‘prosecutor’ means not the public prosecutor or the counsel for the prosecution, but the person who had first laid charges against the defendant.
* Lincoln was accused of having forged his almanac too, in the sensational and eerily similar case of alleged murderer William ‘Duff’ Armstrong (1833–1899) which came to court in 1858. Armstrong was accused of murder by slungshot (a seaman’s weighted rope) on the basis of an identification which the chief prosecution witness swore benefited from a bright moon overhead, its position “just about that of the sun at ten o’clock in the morning;” Lincoln in cross-examination encouraged the witness to reaffirm his testimony most particularly, and then brought out his almanack to show that the moon could have been neither so bright nor high in the sky at the time. Lincoln, who received no fee, followed this up with an emotional speech to the jury and Armstrong was acquitted.
1. What is the author aiming to achieve in writing this?
2. Note any words, devices or turns of phrase that strike you. How do they help the author communicate his ideas more effectively?
3. What impression does this passage make on you? How might you put that impression into words?
Based on The English Critic (1939) by NL Clay, drawing on The New Criticism: A Lecture Delivered at Columbia University, March 9, 1910, by J. E. Spingarn, Professor of Comparative Literature in Columbia University, USA.
Suggest answers to this question. See if you can limit one answer to exactly seven words.
What was the defendant in Southey’s anecdote accused of?
He was charged with commtting highway robbery.
Express the ideas below in a single sentence, using different words as much as possible. Do not be satisfied with the first answer you think of; think of several, and choose the best.
There was a robbery. A man was accused of it. Another man said he saw him do it.