When poor Winkle was accused by the Judge of giving his name as Daniel, he was told that "he had better be careful:" on which the ready Skimpin: "Now, Mr. Winkle attend to me if you please: and let me recommend you, for your own sake, to bear in mind his lordship's injunction to be careful." Thus by the agency of Judge and counsel witness was discredited at starting and of course flurried. 'I believe you are a particular friend of Pickwick, the defendant, are you not? Winkle, eager to retrieve himself by being "careful" began-- 'I have known Mr. Pickwick now as well as I recollect at this moment, nearly--' 'Pray, Mr. Winkle, don't evade the question. Are you, or are you not a particular friend of the defendant?' 'I was just about to say that--' 'Will you, or will you not answer my question, sir?' 'If you don't you'll be committed, sir,' interposed the little Judge. 'Come, sir,' said Mr. Skimpin, '_yes or no_, _if you please_.' 'Yes, I am,' replied Mr. Winkle. '_Yes_, _you are_. _And why couldn't you say that at once_, _sir_?' I think there is no more happy touch of legal satire in the books than that about "What the soldier said." It is perfect, so complete, that it is always understood by unprofessional readers. The lawyer feels at once that it is as true as it is happy. 'Little to do and plenty to get,' said Serjeant Buzfuz to Sam. 'O, quite enough to get, sir, as the soldier said ven they ordered him three hundred and fifty lashes.' '_You must not tell us what the soldier or any other man said_, _sir_; _it's not evidence_,' interposed the Judge. Who will forget the roar that always greeted this sally when Boz read it, or the low and slow solemnity which he imparted to the Judge's dictum. As an illustration it is simply admirable. Boz himself would have been pleased to find himself quoted in two impressive legal tomes of some 1800 pages. The great and laborious John Pitt Taylor could not have been wholly a legal dry-as-dust: for the man who could have gravely entered Bardell _v._ Pickwick in his notes and have quoted a passage must have had a share of humour. Most people know that it is a strict principle that "hearsay evidence" of an utterance will not be accepted in lieu of that of the person to whom the remark was made. Neither can we think it out of probability that such an objection may have been made by some over punctilious judge wishing to restrain Sam's exuberance. A Scotch judge once quoted in court a passage from _The Antiquary_ in which he said the true view of an intricate point was given; but then Scott was a lawyer.