The following article was written by attorney J.C. Mitchell, senior member of the Mitchell and Armstrong law firm after the death of attorney Ralph Harris and published in the Marion Daily Republican.
When I returned to practice law in Marion in July of 1949, three lawyers Ralph Harris, August Fowler and Gordon Franklin, were the top trial lawyers in Williamson County.
“Gus” (as Mr. Fowler was and is known by almost all lawyers) and Gordon represented the type of trial lawyer whom you see in practice today. Ralph, while being our first successful personal injury lawyer, approached the practice from a different point of view He was, as can be best described, a “flamboyant” advocate. To build a personal injury practice, he always felt you had to represent what he described as the “little guy,” meaning those clients who needed help and had little monetary means with which to pay. Being a young lawyer, and having principally this type of client when I commenced the practice, it was Ralph who early in my career aided my legal “education” in the court room.
For example, early in the 1950’s, I was defending a woman in a divorce matter. Ralph represented the Plaintiff husband and as he always did, the case was heard by a jury. (At that time under Illinois Law you could have an advisory jury in a divorce case.) Of unusual interest concerning this case is that the husband and wife were somewhere between 75 and 80. They had been married over 50 years. The grounds for divorce alleged against the wife were acts of extreme and repeated physical cruelty.
During the course of the trial, Ralph was examining a witness, and as he always did, he was very serious and concentrated on the testimony. While doing so, his client kept repeatedly hitting him on the shoulder trying to get his attention. Ralph ignored him. Everyone present, including the Judge and Jury, were witnessing the episode.
Finally, the judge stated to Ralph, “Mr. Harris, I believe your client wishes to speak with you.” This of course angered Ralph, and in such a mood he turned to his client and said,”What’s wrong, Sam?”
His client replied,”Dang it, Ralph, she’s doing it again!” “Doing what,” Ralph almost shouted. “She’s kicking me again.” Before he thought, Ralph replied,”Well, kick her back!”
At this juncture the judge intervened with a recess. Ralph had forgotten the allegations of extreme and repeated cruelty he had alleged in his complaint on behalf of his client against mine were that she had repeatedly kicked her husband under the breakfast table. As any lawyer can attest today, times have changed.
Speaking of changing times, when I started practicing law in 1949, $25 was a lot of money, particularly, to a young lawyer with a wife, a three year old child and no clients. Ralph and I were again trying a lawsuit, (with a jury of course), and I was trying to get in evidence through a witness. Because of repeated objections by Ralph, I was unsuccessful.
Finally after my repeated efforts, the court directed that Ralph and I approach the bench. At that time in what we lawyers call a side-bar conference, the judge in a whisper admonished me to the effect that if I again repeated my previous questions he was going to hold me in contempt and fine me $25. For me, $25 was a lot of money, more than the cost of the week’s groceries. As a matter of courtesy, the judge turned to Ralph and said, “Mr. Harris do you have anything to say?”
Ralph uttered, “Yes, Judge, if all it’s going to cost Jake is $25, I’d like to pay my $25 to the court now, because I have a lot I’d like to say about this matter.”
One might wonder Ralph’s motive for this statement, but I can assure the readers he meant it. To him, $25 was not much for what he wanted to say.
Thinking in terms of what to say, Ralph always felt one of his deficiencies as a lawyer was his vocabulary. I remember another divorce case in which we were involved I represented the Plaintiff wife and Ralph the Defendant husband. The husband had lived with my client as husband and wife for some 25 years. Being a man who made his living on the road, he had also acquired another wife and child in Tennessee and had divorced my client in Tennessee without her knowledge, although he continued to live with her for over five years after the so-called Tennessee divorce.
I thought the best way to prove my case, (to set aside the Tennessee divorce and to prove my client’s grounds for divorce, being adultery), was to call the husband as an adverse witness. After asking him his name and address, I inquired of him if he knew Mrs. “X.” (This lady, being the so-called, second wife.) Immediately, Ralph jumped to his feet and objected.
The court looked at Ralph somewhat startled and said to him, “Upon what grounds, Mr. Harris? All Mr. Mitchell has asked is whether or not your client was acquainted with a certain lady.”
“Judge,” Ralph said, “You’re wrong. You’re thinking about one kind of “knowing” and Jake (meaning me), is thinking about another. He means Judge, you know, knowing a woman, like what you learn in bed.”
Ralph was right again. He had an ear for words. The judge called a recess, and the case was settled. An interesting side light of this case is that about a year after the trial, one of the daughters of the Defendant husband came to my office and retained me to represent her in a divorce action. She told me her dad had sent her and that he would guarantee the fee. He said for her to tell me to “do that S.O.B. the same thing that you ‘done’ for me.” I did.
(Article (ca 1982) entitled “My Legal Education from Ralph Harris”, Written by J.C. Mitchell who had practiced law in Williamson County since 1949. He was the senior member of the Mitchell and Armstrong Law firm in Marion.)