3

ENGLISH - I

1. ENGLISH- I
The Language of the Law
- Urban A. Lavery
Urban A. Lavery, in his essay “The Language of the Law” deals
with the trifling niceties of a lawyer’s language. The ability of the
lawyer to confuse others has been the subject of proverbs.
Nevertheless, the author says that it is not the purpose of this paper to
praise the linguistic brilliance of the lawyer, but to consider some of
his defects.
The author throws light on the general decline in the standards of
legal writing. A lawyer who speaks the Kings English better than other
seems to lose his mastery when it comes to writing. It is a difficult
task to teach others the art of writing. There are books on writing
subjects like poetry, prose, scientific English, but none on writing legal
English.
Laws are so abundant and common that they must be understood
and obeyed by all sections of the people. Ignorance of law excuses no
man. Therefore laws must be drafted in such a way that the language
is simple and easily understandable to layman as well as lawyers.
The sentence is the basic unit expression. As a general rule
sentences should be short because short sentences are more quickly
and easily understood than long sentences. A sentence, containing not
more than fifteen words is called a short sentence. It is sad to note
that lawyers seldom look into grammar or composition books. They do
not consider the use of proper adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions etc.,
and the author even criticizes Jeremy Bentham the greatest law
reformer in England whose later writing’s became difficult to read.
Another chief defect in the writing of lawyers is the fact that they
use circumlocution rather than straight blunt speech. They prefer to go
round a subject with their words rather than straight to it. Considering
the complexities of the subject, it may be admitted that the lawyer’s
problem in writing is a difficult one. But the fact remains that they do
not give due attention to the art of writing. What is well spoken may
not look nice when put into writing. It is just the difference between
oral and written words which makes that dictated brief horrible. Such a
document fails to realize the technique which lies in the art of writing
legal English. It is a technique which can only be acquired by
persistent effort and it does not come with the profession as many
lawyers think. 4 ENGLISH - I
 IN THE COURT
- Anton Chekhov

“In the court’’ is a very vivid description of the trial of a peasant

named Nikolay Harlamov, charged with the murder of his wife. The
author Anton Chekhov, at the outset, gives a picture of the circuit
court at the district town where the Justices of the peace, the Rural
Board, the Liquor Board, the Military Board and many others sat by
turns. The building is a very old one and it bears a dismal appearance
without any kind of comfort.

The sitting of the circuit court began between nine and ten. The
cases came on one after the other and ended quickly like a church
service without a choir. At precisely two o’ clock the presiding officer
announced that the case of Nikolay Harlamov could next be heard.
Harlamov, the prisioner, tall, thick-set peasant of about fifty five years
was brought in. The presiding officer, the assistant prosecutor, the
counsel for the defence and all the officials of the court wore a
monotonous look in their routine work. No one seemed to have any
special interest in his particular case.

At this stage the author reveals the mental make-up of the

prisoner who for the first time got into the clutches of law. He looked
with dull-witted respectfulness at the judges uniforms and blinked
calmly. The charge of murder hung over him and yet here he met with
neither threatening faces nor indignant looks. He did not understand
that the men in the court were accustomed to the dramas and
tragedies of life.

In the meantime, after the customary questions to the prisoner,

the charge against the prisoner was read. The charge was that he
murdered his wife on the evening of ninth June. The presiding officer
asked him whether he pleaded guilty. When the prisoner denied the
charge, the trial began. The court proceeded with the examination of
witnesses. Two peasant women, five men and the village policeman,
who had made the inquiry, were examined. All of them testified that
Harlamov lived well with his wife. On the particular day the body of the
woman was found in the porch with her skull broken. An axe also lay
beside her in a pool of blood. Harlamov had disappeared and came to
the police station after two days.

When asked by the president Harlamov told that he was wandering

about the fields on those two days as he was afraid that he might be
judged guilty. The district doctor was also examined. When the
defence counsel tried to get an answer to his question from the doctor,
.regarding the mental condition of the criminal, he could not get it.
Then the material evidences like the cloth, axe etc., were examined.
Harlamov denied that he had an axe and also he gave different reason
for the blood stain in his coat. Harlamov was irritated that he was not
properly heard. The trail came to a close and the prisoner was
escorted back and it was a painful moment. The author ends the
description without giving the judgment pronounced.

