| re: NJC: Coat-hanger Cliffhanger | |
|
Posted by: |
Bart 01:13 pm UTC 06/28/10 |
| In reply to: | NJC: Coat-hanger Cliffhanger - daveake 07:25 am UTC 06/25/10 |
| Great story, read it 2 times. But I dont believe it really happened > Since it's quiet here .... from a legal case in 2002, how > to have fun in court ... > > Counsel: What is your name? > > Chrysler: Chrysler. Arnold Chrysler. > > Counsel: Is that your own name? > > Chrysler: Whose name do you think it is? > > Counsel: I am just asking if it is your name. > > Chrysler: And I have just told you it is. Why do you doubt > it? > > Counsel: It is not unknown for people to give a false name > in court. > > Chrysler: Which court? > > Counsel: This court. > > Chrysler: What is the name of this court? > > Counsel: This is No 5 Court. > > Chrysler: No, that is the number of this court. What is > the name of this court? > > Counsel: It is quite immaterial what the name of this > court is! > > Chrysler: Then perhaps it is immaterial if Chrysler is > really my name. > > Counsel: No, not really, you see because... > > Judge: Mr Lovelace? > > Counsel: Yes, m'lud? > > Judge: I think Mr Chrysler is running rings round you > already. I would try a new line of attack if I were you. > > Counsel: Thank you, m'lud. > > Chrysler: And thank you from ME, m'lud. It's nice to be > appreciated. > > Judge: Shut up, witness. > > Chrysler: Willingly, m'lud. It is a pleasure to be told to > shut up by you. For you, I would... > > Judge: Shut up, witness. Carry on, Mr Lovelace. > > Counsel: Now, Mr Chrysler – for let us assume that that is > your name – you are accused of purloining in excess of > 40,000 hotel coat hangers. > > Chrysler: I am. > > Counsel: Can you explain how this came about? > > Chrysler: Yes. I had 40,000 coats which I needed to hang > up. > > Counsel: Is that true? > > Chrysler: No. > > Counsel: Then why did you say it? > > Chrysler: To attempt to throw you off balance. > > Counsel: Off balance? > > Chrysler: Certainly. As you know, all barristers seek to > undermine the confidence of any hostile witness, or > defendant. Therefore it must be equally open to the > witness, or defendant, to try to shake the confidence of a > hostile barrister. > > Counsel: On the contrary, you are not here to indulge in > cut and thrust with me. You are only here to answer my > questions. > > Chrysler: Was that a question? > > Counsel: No. > > Chrysler: Then I can't answer it. > > Judge: Come on, Mr Lovelace! I think you are still being > given the run-around here. You can do better than that. At > least, for the sake of the English bar, I hope you can. > > Counsel: Yes, m'lud. Now, Mr Chrysler, perhaps you will > describe what reason you had to steal 40,000 coat > hangers? > > Chrysler: Is that a question? > > Counsel: Yes. > > Chrysler: It doesn't sound like one. It sounds like a > proposition which doesn't believe in itself. You know – > "Perhaps I will describe the reason I had to steal 40,000 > coat hangers... Perhaps I won't... Perhaps I'll sing a > little song instead..." > > Judge: In fairness to Mr Lovelace, Mr Chrysler, I should > remind you that barristers have an innate reluctance to > frame a question as a question. Where you and I would say, > "Where were you on Tuesday?", they are more likely to say, > "Perhaps you could now inform the court of your precise > whereabouts on the day after that Monday?". It isn't, > strictly, a question, and it is not graceful English but > you must pretend that it is a question and then answer it, > otherwise we will be here for ever. Do you understand? > > Chrysler: Yes, m'lud. > > Judge: Carry on, Mr Lovelace. > > Counsel: Mr Chrysler, why did you steal 40,000 hotel coat > hangers, knowing as you must have that hotel coat hangers > are designed to be useless outside hotel wardrobes? > > Chrysler: Because I build and sell wardrobes which are > specially designed to take nothing but hotel coat > hangers. > > Counsel: Now, Mr Chrysler, am I right in saying that hotel > clothes hangers do not have hooks on top but little studs > that will only work on special racks? > > Chrysler: That is correct. > > Counsel: This design arose because so many hotel hangers > were stolen? > > Chrysler: That is correct. > > Counsel: And they had no option but to change the design > to stop them being stolen? > > Chrysler: That is not correct. > > Counsel: That is not correct? > > Chrysler: No. The world of hotels had not one, but two > options. They could change the design of the way they were > hung, yes, but they could also cheapen the hangers. They > could very easily have given guests inexpensive plastic or > metal hangers they would never have missed when they were > stolen. But that would have lowered the tone of the hotel. > Hotels, even hotels in a chain, like to have a touch of > class. They like giving guests high-class solid wood > hangers. It makes them feel good about themselves. It also > makes them worth stealing. > > Counsel: And people come to you, do they, asking you to > make special wardrobes so that they can use stolen clothes > hangers? > > Chrysler: It isn't so much the fact that they are stolen > that makes them attractive. You have to remember that many > top businessmen spend more of their time in hotels than in > their own home. They become used to hotel life. They think > of hotels as home. Therefore they become used to hotel > hangers and think of them as normal, and on the rare > occasions when they spend some time at home they can't > stand these fiddly things with hooks which you and I may > think of as normal but which the business traveller thinks > of as loose-fitting and badly designed. So they come to me > and get me to make a hotel-style wardrobe. > > Counsel: Are you seriously suggesting that there are > people who prefer hotel life to home life? > > Chrysler: Certainly. A lot of businessmen would never go > home if they had the chance. So when they get home they > like to recreate the hotel experience in their own house. > Many of my clients have their own mini-bars in their > bedrooms. They have TV sets at the end of the bed on a > raised shelf, often with an adult sex channel on it. All > their bathroom products come in wrappers and are thrown > away each day. I have even known people in their own home > put out "Do Not Disturb" notices on the door of their own > bedroom. > > Counsel: Stolen, presumably, from some hapless hotel. > > Chrysler: Never call a hotel hapless. They know what they > are doing. No hotel loses money willingly. They may have > things taken from them, but the stuff that guests leave > behind is just as valuable. > > Counsel: Are you serious when you say that clients of > yours drink from their own minibars in their own bedrooms > in their own homes? > > Chrysler: Certainly. And just as in a hotel, they grumble > about the price and size of the bottles, and the absence > of ice. > > Counsel: So why don't they get a proper fridge in their > bedroom? > > Chrysler : Because then it wouldn't be like a hotel. > > Judge: Tell me, Mr Chrysler, do these businessmen of yours > also have Gideon Bibles by their bedside at home? > > Chrysler: Many of them, sir. > > Judge: And where do you get the Gideon Bibles from? > > Chrysler: Alas, they, too, have to be taken from hotels. > > Judge: Then why are you not also up on a charge of > Bible-stealing? > > Chrysler: Because the Bibles do not belong to the hotels. > They belong to the Gideon Society. And the Gideon Society > has decided not to prosecute me, but to forgive me and > tell me to go and sin no more. > > Judge: And have you sinned no more? > > Chrysler: Alas, no. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | NJC: Coat-hanger Cliffhanger - daveake 07:25 am UTC 06/25/10 |
| Next: | Odd piece of Meat Loaf merch - NuttyNuts 02:27 am UTC 06/24/10 |
| Thread: | |