DOI issue:
February 4, 1865
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16875#0060
52
PUNCH OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
[February 4, 1865.
DIVERSIONS OF DRILL.
Insubordinate Recruit (falling out). “’Taint the post time, Mister Adjutant, you’ve called me a Odd File’—blowed ip I stand
IT ANY LONGER—THERE ! ! ”
A CAS^ IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH.
Cockburn v. Prideaux. Chaff.
In the Court of Queen’s Bench, before Lord Chief Justice Cock-
burn, and Justices Crompton and Blackburn, the other day, Mr.
Prideaux showed cause against the rule which had been obtained in a
case relative to marriage fees. He said :—
“ It was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was described to be no other than
a pauper, against the incumbent of a parish in Buckinghamshire for refusing to
marry one of his parishioners.”
Bulce est desipere in loco: and as the locus in quo is of all others a
Court of Justice, of course the Lord Chief Justice did so. The sub-
joined joke was instantly elicited by Mr. Prideaux’s statement about
the incumbent sued for “ refusing to marry one of his parishioners: ” —
“ The Lord Chief Justice.—Two of them, I should think.”
His Lordship thought he had Mr. Prideaux there. He was mis-
taken :—
“ Mr. Prideaux.—Not necessarily two of his parishioners.”
The joke was with Mr. Prideaux. Then one of the other Judges,
whose name indicates Scottish origin, made a remark that was simply
explanatory:—
Mr. Justice Blackburn.—There were originally two actions, one by the husband
and the other by the wife.” ’ J
This grave observation gave Cockburn leisure to try if he could not
be down on Prideaux. Having taken time to consider, said
Justice.—Your statement, Mr. Prideaux, sounded as
?TelenA gentleman had been called upon to many her himself
(ilaughter) that is hardly what we should grant a mandamus for.”
Very good; but Mr. Prideaux had the best of it. The Lord
Chief Justice, in his rejoinder, was driven to shift his joke, and amend
his misunderstanding of the word “ marry.” So, having obliged his
ordsLiip to vindicate his jocosity by changmg his quibble, our learned
mend discreetly resumed his plea.
There was another joke which might have been got out of the case
by a third party, a joke which either of the other two Judges was in a
position to make, if they can both joke. At Mr. Prideaux’s words
“marry one of his parishioners,” when the Lord Chief Justice said
“ Two of them, I should think,” one of his learned brothers might have
observed, “ That would be bigamy.” This most pertinent, apposite,
and brilliant joke was, however, missed.
So much for wit in this case. In its conclusion there was wisdom: —
“ The Court made the rale absolute. It was better all the facts should come
before the Court when the ease came on for argument.”
Much better, certainly, than when the case came on for fun.
WHAT ’S A NAPPLE ?
Dear Mr. Punch,
The Dorchester Magistrates have decided “ that apples are
not agricultural produce,” that is, are not produced from trees that
grow in cultured ground. I thought that they were. But, what do
the Dorchester naturals—I mean naturalists—declare apples to be ?
An American philosopher stated that madness was a mineral, and per-
haps a Dorchester Magistrate will allege that an apple is an animal.
Do you know what animal I take a Dorsetshire Magistrate to be ? If
you don’t, never mind, but at your leisure turn to the 5th Proposition
of Euclid, Book I., and you will be reminded of a bridge which may
possibly be found in Dorsetshire. Yours indignantly,
Pomona Cottage. Jane Pineapple.
Beef at 3d. per lb.
To Correspondents.—Jerked beef goes farther than butcher’s beef.
A butcher’s boy, however, would not be able to jerk a stone of beef
as far as a pebble.
Considerate Reward to a Nobleman for bringing one a fine
Translation of the Iliad.—Sending him home to translate the Odyssey.
[With Mr. Punch's compliments to the Edinburgh Review.)
PUNCH OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
[February 4, 1865.
DIVERSIONS OF DRILL.
Insubordinate Recruit (falling out). “’Taint the post time, Mister Adjutant, you’ve called me a Odd File’—blowed ip I stand
IT ANY LONGER—THERE ! ! ”
A CAS^ IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH.
Cockburn v. Prideaux. Chaff.
In the Court of Queen’s Bench, before Lord Chief Justice Cock-
burn, and Justices Crompton and Blackburn, the other day, Mr.
Prideaux showed cause against the rule which had been obtained in a
case relative to marriage fees. He said :—
“ It was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was described to be no other than
a pauper, against the incumbent of a parish in Buckinghamshire for refusing to
marry one of his parishioners.”
Bulce est desipere in loco: and as the locus in quo is of all others a
Court of Justice, of course the Lord Chief Justice did so. The sub-
joined joke was instantly elicited by Mr. Prideaux’s statement about
the incumbent sued for “ refusing to marry one of his parishioners: ” —
“ The Lord Chief Justice.—Two of them, I should think.”
His Lordship thought he had Mr. Prideaux there. He was mis-
taken :—
“ Mr. Prideaux.—Not necessarily two of his parishioners.”
The joke was with Mr. Prideaux. Then one of the other Judges,
whose name indicates Scottish origin, made a remark that was simply
explanatory:—
Mr. Justice Blackburn.—There were originally two actions, one by the husband
and the other by the wife.” ’ J
This grave observation gave Cockburn leisure to try if he could not
be down on Prideaux. Having taken time to consider, said
Justice.—Your statement, Mr. Prideaux, sounded as
?TelenA gentleman had been called upon to many her himself
(ilaughter) that is hardly what we should grant a mandamus for.”
Very good; but Mr. Prideaux had the best of it. The Lord
Chief Justice, in his rejoinder, was driven to shift his joke, and amend
his misunderstanding of the word “ marry.” So, having obliged his
ordsLiip to vindicate his jocosity by changmg his quibble, our learned
mend discreetly resumed his plea.
There was another joke which might have been got out of the case
by a third party, a joke which either of the other two Judges was in a
position to make, if they can both joke. At Mr. Prideaux’s words
“marry one of his parishioners,” when the Lord Chief Justice said
“ Two of them, I should think,” one of his learned brothers might have
observed, “ That would be bigamy.” This most pertinent, apposite,
and brilliant joke was, however, missed.
So much for wit in this case. In its conclusion there was wisdom: —
“ The Court made the rale absolute. It was better all the facts should come
before the Court when the ease came on for argument.”
Much better, certainly, than when the case came on for fun.
WHAT ’S A NAPPLE ?
Dear Mr. Punch,
The Dorchester Magistrates have decided “ that apples are
not agricultural produce,” that is, are not produced from trees that
grow in cultured ground. I thought that they were. But, what do
the Dorchester naturals—I mean naturalists—declare apples to be ?
An American philosopher stated that madness was a mineral, and per-
haps a Dorchester Magistrate will allege that an apple is an animal.
Do you know what animal I take a Dorsetshire Magistrate to be ? If
you don’t, never mind, but at your leisure turn to the 5th Proposition
of Euclid, Book I., and you will be reminded of a bridge which may
possibly be found in Dorsetshire. Yours indignantly,
Pomona Cottage. Jane Pineapple.
Beef at 3d. per lb.
To Correspondents.—Jerked beef goes farther than butcher’s beef.
A butcher’s boy, however, would not be able to jerk a stone of beef
as far as a pebble.
Considerate Reward to a Nobleman for bringing one a fine
Translation of the Iliad.—Sending him home to translate the Odyssey.
[With Mr. Punch's compliments to the Edinburgh Review.)