This write-up is an attempt to bring out the boredom and

indifference peculiar to criminal trials. The attitude of a poor villager
charged with a grave offence is well described.5 ENGLISH - I
 Educatinglawyersforachangingworld
- Erwin.N.Griswold

Erwin N. Griswold in his essay “Educating Lawyers for a changing

world” underlines the need for change in the legal education to keep
pace with the changes in the society. He says stress on research in
law as in other subjects of study.

Legal education in our country is only about eighty years old.

During this period there have been many changes and developments in
the law schools and law teaching. These changes reflect not merely
growth and development in our law and society, but also, a marked
change in the legal profession. In the recent decades, the traditional
role of a lawyer has changed and his functional area has considerably
expanded to business counselling, public service labour law,
administrative law, taxation etc. As a result of this, effective teaching
in these subjects is necessary to equip the lawyers to meet the
challenges of the profession.

Much of our legislation is piecemeal and for the most part drafted
by part time legislators with little or very limited opportunities for
detailed discussion ‘The re-examination and analysis of these laws has
been a major task which practising lawyers cannot effectively do. This
is an area where the law schools can make a major contribution.

The challenge put to the law schools in our times is that in

addition to being effective teaching agencies, they must become
centres for carrying on research into the law, its development and its
application to the solution of current problems. Much of the legal
research of the past has become inadequate in view of the modern
development in law. Therefore, serious attempts must be made in the
field of legal research. The research activities contribute directly to
the teaching. The findings of the research become available for
teaching. The students can often engage directly, in the research
activities.

The importance given to research in subjects like medicine,

engineering etc. is not given to law. Natural science deals with
phenomena that are measurable with accuracy. Experiments are
simple and can be conducted in a short interval of time, whereas, the
problems of the social science the adjustment of human relations in
society are more complex. Yet the problems are more important to
mankind than anything related to natural science. The basic problem
confronting the society is whether it will be able to control the forces
that science has developed. This involves baffling questions relating to
human nature, Psychology, economics, political science law and other
fields also. We have begun to explore these areas, but the results are
not encouraging. Still in certain areas we have made progress.
 We cannot predict the manner in which developments may take
place in the future. We must be prepared to face the challenges thrown
by them. We cannot make progress in the field of adjusting human
relations unless we work at it intensively.6 ENGLISH - I
 Mr. HAVLENA’S VERDICT
- Karel Capek
Mr. Havlena’s ‘Verdict is an interesting account of an imaginary
criminal case which got wide publicity. The author highlights the
general trend of reporting sensational criminal case in newspaper
almost every day in order to attract the reading public. Police news
reporters used to hatch out novel cases for themselves and could find
a regular market for them. Mr. Havlena the person who supplied the
case in the essay was a law student who discontinued his studies. Still
he was well-versed in legal matters, especially criminal cases. He used
to supply cases for police reporters. His cases were well received by
the readers and he was paid in terms of cigar and beer.

One day Havlena imagined a case. It was the case of an old

bachelor who had a quarrel with a widow who lived opposite to him. So
he got a parrot and trained it well so that wherever the lady appeared
on her balcony it screeched out at the top of its voice “You slut” which
means “dirty woman” The widow brought an action against him for
defamation of character. The district courts sentenced him to fourteen
days imprisonment.

This case appeared in about six newspapers under various

headlines such as “Far from the Madding Crowd “Landlord and Poor
Widow” “Accusation against parrot” etc. The ministry of Justice
decided to file an appeal against the order of the district court and
asked for the particulars of the case from the newspaper. When this
was taken to the knowledge of Havlena, he got angry, drew up a
detailed statement to vindicate the Verdict and sent it to the Ministry
of Justice. It was not taken notice of by Ministry and Havlena stopped
giving judgments afterwards.

