The Mysteries of the Court of London — page 94: what you’re looking at

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

72 THE COURT OF LONDON therefore I cannot permit you to conjure up the phantom of such a young lady to suit your own particular purposes.” ‘“‘ But it was in consequence of the vile persecution of this young lady by the Prince of Wales,’ exclaimed Meagles, éé that PU ‘“No persecution was mentioned by the witness Bax,’’ said the law-officer. “ Keep to his evidence, sir, and cross- question him thereupon.” ' “T will ask him, then,’”’ resumed Meagles, beginning to be much perplexed by the nature of the proceedings, ‘‘ whether I did not in the first instance call upon nim to ACEOMIPARY me to Mrs. Brace’s house — “This certainly is most irrelevant,’’ interposed the chief magistrate. ‘““ Most decidedly,” added the under-secretary. ‘It can- not be tolerated fora moment. It is against all rule — ” ‘“‘ And law,’’ observed the chief magistrate. ‘‘ And precedent,”’ exclaimed the attorney-general. “Then I had better hold my peace,” cried Meagles, in a tone of extreme bitterness; ‘‘ for I see plainly enough that you are bent upon accomplishing our ruin. Melmoth, my good friend,’’ he added, turning toward the working man, ‘“‘ T should advise you to abandon all hope of profiting by the cross-examination of that perjured scoundrel.’’ ‘Stand aside, Mr. Bax,” exclaimed the attorney-general, unable to conceal his delight at having thus so easily got rid of any further opposition to the witness. ‘‘ Come, let your companions be sworn.” .~ The other two constables accordingly stood forward, and each, in his turn, deposed to the truth of the statement already made by Mr. Bax, the attorney-general putting to them such leading questions that they could not possibly mistake the answers which he was desirous of eliciting. Meagles and Melmoth both endeavoured to cross-examine them, but at every query they put, the attorney-general objected. One question was “ irregular,” another was “irrelevant,” a third was entirely in opposition to “ all prec- edent,”’ and a fourth came within the style of cross-exami- nation which some very learned judge who lived a few centuries back, in a very barbarian age, had thought proper to disallow and prohibit. The result of all the objections thus raised by the attorney-general was that the witnesses CORDIC OOO (C(O) im