Punch: Punch (56.1869)

120

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

[March 27, 1869.

Scotch Excursionist. “Ye dinna charge a Bawbee at a’ the Brigs in
Toon—di ye ? ”

Toll-Keeper. “Oh, no—Blackfriars and London Bridge are Free.”

Scotch Excursionist (repocketing coin). “ E—eh then, wud ye be kind eneuch
JUST TO DIRECT ME TO LUNNON BRIDGE?!”

A CHANT FOR COLLEGE ATHLETES.

Iiow doth the busy Undergrad
Improve each shining hour,

Loving each new athletic “ fad,”

To show his muscle’s power !

To learn to row and feather well,

What awful pains he takes ?

But just to see his name in Bell,

Full compensation makes.

To pull stroke-oar, to coach a crew,

He aims to be a dab ;

And such disgrace he never knew,

As when he caught a crab.

The cue, the leaping-pole as well,

Have each their charms for him ;

Or at the gloves he takes a spell,

To keep his lungs in trim.

At cricket, racquets, or at fives,

He yearns his skill to show;

And little time to spare he strives,

To pass his Little Go.

In feats of strength and games of skill
His time must all be passed,

Heedless that, ’spite of cram, he will
Be sorely plucked at last.

Papers out of Print.

We see announced a recent invention by a foreigner for
thoroughly obliterating printers’-ink from newspapers, so
that to-morrow’s news may be published on returned
sheets of the journal of to-day. This may be economical,
and, if so, will perhaps be pretty generally adopted. We
may live to hear of journals being hired for perusal, and
then sent back to be cleaned and reprinted for next day.
As for most of the French newspapers, and especially the
“ Comic” ones, the sooner all the ink is taken out of them
the better ; for what they print is frequently so unclean in
its character, that they often should do penance by appearing
in white sheets.

The best Argument for the Endowed Schools
Bill.—To show respect for Founder’s wishes. Throw
over their wills.

LAW APPRAISING MEDICINE.

Attention, Judges, Gentlemen of the Long Robe, and British Public
at large, to the following utterance of the Master of the Rolls, re-
ported to have been delivered in Sanger v. Sanger, ex parte Dr.
James Clark. Note that the sum referred to in it was that of a
hundred guineas, which Dr. Clark having at first declined, had
finally accepted.

“ His Lordship said,—I think this sum is even more than Dr. Clark is
entitled to, and I must dismiss his summons with costs from the time when
he rejected the guardians’ offer of a hundred guineas. I think it right to add
that if the case had not ended as it has, I should have disallowed the visits to
the sea-side altogether, as well as the concluding item, and have materially
reduced the allowance for visits.”

Dr. Clark had, as a general practitioner, attended two young ladies,
sisters, the elder for some slight complaint, the younger for measles
and other ailments of a dangerous kind which “required his continuous
care and attention for many weeks.” These young ladies were at
school at St. John’s Wood. Dr. Clark had paid one hundred and
twenty-five visits, inclusive of two journeys to Worthing and three to
Brighton, besides meeting Sir William Jenner in consultation thrice.
He charged at the rate of a guinea a visit—or half-a-guinea, when he
saw the two. His whole claim amounted to £310 5s. 6d., which,
besides extra charges for the journeys out of town, comprised a fee of
six guineas paid to Dr. Jenner, and forty guineas for “ correspondence
and sundry consultations and interviews with the solicitors and other
parties interested in the cause.” This claim, for which he had sued
the guardians of the young ladies, Dr. Clark had “adjourned from
Chambers,” whereat the Chief Clerk had awarded him £82 13s., which
the Master of the Rolls appears to have thought enough, as he
considered a hundred guineas too much.

It may be that Dr. Clark, in the amount which he claimed, did not

at all under-estimate the value of medical attendance. But did the
Master of the Rolls not somewhat depreciate that commodity in
appraising so much of it as Dr. Clark had supplied those young ladies
at less than a hundred guineas? Did not the learned Judge under-
value it, if not absolutely yet relatively ? Lord Romilly has ascended
to the eminence which he adorns from the Bar. Does he account
the remuneration asked by Dr. Clark for medical services,
however exorbitant simply considered, to be at all unreasonable in
comparison with that to which a corresponding quantity of forensic
work is commonly allowed to entitle barristers ? It is true that
Dr. Clark’s own counsel acknowledged that his charges were large.
One would like, however, to know how much the briefs of those learned
gentlemen have cost Dr. Clark, and whether the fees which they
are accustomed to derive from their clients fall, on an average, very
much below the rate at which that medical gentleman charges his
patients. If a tariff were to be fixed for Law, proportionate to that
which the Master of the Rolls adjudges to Medicine, would not the
legal profession, and especially the Bar, have to. deplore a loss of
income which lawyers could now incur only from circumstances affect-
ing their labour-market, so as to occasion a tremendous fall in fees ?

Representation of Shop.

The legal profession owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. T. Chambers
for opposing Mr. Baines’s Libel Bill, which would tend materially to
diminish the number of actions brought against newspaper proprietors.
In order to discharge this obligation, the inferior class of attorneys,
and the lower Members of the Bar, might club together and get up a
subscription for the purpose of presenting the honourable and learned
gentleman with a gilt wig.

Habit-ual Criminals.—Exorbitant Tailors.