However, Havlena was not prepared to take this disgrace lying

down. Soon he was back in business. He got a parrot, trained it up and
made it utter the words ‘You slut’ at the old woman living opposite to
his house. Contrary to his expectation the woman was not offended by
the words uttered by the parrot. Havlena tried his best to persuade her
to bring an action against him and at last succeeded in his attempt.
She brought an action for defamation of character.

When the case came up for trial, Havlena gave a long speech
admitting all the allegations against him. But the magistrate wanted to
hear the parrot and adjourned the case. At the next hearing the parrot
was brought to the court. The parrot uttered the words ‘you slut’
towards all persons irrespective of sex. Therefore, it became clear that
the words were not intended to defame the woman. Havlena strongly
argued, that it was his intention to defame her. However the court
found no reason in it and acquitted Havlena. Havlena went out of the
court in anger, saying that he would file an appeal in the High Court.
The appeal was also dismissed and thereafter Havlena was found
loitering about the street like a lost soul. -

Karel Capek’s attempt to bring to light the tendency among the

reading public to go after interesting police reports is commendable 7
ENGLISH - I
 TheFiveFunctionsoftheLawyer
- Arthur T. Vanderbilt

Lawyers in the modern society have multifarious roles to play

According to Arthur T. Vanderbilt, there are five important functions
assigned to a great lawyer. They are 1. Counselling 2. Skill in advocacy
3. Improving the profession 4. Leading public opinion and 5. Accepting
public office when called for.

First of all a truly great lawyer is a wise counsellor to men in their

crises. A lawyer must possess a sound knowledge of the principles of
law to render effective counselling. A lawyer must also have a wide
and deep knowledge of human nature and of modern society.

Secondly a lawyer must be skilled in the art of advocacy and Well-

trained in defending the legal rights of his clients both in the trial
courts and on appeal. A lawyer must be well-experienced so that he
can defend the cause of his client and help the court in setting the
course of law. Advocacy is not the gift of god It involves general
distinct arts which must be studied and mastered. Constant reading
and assimilation of facts and modern trends in the field of law will go a
long way helping a lawyer to develop the skill of advocacy.

The third task of a lawyer is to improve his profession individually

and as a member of the organized Bar. Every man is under an
obligation to build up the profession to which he belongs. Indeed, this
obligation is exactly what distinguishes a profession from business.
The advances in natural science and technology and the changes in
business and in social life are so startling that a lawyer must improve
his profession to keep pace with them. The law schools also must
come forward to perform their task in equipping the young lawyers to
face the challenges of the profession.

The fourth function of a lawyer is to act an intelligent and

Unselfish leader of public opinion. Sound public opinion is so
indispensable that it can even change the course of history. The author
cities an example from Charles Lindbergh’s warning about the war
planes in Germany, over six months before the outbreak of wood war II.
If the news of Charles Lindbergh had been supported by strong public
opinion, the course of history would have been different

In view of the deteriorating standards in public life the author

makes very strong plea for the lawyers to take up public office
whenever there is a call. The professional thoughts and brilliance of a
lawyer should not end in his own private clients. A lawyer with his
profound knowledge in human relations and social conditions, can
easily solve many of the problems of the day.
 These are the five important functions of a great lawyer. Education
in these five functions of the lawyer is partly the province of the
college, partly the duty of the law school, but in large measure it is the
responsibility if the individual lawyer. The institutions imparting legal
education have realized their responsibilities and started planning the
curriculum accordingly.8 ENGLISH - I
 ComparativeLaw
- Rene David and John E.C. Brierley

The emergence of comparative law as an important subject of

study is relatively recent. Only from the second half of the 19th Century
comparative law became a important branch of study. The need for
comparing laws slowly became more and more apparent. Hearing, a
German jurist proclaimed that it was the method of future jurist.

