The Icelandic Canadian - 01.06.1967, Síða 61

THE ICELANDIC CANADIAN
59
the Court of King’s Bench and recover-
ed a judgement from Chief Justice
Mathers. The company appealed to the
Manitoba Court of Appeal and the five
judges of that court unanimously
agreed with the trial judge. The com-
pany then went to the Supreme Court
of Canada. In this court, Bergman was
opposed by Eugene Lafleur, K.C., per-
haps the greatest lawyer Canada has
ever produced.
In the Supreme Court, three judges
of a court of five decided in favor of
the mortgage company. My father
promptly gave notice of an appeal to
the Privy Council. The company did
not want to take any chance of losing
its judgment in that final court and
offered a settlement. My father made
it a condition of settlement that Berg-
man’s costs be paid in full. “And I
shall see that he presents you with a
good bill,” he told the lawyers for
the mortgage company.
Dad never saw Bergman’s bill, but
it is safe to say that it was not large
enough. Bergman always set too low a
value on his services. He was a great
lawyer. He lived and breathed for his
profession.
Sir Louis Davies, one of the two
Supreme Court judges who had been
in my father’s favor, went on a vacation
to the Bahamas a few months after the
case had been determined. There he
met another vacationer—William El-
liot McCara, Registrar General of
Manitoba, for forty years. One day,
when they were having a friendly chat.
Sir Louis said to McCara, “Tell me
about that young man, Bergman, in
your city. We had him before our
court recently and he made a great
impression on ns. My brother judges
and I predict a great future for him in
the law.”
Bergman was appointed to the Mani-
toba Court of Appeal in 1944. He was
not a great judge. The bench and the
bar call for different talents. Bergman’s
superb talents were those of the law-
yer, not those of the judge. He could
build up a case and present it in court
in a manner which claimed general
admiration. He was not in his true
element when sitting in the seat of
judgement.
But let us return to Thomas H.
Johnson. It is not a characteristic of
Icelandic lawyers generally to under-
value their services. But Johnson suf-
fered from the same failing as Berg-
man.
He was Lord Strathcona’s legal
representative in Manitoba. Lord
Strathcona had his title to his estate
in Silver Heights challenged in the
courts. George Elliott, an astute and
aggressive lawyer, represented tb"
plaintiff. He pressed his suit with
great vigor, even to the extent of
examining Lord Strathcona in London.
But it became apparent to him even-
tually that he had no case. He offered
to settle. Johnson approached Lord
Strathcona with the offer. “There will
be no settlement,” said Strathcona. On
the morning that the case was to open
in court, Elliott threw in his hand and
admitted defeat. Johnson sent his
client a bill for $5,000.00. He received
a letter from Lord Strathcona to this
effect. You did not charge me enough.
Enclosed is a cheque for $10,000.00.
When Thomas PI. Johnson took his
seat in the Legislature of Manitoba,
he soon became a thorn in the side
Sir Rodmond P. Roblin. Politics were
rough in those days. Roblin once
threatened that he would harpoon
Johnson’s hide in a hundred places
and trample him in the mud. Though
he wielded a cluib that not many mod-
ern politicians could lift from the
floor, Roblin lacked the capacity to
carry out this threat. Johnson could