Ever been to court? It’s about the only way to
settle with an insurance company if their client
runs off the road, into the yard, and over
you—so I went.
"All rise for the Honorable Judge
Snidely Whipsnade," said the Court
Marshall, or Deputy Director, or whatever it is
they call him. Anyway, I rose; even though I
seldom take the term "Honorable"
seriously without some sort of proof; I don’t
watch court TV, so I’m not very well
The Judge sat. We sat. The badged and
badgered bureaucrat proclaimed court to be in
session, which translates loosely to "Let
the games begin." Or "Loose the lions;
the Christians are getting stale."
First Case: Mother Goose Collections vs.
Little Old Lady in a shoe, children et al.
Pertinent facts of the case were as follows.
Defendant borrowed three dollars for the
purchase of one large soup bone and had fallen
two months behind on her payments.
The Judge bangs his gavel. (Note: need
definition for gavel or don’t say the Judge
was banging it for obvious legal reasons). Court
finds in favor of plaintiff; shoe-lady was
lawyerless or unlawyered (not sure of the
One 1957 house-sized shoe with worn leather
laces and a thin sole.
Soles foreclosed on and sold by the court.
Hmmm…. perhaps disaster lurks not just around
Next Case: Humpty-Dumpty vs. All the King’s
men and all the King’s Horses. Pertinent facts
of the case: Mr. Dumpty, through no fault of his
own, had a great fall. This fall was from a wall
owned by the King. Now Mr. Dumpty is in pieces
and the King’s men and the King’s horses had
failed to put him back together again. Also,
there is the whole pain and suffering issue.
There were lawyers on both sides of the case
making for a difficult decision. However, the
ignorant horses were not lawyered-up, and the
Judge didn’t buy their defense:
"We can’t fix an egg your honor;
we’re just horses with hooves."
Seems ignorance and hooves are no excuse for
the law. Verdict: Court finds in favor of the
plaintiff, sunny side up, in the amount of ten
grand and a new shell. The King’s horses will
of course appeal.
Now my case. Too make a silly story short—I
won. There is joy in Mudville once again. The
Judge ruled that if you drive up in a yard and
run over the guy (me) cutting the grass, well
then, you have put tire tracks in the
homeowner’s lawn—destruction of personal
property. You have also deprived said homeowner
of the lawn maintenance for which he has paid.
Plus, by running over a working stiff, you are
endangering the tax base that is the source of
the Judge’s income—not good.
Last Case: Wicked Witch vs. Hansel and Gretel
for breach of contract. Wicked Witch claims a
mutual understanding, by way of verbal contract,
that upon fattening of the two children she was
entitled to eat them (it seems there is
Judge finds in favor of Wicked Witch (she had
a lawyer) but only awards one dollar in damages
as an old out of date law prohibits cannibalism.
He does, however, severely reprimand H&G for
their deception of the plaintiff. They fattened
up on the old lady’s groceries after wasting
their own food, scattering bread crumbs
willy-nilly through the woods.
* * * *
Edward Hurst writes a humor columns
for Villa Rica Voice in Georgia and is raising a
wife and two children. Read more of his work at http://www.southerncomedy.com