In many countries of the world, especially in France, the

importance of comparative Law came to be stressed in the early part
of the 19th century. Comparative law under the modest title of
comparative legislation appeared at this time. France, which was
following Napoleonic codes for a Long time began to accept
suggestions for improvement in legislation. An “Office of Foreign
legislation” to inform judges about foreign laws were created in the
year 1869.This simplified the comparison of laws by publishing
translations of foreign codes. This first international congress of
comparative law was held in Paris in 1900. The principle idea that
emerged from the discussion was the creation of a droit common
legislative, (Common Law) the law of the 20th century shared by all
civilized humanity The legislations of the different nations acting
together by means of international treaties were to promulgate the
common law and make it the positive law of their countries

During, the period between 1918 and 1945 some attempts were
made to promulgate common law of all countries. But the growth in
this area was hampered to some extent by the international political
climate prevailing then. However, a new thrust was given to the
development of comparative law after World War II. Technical
discoveries profoundly changed the conditions of life. Distances
disappeared and national boundaries to a great extent ceased to have
any meaning. The economic and social developments and the impact of
globalization and liberalization in the present context has necessitated
a fresh look at law and legislation at the international level. The jurist
cannot be blind to the new balance of power which has been
established in world polities & economics. The result is that the study
of law in the contemporary world has become international.

The uses of comparative law

1. Unification of Laws

The idea of world unification of law through legislative agreements

has become relevant and very useful in new area such as space law
atomic law, television law, maritime law etc., where there is no rooted
tradition. However, in other fields such as commercial law also,
uniformity is desired in the context of the different regional
agreements throughout the world, juristic efforts are on to verify the
laws by means of legislation.

2. International understanding

Comparative law promotes international understanding of the

basic principles of law and the legislation. This ensures harmonious co
-existence which is the condition precedent for the preservation and
progress of any nation. The world today is different from what it was a
century ago. The position of Western Europe and the thinking of the
jurist’s Roman tradition are not fully endorsed. International political
and commercial relation must take into account these new
circumstances .9 ENGLISH - I
 3. Better knowledge of national law:

Apart from unification and the other uses, comparative law has a
new function. It helps us to know; to understand and to probe our own
legal system. It also helps us to show how some questions can be
more relevantly asked and how certain parts of our taw are not
properly drafted. Judicial nationalism is provincialism and
irreconcilable with the development and even the application of a
national law.

Thus, it has become imperative that Legal education must have its
focus, on foreign thought and experience so as broaden the outlook of
the jurists
TheHypothesesoffailure
- O-Henry

The hypotheses of failure’ deals with the way a lawyer handles

clients with conflicting interests. Lawyer Gooch a leading practitioner
mainly on matrimonial disputes was fond of comparing his suite of
office rooms with the bottom of a ship. Just as the water tight
compartments in the bottom of a ship, there were separate rooms for
clients in his office. When he was occupied with a client, if another
client with a conflicting interest called on him, he would be
accommodated in another room with the help of the office boy. Both
the clients would not be allowed to meet each other. This way lawyer
Gooch, a man of humour used to settle disputes and to get huge
amount as fees.

One day, in the ninth of June, when Gooch was sitting in his office
almost idle, a man called on him. He looked a bit arrogant and did
introduce himself. He started asking many questions about Gooch and
wanted to state a hypothetical case. The case was that a fine-looking
woman, wife of Thomas R. Billings ran away with Henry K. Jessup; a
licentious man. He asked Gooch whether a married woman, well
educated in science and culture can take the man she likes, when the
matrimonial home becomes incompatible. Gooch answered in the
affirmative and agreed to get her divorce and the man agreed to pay
fees of five hundred dollars.

While the conversation was still on, a lady client called on Gooch
and she was led into a separate room. Gooch kept his first client
waiting and entertained client number two, a tall lady with wealthy
appearance. She also wanted to state a hypothetical case and get
divorce for the woman. The facts of the case were the same as already
stated by the first client.
 At this stage the third client, a gentleman called on Gooch and he
was also kept in a separate room He looked nervous and much worried
He also narrated a hypothetical case the pathetic plight of a husband
whose wife ran after another man, wrecking a matrimonial home. The
facts were the same but he did not want divorce for the woman,
instead he pleaded with Gooch to act as a mediator and reunite the
estranged husband and wife. He promised one thousand dollars as fee
for the settlement.

