You published a very amusing article about a convicted arsonist who attempted to have his conviction overturned on the grounds that the indictment was badly written. For one thing, he complained, it contained a sentence of 180 words, and it even contained some Latin.
We should all have some sympathy with the poor criminal. You quote a New England columnist as chastising the writer of the indictment for using words like ”to wit,” ”whereas” and ”aforementioned.” He adds that there were
”numerous bits of Latin” and ends with the opinion that one should call a spade a spade.
There is a bit of irony in this, for ”call a spade a spade” is a literal translation of the old Latin saw ”ligonem ligonem voco.” Surely the trouble was not in the Latin but in the English. Few people today are learned enough to write Latin badly.
