Skip to main content
A hindu priest, rabbi and a lawyer were driving down the road, when the car breaks down. Fortunately finding a farmhouse nearby, the farmer informed them that he had only one spare room, and that it had only two twin beds. They were welcome to it, but one of them had to sleep in the barn. After much discussion, the hindu volunteered to go to the barn. A few moments later, a knock on the bedroom door, and the hidu explained that there was a соw in the barn, and cows are sacred and he could not possibly sleep in the barn with a соw. Annoyed, the rabbi volunteered. a few moments later, a knock on the door. The rabbi explained that there was a pig in the barn and that he, being very orthodox, could not possibly spend the evening in the barn with the origin of pork. Finally the lawyer said that he would go to the barn. A few moments later there was a knock on the door. It was the соw and the pig!!!
The following is a true story, and this situation supposedly occurred in a real courtroom.
At a trial, an attorney was putting witnesses through an exacting cross-examination, and was taking great delight into forcing witnesses to admit that they did not remember every single detail of an automobile accident. While the lawyer knew that no witness has a perfect memory, he had honed a skill in exploiting minor inconsistencies and lapses of memory in order to challenge the credibility of honest witnesses. After a series of scathing cross-examinations, he was looking forward to his examination of yet another witness.
'Did you actually see the accident?' he asked.
The witness responded with a polite, 'Yes, sir.'
'How far away were you when the accident happened?'
'I was Thirty-four feet, seven and three quarters inches away from the point of collision.'
'Thirty-four feet, seven and three quarter inches?' the lawyer asked, sarcastically, 'Do you expect us to believe that your memory is so good, and your sense of distance is so precise, that months after the accident you can come into court and give that type of detail?'
The witness was unphased. 'Sir, I had a hunch that some obnoxious, know-it-all lawyer would ask me the distance, and would try to make it seem like I was lying if I could not give an exact answer. So I got a tape measure, and measured out the exact distance.'
One evening, after attending the theater, two gentlemen were walking down the avenue when they observed a rather well dressed and attractive young lady walking ahead of them. One of them turned to the other and remarked, "I'd give $250.00 to spend the night with that woman." Much to their surprise, the young lady overheard the remark, turned around, and replied, "I'll take you up on that offer." She had a neat appearance and a pleasant voice, so after bidding his companion good night, the man accompanied the young lady to her apartment. The following morning the man presented her with $125.00 as he prepared to leave. She demanded the rest of the money, stating "If you don't give me the other $125.00, I'll sue you for it." He laughed, saying, "I'd like to see you get it on these grounds." Within a few days, he was surprised when he received a summons ordering his presence in court as a defendant in a lawsuit. He hurried to his lawyer and explained the details of the case. His lawyer said,
"She can't possibly get a judgment against you on such grounds, but it will be interesting to see how her case will be presented."
After the usual preliminaries, the lady's lawyer addressed the court as follows:
"Your honor, my client, this lady, is the owner of a piece of property, a garden spot, surrounded by a profuse growth of shrubbery, which property she agreed to rent to the defendant for a specified length of time for the sum of $250.00. The defendant took possession of the property, used it extensively for the purposes for which it was rented, but upon evacuating the premises, he paid only $125.00, one-half of the amount agreed upon. The rent was not excessive, since it is restricted property, and we ask judgment be granted against the defendant to assure payment of the balance." The defendant's lawyer was impressed and amused by the way his opponent had presented the case. His defense therefore was somewhat different from the way he originally planned to present it. "Your honor," he said,
"My client agrees that the lady has a fine piece of property, which he did rent such property for a time, and a degree of pleasure was derived from the transaction. However, my client found a well on the property around which he placed his own stones, sunk a shaft, and erected a pump, all labor performed personally by him. We claim these improvements to the property were sufficient to offset the unpaid amount, and that the plaintiff was adequately compensated for the rental of said property. We, therefore, ask that judgment not be granted." The young lady's lawyer answered, "Your honor, my client agrees that the defendant did find a well on her property. However, had the defendant not known that the well existed; he would never have rented the property. Also, upon evacuating the premises, the defendant removed the stones, pulled out the shaft, and took the pump with him. In doing so, he not only dragged the equipment through the shrubbery, but left the hole much larger than it was prior to his occupancy, making the property much less desirable to others. We, therefore, ask that judgment be granted."
In the Judge's decision, he provided for two options:
"Pay the $125.00 or have the equipment detached from its current location and provide it to the plaintiff for damages." The defendant immediately wrote a check.
An American lawyer invited a Czech friend to stay with him in his mountain cabin. Early in the morning, the lawyer and his Czech friend went out to pick berries for their morning breakfast. As they were picking blueberries, along came two big Bears - a male and a female.
The lawyer, seeing the two bears, climbed a tree.
His friend wasn't so lucky and the male bear caught him and swallowed him whole.
The lawyer drove his car to town as fast has he could to get a policeman. The policeman took his gun and ran to the berry patch with the lawyer.
Sure enough, the two bears were still there. "He's in that one!" said the lawyer, pointing to the male.
The policeman looked at the bears, took careful aim with his gun, and shot the FEMALE.
"What did you do that for!" shouted the lawyer, "I said he was in the other bear!"
"Exactly," answered the policeman. "Would you believe a lawyer who told you that the Czech was in the Male?"