Lawyer Gooch knew very well that the three individuals sitting in
separate rooms were the real parties in the hypothetical case, though
they were not conscious of one another’s presence within his reach.
Gooch kept me third client waiting and went back to his first client and
demanded one thousand and five hundred dollars as fee for getting
divorce. When he refused to pay the amount he was shown the way
out. Gooch is now hopeful of bringing about a settlement between the
husband and wife with the third party out of the scene. Gooch tried to
bring them 1 0 ENGLISH - I
 together, but he could not succeed. The third client Mr Billings, on
seeing his wife Mrs Billings ran down the building through the open
window without even stopping to take his bag and hat. Mr Billings also
left the office in anger.

Thus the tricks of lawyer Gooch misfired and the good ship of his
business wrecked.
TheMindandFaith ofJusticeHolmes
Justice Holmes analyses the different theories of punishment and
concludes that the ‘Retributive Theory of punishment is still relevant
despite the emergence of the other modern theories. Satisfaction of
the desire for vengeance continues to be one of the objects of
punishment. Where compensation to the victim is not possible, by
reason of the impossibility of estimating the worth of the suffering in
terms of money is to the property of the Criminal it may be said that
one of its objects is to gratify the desire for vengeance. The prisoner
pays with his body. Sir James Stephen says “The Criminal law stands
to the passion of revenge in much the same relation as marriage to the
sexual appetite”.
However, the retributive -theory has been criticized on the ground
that it does not attach any purpose to punishment. According to the
theory, punishment is an end in itself. The theory does not care for the
Criminal and so has no social content.
Justice Holmes has taken into account the merits of the other
theories, such as the preventive theory and the Reformative theory.
The Preventive theory says that punishment should be a means to an
end. Therefore, prevention of Crime must be the end in punishing a
criminal Hegel, one of the exponents of this theory says that
punishment must be equal in the sense that it must be proportionate to
the crime, because its only purpose is to prevent it. It is objected that,
the preventive theory is immoral because it does not furnish any
measure of punishment except the law giver’s subjective opinion in
regard to the sufficiency of the amount of punishment. Inspite of all
this, the preventive theory is accepted as a modern theory
The Reformative theory of punishment is considered as the most
modern one. According to this theory, the purpose of punishment is to
reform the criminal. This theory advocates human approach towards
the criminal to, reform him and to make him conform to the social
pattern. But Justice Holmes does not agree with this theory. He says
that according to this theory no criminal can be punished.
Justice Holmes maintains that there is an affirmative argument in
favour of the theory of retribution. The fitness of punishment following
wrong doing is recognised by the exponents of all theories .The
feelings of fitness is in fact vengeance in disguise .Therefore
vengeance is an element though not the chief element of punishment.
Neither of these theories can be strictly applied in certain cases. For
Example, self- Preference or the right of private defence is recognized
by criminal law administration in general. In this case a man cannot be
punished for talking the life of another man. On the other hand there is
a doctrine which says that Ignorance of law is no excuse for breaking
it. Here, one can be punished for doing an act without learning that it
was violation of law.
Therefore, it follows that any theory of punishment must be based
on a perfect balancing of the competing and conflicting interests in the
society, which lies in the people interest and the public interest. 1 1
ENGLISH - I
 A pleafortheseverestpenaltyuponhisconvictionforsedition
- Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi was tried ‘or several political offences in India. In

1922 he was arrested and charged with sedition for three of his
articles in his magazine ‘Young India’. At the conclusion of the trail
Gandhiji was asked by the judge if he wished to make statement before
receiving sentence Gandhiji expressed his willingness to make a
statement entirely endorsing the learned Advocate General’s remarks.
He said that it had become a passion with him to preach disaffection
towards the existing system of government. He added that it was his
painful duty to admit before the court that it started much earlier than
his connection with ‘Young India’. He knew that he was playing with
fire, still he reiterated that he would do the same thing if he was set
free.

