lished at that time by counsel who appeared on behalf of the
companies.

Sir Henry Hunt was one of the best of arbitrators, and it was
difficult to deceive him. It took a clever expert to convince him that
a piece of land whose actual value would be L100 was worth L20,000.

Sir Henry once paid me a compliment--of course, I was not present.

"Hawkins," said he, "is the very best advocate of the day, and,
strange to say, his initials are the same as mine. You may turn them
upside down and they will still stand on their legs" (H.H.).

Sir Henry was sometimes a witness, and as such always dangerous to the
side against whom he was called, because he was a judge of value and a
man of honour.

One instance in which I took a somewhat novel course in demolishing a
fictitious claim is, perhaps, worth while to relate, although so many
years have passed since it occurred.

It was so far back as the time of the old Hungerford Market, which the
railway company was taking for their present Charing Cross terminus.
The question was as to the value of a business for the sale of medical
appliances.

Mr. Lloyd, as usual, was for the business, while I appeared for the
company. My excellent friend proceeded on the good old lines of
compensation advocacy with the same comfortable routine that one plays
the old family rubber of threepenny points. I occasionally finessed,
however, and put my opponent off his play. He held good hands, but if
I had an occasionally bad one, I sometimes managed to save the odd
trick.

Lloyd had expatiated on the value of the situation, the highroad
between Waterloo Station and the Strand, immense traffic and grand
frontage. To prove all this he called a multitude of witnesses, who
kissed the same book and swore the same thing almost in the same
words. But to his great surprise I did not cross-examine. Lloyd was
bewildered, and said I had admitted the value by not cross-examining,
and he should not call any more witnesses.

I then addressed the jury, and said, "A multitude of witnesses may
prove anything they like, but my friend has started with an entirely
erroneous view of the situation. The compensation for disturbance of
a business must depend a great deal on the nature of the business. If
you can carry it on elsewhere with the same facility and profit, the
compensation you are entitled to is very little. I will illustrate
my meaning. Let us suppose that in this thoroughfare there is a good
public-ho