Young Chankery began nervously; he was placed by Bosinney's absence in
an awkward position. He therefore did his best to turn that absence to
account.
He could not but fear--he said--that his client had met with an
accident. He had fully expected him there to give evidence; they had
sent round that morning both to Mr. Bosinney's office and to his rooms
(though he knew they were one and the same, he thought it was as
well not to say so), but it was not known where he was, and this he
considered to be ominous, knowing how anxious Mr. Bosinney had been to
give his evidence. He had not, however, been instructed to apply for an
adjournment, and in default of such instruction he conceived it his duty
to go on. The plea on which he somewhat confidently relied, and which
his client, had he not unfortunately been prevented in some way from
attending, would have supported by his evidence, was that such an
expression as a 'free hand' could not be limited, fettered, and rendered
unmeaning, by any verbiage which might follow it. He would go further
and say that the correspondence showed that whatever he might have said
in his evidence, Mr. Forsyte had in fact never contemplated repudiating
liability on any of the work ordered or executed by his architect. The
defendant had certainly never contemplated such a contingency, or, as
was demonstrated by his letters, he would never have proceeded with
the work--a work of extreme delicacy, carried out with great care and
efficiency, to meet and satisfy the fastidious taste of a connoisseur, a
rich man, a man of property. He felt strongly on this point, and feeling
strongly he used, perhaps, rather strong words when he said that this
action was of a most unjustifiable, unexpected, indeed--unprecedented
character. If his Lordship had had the opportunity that he himself had
made it his duty to take, to go over this very fine house and see the
great delicacy and beauty of the decorations executed by his client--an
artist in his most honourable profession--he felt convinced that not for
one moment would his Lordship tolerate this, he would use no stronger
word than daring attempt to evade legitimate responsibility.
Taking the text of Soames' letters, he lightly touched on 'Boileau v.
The Blasted Cement Company, Limited.' "It is doubtful," he said, "what
that authority has decided; in any case I would submit that it is just
as much in my favour as in my friend's." He then argued the 'nice
point' closely. With all due deference he submitted that Mr. Forsyte's
expression nullified itself. His client not being a rich man, the matter
was a serious one for him; he was a very talented architect, whose
professional reputation was undoubtedly somewhat at stake. He concluded
with a perhaps too personal appeal to the Judge, as a lover of the arts,
to show himself the protector of artists, from what was occasionally--he
said occasionally--the too iron hand of capital. "What," he said, "will
be the position of the artistic professions, if men of property like
this Mr. Forsyte refuse, and are allowed to refuse, to carry out the
obligations of the commissions which they have given." He would now call
his client, in case he should at the last moment have found himself able
to be present.