to recover the value of them, he somewhat
unnecessarily thrust before the Barrister the
deed which constituted him a partner. The
Judge instantly compared the deed with the
bill. 'Why,' he said, turning to the butcher,
'all the items you have sworn to were
purchased anterior to the date of your entering
into partnership. If any one is entitled to
recover, it is your partner, whom the defendant
alleges he has paid.' In one, as they are
called, of the 'Superior Courts,' I very much
doubt whether either Judge or Jury would
have discovered for themselves this important
discrepancy.

The documentary evidence was not confined
to deeds and writings, stamped or unstamped.
Even during the short time I was present, I
saw some curious records produced before the
Barrister—records as primitive in their way
as those the Chancellor of the Exchequer used
to keep in the Tally-Office, before the
comparatively recent introduction of book-keeping
into the department of our national accountant.

Among other things received in evidence,
were a milkwoman's score, and a baker's
notches. Mr. Ficker appeared inclined to
think that no weight ought to be attached to
such evidence as this. But when I recollect
that there have occasionally been such things
as tombstones produced in evidence before
Lord Volatile in his own particular Court, the
House of Lords, ('the highest jurisdiction,' as
they call it, 'in the realm,') I see no good
reason why Mrs. Chalk, the milkwoman,
should not be permitted to produce her
tallies in a County Court. For every practical
purpose the score upon the one seems just as
good a document as the epitaph upon the
other.

I was vastly pleased by the great consideration
which appeared to be displayed towards
misfortune and adversity. These Courts are
emphatically Courts for the recovery of debts;
and inasmuch as they afford great facilities
to plaintiffs, it is therefore the more incumbent
that defendants should be protected
against hardship and oppression. A man was
summoned to show why he had not paid
a debt pursuant to a previous order of the
Court. The plaintiff attended to press the case
against him, and displayed some rancour.

'Why have you not paid, Sir?' demanded
the Judge, sternly.

'Your honour,' said the man, 'I have been
out of employment six months, and within
the last fortnight everything I have in the
world has been seized in execution.'

In the Superior Courts this would have
been no excuse. The man would probably
have gone to prison, leaving his wife and
family upon the parish. But here that novel
sentiment in law proceedings—sympathy—
peeped forth.

'I believe this man would pay,' said the
barrister, 'if possible. But he has lost
everything in the world. At present I shall make
no order.'

It did not appear to me that the plaintiffs
generally in this Court were anxious to press
very hardly upon defendants. Indeed it would
be bad policy to do so. Give a man time,
and he can often meet demands that it would
be impossible for him to defray if pressed at
once.

'Immediate execution' in this Court,
seemed to be payment within a fortnight.
An order to pay in weekly instalments is a
common mode of arranging a case, and as it is
usually made by agreement between the
parties, both of them are satisfied. In fact the
rule of the Court seemed not dissimilar from
that of tradespeople who want to do a quick
business, and who proceed upon the principle
that 'No reasonable offer is refused.'

I had been in the Court sufficiently long to
make these and other observations, when
Mr. Ficker introduced me to the clerk. On
leaving the Court by a side door, we repaired
to Mr. Nottit's room, where we found that
gentleman, (an old attorney,) prepared to do
the honours of 'a glass of sherry and a biscuit.'
Of course the conversation turned upon 'the
County Court.'

'Doing a pretty good business here?' said
Mr. Ficker.

'Business—we're at it all day,' replied
Mr. Nottit. 'I'll show you. This is an
account of the business of the County Courts
in England and Wales in the year 1848; the
account for 1849 is not yet made up.'

'Takes six months, I suppose, to make it,'
said Mr. Ficker, rather ill-naturedly.

'Total "Number of Plaints or Causes
entered,"' read the clerk, '427,611.'

'Total amount of money sought to be
recovered by the plaintiffs,' continued Mr.
Nottit, 'l,346,802l.'

'Good Gracious!' exclaimed Ficker, his
face expressing envy and indignation; 'what
a benefit would have been conferred upon
society, if all this property had been got into
the legitimate Law Courts. What a benefit to
the possessors of all this wealth. I have no
doubt whatever that during the past year the
suitors who have recovered this million and a
quarter have spent the whole of it, squandered
it upon what they called "necessaries of life."
Look at the difference if it had only been
locked up for them—say in Chancery. It
would have been preserved with the greatest
possible safety; accounted for—every fraction
of it—in the books of the Accountant-General;
and we, Sir, we—the respectable practitioners
in the profession—should have gone down
three or four times every year to the Master's
offices to see that it was all right, and to have
had a little consultation as to the best means
of holding it safely for our client, until his
suit was properly and equitably disposed of.'

'But, perhaps, Ficker,' I suggested, 'these
poor clients make better use of their own
money, after all, than the Courts of Law and
Equity could make of it for them.'

'Then the costs,' said Mr. Ficker, with an