For a while, I heard no more about the case and, actually, it skipped my mind. Eventually, I recalled it when I walked up the stairs leading to the library mezzanine. Out of sheer curiosity I rang Robert up when I was back in my room. To my surprise, he had not changed his statement of claim. Further, he had no raised a count based on a mistake.
“But, Robert, haven’t you acquired a copy of the certificate about the mare?”
“Our solicitors did not manage to get it. Actually, the sale house’s defence is sparse. Their solicitors have denied the claims made by us. Do you want to see what they have submitted?”
It was clear from the pleading that the auctioneers decided to treat the case as turning on the facts. They denied that the mare “was not as described in the catalogue”, added that the plaintiff was, in any event, not entitled to rely on it and, as expected, denied that any certificate at variance with the catalogue description had been produced. Robert had not filed a reply. To my mind the issues had crystallised in an unfavourable manner. Robert would have to establish the existence of the certificate. How was he going to do that?
“The Court is bound to believe my client. Jack Smith is a respectable person.”
“But how about the sales house. You told me they were highly reputable.”
“But this time they erred! The auctioneer they used - Douglas brown – is not a horse breeder and knows nothing about them!”
Robert was not keen to engage is an argument. So, I decided to keep my silence. But I had a bad feeling.
A further glance at the pleadings exacerbated my forebodings. Generally, lawyers fall into two groups. The first enjoyed fine legal points and thrived on theory. Robert was one of them. The other group comprised non-nonsense men, who would concentrate on the facts and seek to score with simple, common sense, arguments. Thomas Bardwell – Robert’s opponent – fell into this group. He was also known as a sharp – often unscrupulous – cross-examiner.
Naturally, I appreciated that the classification of lawyers into such two groups was not conclusive. Most lawyers were intelligent professionals, who knew when to concentrate on legal point and when to fight a case of its ‘merits’ (facts). After a while, though, most lawyers tended to acquire a reputation for their skills in working out their tactics and approaches to a case. The ones most in demand had proved their skills both in taking up points of law and in arguments respecting facts. Neither Robert nor Thomas had attained such an outstanding reputation.