Imagine Messrs. Lewis and Lewis sending in such a demand at the end of a trial which it had taken them nearly a year to get ready. In our time it could hardly be done under 1,000 pounds. Perker, by the way, told his client that on payment of the costs both of Plaintiff and Defendent, into the hands of "these sharks" he would get his release. With much indulgence--the attornies--allowed him to leave the prison on his bare undertaking to pay. And it is not clear why he should pay his own costs to them, and not to Perker. And they were _not_ paid for sometime. Mr. Pickwick's own costs must have been small. He had no witnesses. Perker would not have made a hand of him, and I fancy he would have got off for ninety pounds, or a hundred pounds. There was, however, the fees of the Special Jury, so he would have to pay, say, 220 pounds. THE COGNOVIT. Perker, it has been shown, was not a very brilliant solicitor, and his views on the trial were somewhat cloudy. When he was urging his client to leave the Fleet he threw out some equally shadowy and ill-informed notions as to what might be done in the way of punishing the nefarious solicitors, Dodson and Fogg, "those Freeman's Court Sharks." His great charge was that they had got a _cognovit_, or undertaking to pay their costs out of Mrs. Bardell--their own client! Mr. Pickwick refused to pay them--why should not she? The poor woman had "blabbed" to Sam, a careless and natural assurance of theirs, that they would be content to get them from Mr. Pickwick--a thing many a firm would do. But Perker here sees a regular conspiracy. "I cannot undertake to say whether the wording of the cognovit, the nature of the ostensible consideration and the proof we can get together about the whole conduct of the suit, _will be sufficient to justify an indictment for conspiracy_." It is impossible to understand this bit of legal jargon. "The wording of the cognovit"--one could speculate on _that_ without seeing it. (2) "The nature of the ostensible consideration" was not far to seek--it being work and labour done for the Plaintiff. And again, supposing they had promised her to get them solely from Mr. Pickwick--Sam's revelation of this, in open court, and its reception with laughter, showed what was thought of it. So which of the two courses were they to adopt? (3) And "the proof we may get together about the whole conduct of the suit." This "whole conduct" was perfectly regular. So the Judge thought--so did the jury. The case was proved by Pickwick's own friends. As we know, however, the firm took no steps to obtain satisfaction, but there cannot be the slightest doubt that they would have "recovered damages." We doubt if Mr. Pickwick would have gone to the Fleet for the second time rather than pay.