From the Taunton Courier and Western Advertiser, 30 May 1866, this account of a reference in the Dublin Court of Exchequer to the biblical character Joseph, who successfully resisted seduction by Potiphar’s wife, only to be falsely accused of rape as a result.
The proceedings were civil proceedings for indecent assault; the defendant was William Graham, a well-known manufacturer of agricultural implements based in Smithfield, and the injured party Mrs Godbey of North King Street, the wife of another local resident.
“JUSTICE WITH THE CAP AND BELLS
The following cross-examination of the defendant in an action in the Dublin Court of Exchequer for indecent assault on a married woman, is extracted from the Dublin ‘Freeman’.
Mr Serjeant Armstrong – ‘Tell me, Mr Graham, are you what they call an absolute Joseph?’
Defendant – ‘I do not know what you mean.’
Mr Serjeant Armstrong – ‘Did you ever hear of Joseph of Egypt?’
Defendant – ‘No.’
Mr Serjeant Armstrong – ‘Or the other Joseph, or of any Joseph’.
Mr Dowse – ‘Joseph Napier.’
Mr Serjeant Armstrong – ‘I will give you three. Joseph of Egypt, Joseph Andrews, and Joseph Surface, and ask you if you ever heard of them?’
Witness: ‘No.’
Mr Serjeant Armstrong: ‘Never heard of any of them?’
Witness: ‘No.’
Mr Serjeant Armstrong: ‘Then you are a man of religious education at any rate. Did you ever hear of Mrs Potiphar?’
Witness: ‘No.’
Mr Serjeant Armstrong: ‘Now, Mr Graham, you live in Smithfield, and do you mean to say that you never heard of Mrs Potiphar, of North King-street?’
Witness (emphatically): ‘Upon my oath I never heard tell of the woman.’
Mr Serjeant Armstrong: ‘Well then, Mr Graham, as they are going to improve the system of national education, may I ask you who was your school-master, for something may be done for him?’
Witness: ‘I had so many of them I could not say’
Mr Butt: ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth.’
Mr Serjeant Armstrong: ‘Very well, and we have the result. Now, Mr Graham, you say you do not know who Joseph was …’
Witness: ‘If it is Joseph of the Scriptures you are talking of, I know as much about him as you do. I will argue the point with you if you like.”
The jury subsequently found for the plaintiff, but awarded six pence only in damages.
Mr Graham seems to have continued in business following the trial; this advertisement below is from a few years later.
The lawyers involved in the above were some of the most eminent in mid 19th century Bar lore: Richard Armstrong, a brilliant lawyer prone to fits of delirium, who once thought he was a rabbit and tried to eat his hat, and often got into disputes with colleagues in court; Richard Dowse (later Baron Dowse), the Bar and Bench’s greatest humorist; and barrister and politician Isaac Butt.
The Joseph Napier jokingly referenced by them was another one of their colleagues, whose eminence did not save him from being the victim of many jokes. He is reputed to have been the original of the expression ‘Holy Joe’.
Leave a Reply