In 1957 a young American man – Harvey Wax – hoping to eventually become a lawyer sent an application to Princeton University but was rejected.
Happily for Mr Wax, he was later admitted to Harvard University and continues to practise as a lawyer to this day.
This was the letter he received from Princeton:
A judge in the trial of an alleged internet black market mastermind has ruled emoticons are admissible as evidence.
Ross Ulbricht’s trial has already seen the meaning of “IRL” “Bitcoin” and “pirates” discussed.
The New York Times reported that judge Katherine B Forrest said in relation to the emoticons: “The jury should read them.
“They are meant to be read. The jury should note the punctuation and emoticons.”
Prior to this, court reporter Sarah Jeong said that wherever an emoticon occurred the word “Emoticon” was inserted.
The New York Times cited as an example a message from a Silk Road employee which read: “Yep :)”.
Barrister Amal Alamuddin, who came to the attention of the popular media last year when she married actor George Clooney, may start a new fashion craze for barristers’ robes after she was asked recently what she was wearing in court.
Ms Alamuddin was appearing at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as junior to Geoffrey Robertson QC in a case relating to freedom of expression and the 1915 Armenian genocide.
Among the paparazzi who had assembled to photograph Ms Alamuddin sitting at a table, a journalist from The Telegraph asked Ms Alamuddin what she was wearing – to which she dryly replied: Ede & Ravenscroft.
- Contributions from SLN readers to our “And finally” section are welcome – they should be sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org