where Hastings taught himself how to practise as a
barrister At the time, there was no organised way for a new barrister to find a
pupil master or set of
barristers' chambers, and in addition the barrister would be expected to pay the pupil master between 50 and 100
guineas (equivalent to between £ and £ in 2015). This was out of the question for Hastings; thanks to the cost of his
call to the bar, he was so poor that his
wig and robes had to be bought on
credit. Instead he wandered around Middle Temple and by chance ran into
Frederick Corbet, the only practising barrister he knew. After Hastings explained his situation, Corbet offered him a place in his set of chambers, which Hastings immediately accepted. Although he now had a place in chambers, Hastings had no way of getting a
pupillage (Corbet dealt only with
Privy Council cases) and he instead decided to teach himself by watching cases at the
Royal Courts of Justice. Hastings was lucky: the first case he saw involved
Rufus Isaacs,
Henry Duke and
Edward Carson, three of the most distinguished English barristers of the early 20th century.
Finding a tenancy , who eventually offered Hastings a tenancy At the start of the court vacation in August 1904, Hastings decided that it would be best to find a tenancy in a more prestigious set of chambers; Corbet dealt with only two or three cases a year, Hastings finished the book just before the court vacation ended, and presented the draft to Gill immediately. before returning it to a pleased Gill, who let him take away another brief. Over the next two years Gill allowed him to work on nearly every case he appeared in. On 1 June 1906, Hastings married Mary Grundy, the daughter of retired
Lieutenant Colonel F. L. Grundy, at All Saints' Church,
Kensington. They had met through his uncle J. Comyns Carr's family, who had brought Hastings to dinner at the Grundys' house. and on the strength of this they decided to get married. To do that he would need to join a well-respected set of chambers; although Gill was giving him briefs he was still in Corbet's chambers, which saw little business. Directly below Smith's chambers were those of
Horace Avory, one of the most noted barristers of the 19th and early 20th centuries. As he prepared to return home, Hastings was informed that
Chartres Biron (one of the barristers who occupied Avory's chambers) had been appointed a Metropolitan Magistrate, which freed up a space in the chambers. Despite Avory's reputation as "cold and hard" he agreed to this idea, and even let Hastings keep the furniture, including Avory's valuable chair which had once belonged to
Harry Poland. Although this was a good start, Hastings was not a particularly well-known barrister, and cases were few and far between.
The Case of the Hooded Man took place. His first major case was "The Case of the Hooded Man". On 9 October 1912, the driver of a
horse-drawn carriage noticed a crouching man near the front door of the house of Countess Flora Sztaray in
Eastbourne. Sztaray was known to possess large amounts of valuable jewellery and to be married to a rich Hungarian nobleman, and assuming that the crouching man was a burglar the driver immediately called the police.
Inspector Arthur Walls was sent to investigate, and ordered the man to come down. The man fired two shots, the first of which struck and killed Walls. A few days after the murder, a former medical student named Edgar Power contacted the police, showing them a letter that he claimed had been written by the murderer. It read "If you would save my life come here at once to 4 Tideswell Road. Ask for Seymour. Bring some cash with you. Very Urgent." Williams' case came to trial on 12 December 1912 at Lewes
Assizes, with Hastings for the defence. Despite a strong argument and little direct evidence against Williams, he was found guilty and sentenced to death. The case generated large amounts of publicity, as well as an appeal hearing at which Hastings demonstrated his legal skills. The case established him as an excellent barrister, particularly when it came to
cross-examination. The advertisement this case gave of his skills allowed him to move some of his practice from the
county courts to the
High Court of Justice, where his work slowly increased in value and size. The case made his name well-known and helped bring him work, but he still mainly worked on cases in the county courts. These did not pay particularly well, and to get around this lack of money his clerk had him take on six new pupils at once.
