and she thinks she do, justice
will walk over this track with her head and tail up."

* * * * *

On a divorce case coming before a Western administrator of the law,
Judge A. Smith, he thus addressed the plaintiff's counsel, who was
awaiting the arrival of his opponent to open proceedings. "I don't
think people ought to be compelled to live together when they don't want
to do so. I will decree a divorce in this case." Thereupon they were
declared to be no longer man and wife. At this juncture the defendant's
counsel entered the Court and expressed surprise that the judge had not
at least heard one side of the case, much less both sides, and protested
against such over-hasty proceedings. But to all his protestations the
judge turned a deaf ear; only informing him that no objections could now
be raised after decree had been pronounced. "But," he added, "if you
want to argue the case 'right bad,' the Court will marry the couple
again, and you can then have your say out."

Breach of promise cases generally afford plenty of amusement to the
public, both in the United States and Great Britain, but it is only in
early American Courts that we hear of a judge adding to the hilarity by
congratulating the successful party to the suit. A young American belle
sued her faithless sweetheart, and claimed damages laid at one hundred
dollars. The defendant pleaded that after an intimate acquaintance with
the family, he found it was impossible to live comfortably with his
intended mother-in-law, who was to take up residence with her daughter
after the marriage, and he refused to fulfil his promise. "Would you
rather live with your mother-in-law, or pay _two hundred_ dollars?"
inquired the judge. "Pay two hundred dollars," was the prompt reply.
Said the judge: "Young man, let me shake hands with you. There was a
time in my life when I was in the same situation as you are in now. Had
I possessed your firmness, I should have been spared twenty-five years
of trouble. I had the alternative of marrying or paying a hundred and
twenty-five dollars. Being poor, I married; and for twenty-five years
have I regretted it. I am happy to meet with a man of your stamp. The
plaintiff must pay ten dollars and costs for having thought of putting a
gentleman under the dominion of a mother-in-law."

The charms of the female sex were more susceptible to the Iowa judge
than to his brother of the former story. This worthy refuse