Gandhiji had a very strong faith in Nonviolence. To quote him, “I

wanted to avoid violence, Nonviolence is the first article of my faith. It
is also the last article of my creed” . He admitted that the people
sometimes had gone mad and turned violent, but he felt sorry for it and
submitted himself to the highest penalty provided by law.

Gandhiji read out his statement which described the

circumstances that turned him an uncompromising disaffectionist and
non-co-operator. Gandhiji’s public began in 1893 in South Africa in
troubled weather. Soon he realized that he had no rights as a man
because he was an Indian. Yet he did not wish the destruction of the
system of the government. He extended his full co-operation whenever
the existence of the empire was threatened. When the world war broke
out in 1914, he stood by one British empire and was acknowledged as
a true loyalist. In all his services to the Empire, he was actuated by the
belief that it was possible to gain status of full equality in the Empire
for the Indian’s.

All his hopes were shattered by the Rowlatt Act of 1919, a law
designed to rob the people of all freedom. Gandhiji led a series of
agitations against it. Then it was followed by the Punjab horrors
beginning with the massacre at Jalianwala Bagh. The British
administration became oppressive and the Indian’s were, subjected to
public flogging and humiliations of all sorts.

The British administration, through various measures fully

exploited the masses. With the result, India became poor and helpless
with little power of resisting famines. In ninety-nine cases out a
hundred, justice was denied to Indians as against Europeans in the
courts of India. Section 124-A of the Indian penal code was designed to
suppress the liberty of the citizen. Gandhiji told that he has no
disaffection or ill-will against any single administrator or against the
king’s persons. But he was justified in being disaffected towards a
government which had done more harm to India than any previous
system.

For the reasons stated above Gandhiji was of the opinion that non
co-operation with evil is as much a duty as co-operation with good. He
admitted all the charges against him and submitted cheerfully to the
highest penalty that could be inflicted upon him by a law. The
statement of Mahatma Gandhi is one of the greatest treatises related
to the chequered history of the Indian freedom movement.1 2 ENGLISH - I
 ON THE ENTIRELY REASONABLE MURDER OF A POLICE
CONSTABLE
- George Bernad Shaw

George Bernard Shaw was asked to give his opinion on capital

punishment with reference to the murder of a police constable named
Gutteridge. The murder was so sensational that it was described as
brutal and callous. The murder was committed in a scientific manner.
The Criminal in an encounter with the constable shot him dead.
Knowing that the last picture that was focussed on the constable eye
was that of him destroyed the two eyes with two more shots. The
criminal was a habitual offender. He was also sensitive and
imaginative because only such people risk hanging to avoid penal
servitude. The murder gave no clue to him.

Bernard Shaw calls this the most reasonable murder and says that
such crimes are very dangerous. He says that such criminals threaten
not only the police force but the whole body of citizens whose only
means is to call the police when confronted with the criminal.

The peculiarity of these murders has also’ an important bearing on

the question of the death penalty. According to Bernard Shaw the only
excuse for capital punishment is that the criminal gives more trouble
to the community than he is worth. The state is justified in taking away
the life of a criminal only when the crime is so heinous that the
repetition of which cannot be even imagined of. The theories of
retaliate punishment and expiatory punishment are out-dated. If such
theories are strictly applied we should spare some murders and kill
quite a number of intolerable nuisances whom we suffer in silence.

A criminal who shoots to escape detection as a matter of business

is like a solider. The remedy in his case is to give up our cruel
punishments and to give him a better chance for the honest
employment of his talents than what our present system offers. Shaw
says that the deterrent theory of punishment is only the judicial theory.
He gives two objections to it. The first is that no severity of
punishment deters when detection is uncertain, as it must always be.
When pickpockets were hanged, pockets were picked under the
gallows. Now that the penalty is comparatively less severe, pockets
are still picked, but never when a police man is looking on. The second
is that the deterrence theory leads to the conclusion that somebody
must be punished for every crime to deter others from committing it.
Whether that somebody has committed the crime or not is of no
consequence. An innocent person also may be punished.
For the reasons stated above Bernad Shaw pleads for a much liberal approach towards criminals
and punishment with a purpose and a human touch.