Rensselaer Republican, Volume 16, Number 45, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 July 1884 — The Cow’s Color. [ARTICLE]

The Cow’s Color.

In the early days of Thaddeus Stevens’ practice he was engaged by the defendent in a suit for damages in an alleged trespass of his cow in a neighbor's garden. In the cross examination of a witness who swore to having seen the cow on the premises, Mr. Stevens said: “Did I understand you to say that the cow in the garden was a black* cow?” • “Yes. sir.” “Will you undertake to say that the cow you saw was perfectly black, or was it not lighter in some parts? Now be careful; this is a very important point in your testimony and will effect the decision of the jury,” “Well, I said it was a black cow to the best of my recollection*' but it might have been a little mixed in color.” “Ah!” said stevens, “we are coining to the truth at last. You say it was mixed in color, what do you mean by that? Was it spotted?” “Np, I did not see any spots on it, but it might have been lighter or brindled about the head and breast.” “A brindled cow was it? First it was black, then a little mixed in some places, and now brindled.” 1 The poor witness, utterly bewildered at the perversion of bis testimony, could not make a clear statement. Stevens in his speech to the jury, said: “Now, gentlemen of the jury, you have heard and must judge of the credibility of a witness who first swears that he saw my client’s cow in his neighbor’s cabbages, then swears that the cow was black; he then admits that the cow might have been partially brindled; in fact he can’t tell what kind of a cow it was. As there is no question about the color of my client’s cow, this evidence fails to prove the ease against him.”— Philadelphia Times.