The Queer Side of Things
I.—Judicial Innocence.
HE attainment, by dint of superior intellectual abilities, of any high position naturally implies some individuality of character—some departure from the stereotyped mental constitution of the crowd.
In a judge, for instance, we confidently expect this departure, and we get it, in one characteristic at any rate, to a remarkable extent; and it is this judicial trait which we now propose to consider—one little slice or fragment of judge. We would not presume to deal with an entire judge in so slight an article as this; for—never having acted as valet to one—we think of a judge with something beyond reverence.
Innocence.
The judicial trait we have to consider is Progressive Innocence. In the ordinary human being the birthright of innocence is rapidly squandered, and a person usually "knows too much" at the age of fifteen or so; he starts innocent and finishes knowing. But it seems to be quite otherwise with your judge; we have never known a judge as an infant, and so cannot say whether he is born innocent. The earliest reliable information about any given judge dates from his Eton or University days, and in his University days, at any rate, extreme innocence does not appear to be his chief characteristic.
"What is the ace of spades?"
But let us change the slide to a picture of his lordship seated upon his familiar and comfortable bench, and we see him clothed in innocence as with a garment, and muffled up to the eyes in overwhelming ingenuousness!
He who has read the law-court reports in the papers will have paused in amazement at the simplicity of the questions put by his lordship to witnesses, to counsel, to the usher, to anyone who will take pity on his infantine unworldliness.
The subject of cards will occur in the course of the evidence; the ace of spades will be alluded to; his lordship will look up mildly, blandly, almost timidly from his notes, and will lisp:
"What is the ace of spades?
