There was a claim against a gentleman for a butcher’s bill. He had the best of all defences, for he had paid ready money for every item as it was delivered. The plaintiff was the younger partner of a butchering firm which had broken up, leaving him in possession of the books and his partner in possession of the credit. The proprietor of the book-debts proved the order and delivery of certain joints prior to a certain date, and swore they had not been paid for. To show his title to recover the value of them, he somewhat unnecessarily thrust before the Barrister the deed which constituted him a partner. The Judge instantly compared the deed with the bill. ‘Why,’ he said, turning to the butcher, ‘all the items you have sworn to were purchased anterior to the date of your entering into partnership. If any one is entitled to recover, it is your partner, whom the defendant alleges he has paid.’ In one, as they are called, of the ‘Superior Courts,’ I very much doubt whether either Judge or Jury would have discovered for themselves this important discrepancy. The documentary evidence was not confined to deeds and writings, stamped or unstamped. Even during the short time I was present, I saw some curious records produced before the Barrister—records as primitive in their way as those the Chancellor of the Exchequer used to keep in the Tally-Office, before the comparatively recent introduction of book-keeping into the department of our national accountant. Among other things received in evidence, were a milkwoman’s score, and a baker’s notches. Mr. Ficker appeared inclined to think that no weight ought to be attached to such evidence as this. But when I recollect that there have occasionally been such things as tombstones produced in evidence before Lord Volatile in his own particular Court, the House of Lords, (‘the highest jurisdiction,’ as they call it, ‘in the realm,’) I see no good reason why Mrs. Chalk, the milkwoman, should not be permitted to produce her tallies in a County Court. For every practical purpose the score upon the one seems just as good a document as the epitaph upon the other. I was vastly pleased by the great consideration which appeared to be displayed towards misfortune and adversity. These Courts are emphatically Courts for the _recovery_ of debts; and inasmuch as they afford great facilities to plaintiffs, it is therefore the more incumbent that defendants should be protected against hardship and oppression. A man was summoned to show why he had not paid a debt pursuant to a previous order of the Court. The plaintiff attended to press the case against him, and displayed some rancour. ‘Why have you not paid, Sir?’ demanded the Judge, sternly. ‘Your honour,’ said the man, ‘I have been out of employment six months, and within the last fortnight everything I have in the world has been seized in execution.’