Nat smiled. ‘You have to take the smaller path; the wider one leads you into the woods.’
‘Thank you,’ she repeated, and began running back up the hill without another word.
He chased after her, and once he had caught up jogged by her side until they reached the top. He waved goodbye once he was certain she had returned to the straight and narrow. ‘See you later,’ he said, but if she replied, Nat didn’t hear her.
Nat checked his watch as he crossed the finishing line. Forty-three minutes, fifty-one seconds. He cursed again, wondering how much time he’d lost re-directing the wrong-path woman. He didn’t mind. He began to warm down, and took longer over his stretching exercises than he normally would have done, as he waited for the young woman to return.
Suddenly she appeared at the top of the hill, running slowly down towards the finishing line. ‘You made it,’ Nat said with a smile as he jogged over to join her. She didn’t return his smile. ‘I’m Nat Cartwright,’ he said.
‘I know who you are,’ she replied curtly.
‘Have we met before?’
‘No,’ she said, ‘I know you only by reputation.’ She jogged off in the direction of the women’s locker room without offering any further explanation.
‘Stand up those who managed to find all five cases.’
Fletcher and Jimmy rose triumphantly, an emotion that deflated when they discovered at least seventy per cent of the class were also on their feet. ‘Four?’ said the professor trying not to sound too disdainful. Most of those remaining rose, leaving around ten per cent still seated. Fletcher could only wonder how many of them would complete the course. ‘Sit down,’ he said. ‘Let us begin with Maxwell River Gas versus Pennstone; what change in the law came about because of that particular case?’ He pointed to a student in the third row.
‘In 1932 it became the company’s responsibility to ensure that all equipment complied with safety regulations, and all employees understood any emergency procedure.’ The professor moved his finger on.
‘Any written instructions had to be posted where every employee could read them.’
‘When did that become redundant?’
The finger moved again, another voice, ‘Reynolds versus McDermond Timber.’
‘Correct.’ The finger moved again. ‘And why?’
‘Reynolds lost three fingers when cutting a log, but his defence counsel was able to show he couldn’t read, and had not been given any verbal instruction on how to operate the machine.’
‘What was the basis of the new law?’ The finger moved again.
‘The Industry Act 1934, when it became an employer’s responsibility to instruct all staff, verbally and in writing, how to use any equipment.’
‘When did that need further amendments?’ Someone else was selected.
‘Rush versus the government.’
‘Correct, but why did the government still win the case despite being in the wrong?’
Yet another selection. ‘I don’t know, sir.’ The finger moved scornfully on, in search of someone who did.
‘The government was able to defend its position when it was shown that Rush had signed an agreement stating...’ The finger moved.
‘... that he’d received full instructions as demanded by law.’ The finger moved again.
‘That he had also been in their employ beyond the statutory three-year period.’ The finger continued moving...
‘... but the government went on to prove they were not a company in the meaning of the word, as the bill had been badly drafted by the politicians.’
‘Don’t blame the politicians,’ said Abrahams. ‘Lawyers draft legislation, so they must take the responsibility. The politicians were not culpable on this occasion, so once the courts accepted that the government was not subject to its own legislation, who caused the law to be changed yet again?’ He pointed the finger at another terrified face. ‘Demetri versus Demetri,’ came the reply.
‘How did this differ from past laws?’ The finger came to rest on Fletcher.
‘It was the first time that one member of a family sued another for negligence while they were still married, as well as being fifty-fifty shareholders in the company concerned.’
‘Why did that action fail?’ he continued to stare at Fletcher.
‘Because Mrs Demetri refused to give evidence against her husband.’
The finger moved on to Jimmy. ‘Why did she refuse?’ demanded Abrahams.
‘Because she was stupid.’
‘Why was she stupid?’ demanded the professor again.
‘Because her husband probably made love to her, or hit her, the night before or possibly even both, so she caved in.’ A little laughter broke out.
‘Were you present to witness the love-making, Mr Gates, or the attack on her?’ asked Abrahams, to even more laughter.
‘No, sir,’ said Jimmy, ‘but I’ll bet it’s what happened.’
‘You may well be right, Mr Gates, but you would not have been able to prove what took place in the bedroom that night unless you could provide a reliable witness. Had you made such a rash statement in court, opposing counsel would have objected, the judge would have sustained his objection, and the jury would have dismissed you as a fool, Mr Gates. And more importantly, you would have let down your client. Don’t ever rely on what might have happened, however likely it appears, unless you can prove it. If you can’t, remain silent.’
‘But...’ began Fletcher. Several students quickly bowed their heads, others held their breath, while the rest just stared at Fletcher in disbelief.
‘Name?’
‘Davenport, sir.’
‘No doubt you feel able to explain what you mean by the word “but”, Mr Davenport?’
‘Mrs Demetri was advised by her counsel that if she won the case, as neither of them owned a majority holding, the company would have to cease trading. The Kendall Act 1941. She then placed her shares on the open market and they were picked up by her husband’s greatest rival, a Mr Canelli, for $100,000. I cannot prove that Mr Canelli was, or wasn’t, sleeping with Mrs Demetri, but I do know that the company went into liquidation a year later, when she repurchased her shares for ten cents each, at a cost of $7,300, and then immediately signed a new partnership deal with her husband.’
‘Was Mr Canelli able to prove the Demetris were acting in collusion?’ Fletcher thought carefully. Was Abrahams setting him a trap? ‘Why do you hesitate?’ demanded Abrahams.
‘It wouldn’t constitute proof, professor.’
‘Nevertheless, what is it you wish to tell us?’
‘Mrs Demetri produced a second child a year later, and the birth certificate indicated that Mr Demetri was the father.’
‘You’re right, that is not proof, so what charge was brought against her?’
‘None; in fact, the new company went on to be very successful.’
‘Then how did they cause the law to be changed?’
‘The judge brought this case to the attention of the attorney general of that state.’
‘Which state?’
‘Ohio, and as a consequence, they passed the Marriage Partnership Act.’
‘Year?’
‘1949.’
‘Changes of relevance?’
‘Husbands and wives could no longer repurchase shares sold in a former company in which they had been partners, if that directly benefited them as individuals.’
‘Thank you, Mr Davenport,’ said the professor, as the clock struck eleven. ‘Your “but” was well qualified.’ A ripple of applause broke out. ‘But not that well qualified,’ added Abrahams, as he left the lecture theatre.