Read on Twitter
Somehow I didn& #39;t know until tonight that Teddy Roosevelt sued a newspaper for saying he was a drunk, and there was a trial, and so that& #39;s why there is a book full of the depos, pages of which are about whether Teddy drank juleps.
https://archive.org/details/rooseveltvsnewet00roos/page/44/mode/2up">https://archive.org/details/r...
https://archive.org/details/rooseveltvsnewet00roos/page/44/mode/2up">https://archive.org/details/r...
Here we have the crucial testimony that TR drank up to 6 mint juleps a year, because the white house had mint, but only one at a time.
Back to the juleps again, to clarify that he meant little cups of juleps and not large tumblers of juleps.
This witness was brought in to declare that he had only seen TR drink a single julep.
But this witness swears TR had a julep in LR.
Two swallows of julep in 1910. This lawsuit really seems like it was useful.
a five day trial about the damnable juleps.
Roosevelt disclaimed damages and was awarded six cents.
Roosevelt called 34 witnesses, including President Garfield& #39;s son.
I& #39;m dying imagining all these high and mighty witnesses trooping to Michigan to testify that Teddy Roosevelt had one, but no more, juleps. Or maybe the depos were admitted on the papers? Either way.
Finally, the defendant admitted his article must have been mistaken, because he could not find people who would go on the record that the President drank to excess.
They key point, as a lawyer, is that all the lawyers billed happily for this exercise I am sure, including Roosevelt& #39;s prominent NYC lawyer.
I suppose the other moral is that you should not litigate against Teddy Roosevelt, because he will absolutely call 34 witnesses, including various Admirals and ambassadors, to testify about the number of juleps he drank and the size of his julep cups, and what was in them.