First World War Shortly before the outbreak of the First World War, Hastings and his family were preparing to travel to Germany for a holiday. On the day of departure he received a note from a client, which read "You tell me you are going to Germany. Don't go, we shall be at war within forty-eight hours". Hastings heeded this warning, and remained in England – war was declared between Britain and Germany less than two days later. This made Gruban a major figure in a now-large market, and he attempted to raise £5,000 to expand his business (equivalent to approximately £ in 2015). Booth worked his way into the company with a string of false claims about his influence, and finally became chairman of the
Board of Directors by claiming that it was the only way to avoid Gruban being
interned due to his German origin. As soon as this happened, he cut Gruban out of the company, leaving him destitute, and eventually arranged for him to be interned. Gruban successfully appealed against the internment, and brought Booth to court. The case of
Gruban v Booth opened on 7 May 1917 in the
King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in front of
Mr Justice Coleridge. Patrick Hastings and
Hubert Wallington represented Gruban, while Booth was represented by
Rigby Swift and
Douglas Hogg. The trial attracted such public interest that on the final day the barristers found it physically difficult to get through the crowds surrounding the Law Courts.
King's Counsel His success in
Gruban v Booth allowed Hastings to switch his practice from the county courts to the High Court, and at the beginning of
Hilary term 1919 he applied to become a
King's Counsel (KC). Becoming a KC was a risk; he would go from competing with other junior barristers to coming up against the finest minds in the profession. Despite this he decided to take the risk, and he was accepted later that year.
Select Committee of the House of Lords His first major case as a King's Counsel was representing a Colonel Bersey at the
Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Women's Royal Air Force. Bersey was a senior officer of the
Women's Royal Air Force (WRAF), and along with several other officers he had been accused of conspiring to have the WRAF Commandant,
Violet Douglas-Pennant, removed from office to cover up "rife immorality" going on at WRAF camps. Hastings took the lead in cross-examining Douglas-Pennant. She accused Bersey and others of promoting this "rife immorality" and not having the best interests of the WRAF at heart. After three weeks the committee dismissed all witnesses. The final report was produced in December 1919, and found that Douglas-Pennant had been completely unable to substantiate her claims and was deserving "of the gravest censure". As a result, Douglas-Pennant was never again employed by the government.
Robert Sievier was a well-known horse racing journalist and owner with a reputation for brushes with the law and underhanded dealings, having previously been tried for blackmail and acquitted on a technicality. In 1913 he accused Richard Wootton, a noted trainer of racehorses, of ordering his jockeys to withdraw from races if he had bet on another horse so as to allow him to make large amounts of money. Wootton sued him for libel and won, but was granted only a symbolic
farthing in damages because the jury thought that Sievier had not intended to cause harm. As a result of this
pyrrhic victory, Wootton held a grudge against Sievier for many years. The pamphlet was released on the day of the
Grand National and distributed widely through the crowds, and in response Sievier sued Wootton for libel. Sievier appeared without a lawyer, while Wootton was represented by Sir Edward Carson, Hastings, and E. H. Spence. After the second day of the trial, Carson was called away to Ireland on political business, and Hastings was forced to act as the primary counsel for Wootton. Hastings destroyed Sievier's reputation in cross-examination, and the jury decided in Wootton's favour. In 1922, he became involved in
Russell v Russell, which eventually went to the
House of Lords, who set a
common law rule that evidence about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of children born in marriage is inadmissible if it is given by either spouse.
John Russell, later Lord Ampthill, married Christabel Hart in 1918, with both spouses agreeing that they did not want to have children. In October 1921
Christabel Russell gave birth to a son,
Geoffrey Russell, and John Russell immediately filed for divorce and to have the child declared a bastard. He claimed that the child could not be his because he had not had
sexual intercourse with his wife since August 1920. Hastings represented Christabel Russell in the initial trial at the High Court and lost; the decision was appealed to the
Court of Appeal, where he again lost. The case was then sent to the House of Lords, who by a majority of three to two (with Lord Birkenhead giving the leading judgement) overturned the previous judgements and said that John Russell's evidence as to the legitimacy of his son was inadmissible. Hastings did not represent Christabel Russell in the House of Lords case, however, because by this point he was already
Attorney General. ==Politics==