The Risk To Be Percieved Defines The

As I Search The Archives Of My Memory I Seem To Discern Six Types Or Methods [of Judicial Writing] Which Divide Themselves From One Another With Measurable Distinctness. There Is The Type Magisterial Or Imperative; The Type Laconic Or Sententious; The Type Conversational Or Homely; The Type Refined Or Artificial, Smelling Of The Lamp, Verging At Times Upon Preciosity Or Euphuism; The Demonstrative Or Persuasive; And Finally The Type Tonsorial Or Agglutinative, So Called From The Shears And The Pastepot Which Are Its Implements And Emblem.

History Or Custom Or Social Utility Or Some Compelling Sense Of Justice Or Sometimes Perhaps A Semi-intuitive Apprehension Of The Pervading Spirit Of Our Law Must Come To The Rescue Of The Anxious Judge And Tell Him Where To Go.

Justice, Though Due To The Accused, Is Due The Accuser Also. The Concept Of Fairness Cannot Be Strained Till It Is Narrowed To A Filament. We Are To Keep Our Balance True.

There Are Vogues And Fashions In Jurisprudence As In Literature And Art And Dress.

In Truth, I Am Nothing But A Plodding Mediocrity — Please Observe, A Plodding Mediocrity — For A Mere Mediocrity Does Not Go Very Far, But A Plodding One Gets Quite A Distance. There Is Joy In That Success, And A Distinction Can Come From Courage, Fidelity And Industry.