The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-01-13

he hadn't any business ou' WIG : 0p' "
myself. rohor,d ro - ,ba
p.r The entrance being obtained by either
nsa , nm examination or attending a
pav- of lectures, chose the latter, having
La confidence in myself from experience in
the former method. I had nearly COM
nleted the appointed number when / made
q mistake In the day. This explained to
the lecturer, and it was overlooked. But
in the following week, for the first time, |
mistook the hour, and arrived when the
door was ss,ut, the last lecture given, and
the Professor gone into the country for his
vacation.
A friend said, Oh, 60 in for the Exam.
Easy as possible"
suggested that there were legal diff-
culties which would pose me. His answer
was, confidently, " Not a bit. All law IS
founded upon the principles of common
sense. Reduce any apparent legal diff.
Guilty to first principles, and there you are"
Il subsequently tried this; and certainly
there was, but didn't get any furtber.l
!" But technical terms one must get up"
objected. He was quite indignant.
9Technical TERMS" said he, "can be
mastered in weeks reading" His theory
was that hardly any lawyers knew any
thing Of law: that the men who got on the
hest knew the least which is, to the be-
ginnerH encouraging as theory, but fails
YOU when reduced to practice, or, more
strictly speaking, when you, as barrlster,
are reduced to no practice. However,
what man dared dared, and in went. |
read nv paper through carefully; 1t didn't
seem to contain much law that l was &C.
quanted with; but remembering my
friends advice about " first principles :"
ana common sense" settled down 10 one
question. It was this:
"Why is notice of prior incumbrance,
etc., which ought to be, but is not, regis
tered in county registry, effectual to OBJ
serve priority ?'
tried to reduce this to principles of
common sense. After much thought, it
struck me that perhaps if | commenced
the answer on paper it would come right
of itself somehow. So began slowly on
large sheet with big up in one cor
ner. Because -"-yes, exactly, be-
cause why? 1t looked like the answer to
riddle. / glanced round at my neigh
bors; they were all scrbbling away at va
rious rates, heads down, we'll at their
work. The examiner had his eye on me,
| so I made feint to he thinking deeply,
and scratched out Because slowly, and
| then wrote it down again in different
| character on another sheet Of paper. Al
| ter few minutes found that | had only
been sketching fancy portraits Of little
examiners with big heads all about the
| the lneaments Of Hobbies & Grumbury.
This felt wouldn't pass me, SO l made
bold jump to No. 7, in consequence OF re-
cognizing the word mortgage"
"No. VII.-Wby is person taking a
mortgage Of property, and knowing that it
was subject to an equitable mortgage, post
poned to the latter"
It was necessary to write something, Sc
I commenced by saying that "By the word
mortgage we must understand -" This
scratched out, and on reconsideration
began again thus "To enter into this
subject as fully as it deserves, we must re-
duce the technical question to the first
principles Of common sense" There |
stopped. 1t was no good. An attempt to
hit off an original definition OF" Construc-
tive Fraud was also, have reason to be-
lieve, q failure.
A short, pointed question, evidently
framed by brisk examiner, caught my
eye. "No. X.-What is replcvin I" |
didn't like to reply that it was made up OF
the words gro" and "plevin," which was
the only answer that suggested itself to me
after looking at it for five minutes; SO
put this on one side, and like Mazeppa
among the examination questions, "agaln
he urges on his wild career"
Page 8. On the second paper: Crimi-
nal Law. eff prisoner has received
Judgment, and the sentence be Afterwards
reversed by Court OF Error, can he be
again indicted for the same offence -
Here was at home at last. "No," l
wrote boldly. "He could not be indicted
for the same offence, because "-here was
an opportunity for a specimen of my style;
the examiners could judge from this what
an acquisition 1 should be to the Bar as an
advocate" because it is the glorious pri-
yilege of born Euglishman, of one whose
birthright is to call himself free, and never
to know slavery "-this was, l felt, too
evident paraphrase on the chorus of" Rule
Britannia; but it looked we'll, and would
succeed admirably if detained" to be
charged only once with the same offence;
and!being convicted or.unconVicted, it mat
tered not, he could never, never "" Rule
Britannia " again; I ought to have given
my attention to maritime law" be again
placed at the Bar before twelve of his fell
low countrymen, ready to take bis stand
for the offence once committed, and -
here I felt was getting weak, and might
lapseInto unconscious verbiage, SO Ipulled
up with" in fact, it was totally against
the principles Of English law and English
common sense, on which all law was found
cd ''-this came in we'll" to try man
twice for only one offence" After this
effort paused. What was the next ques-
ton? The next was pendant to the for
mer, and ran thus:
!" Glue the reason for your ansoer."
This took me back. 1t involved reading
my answer over again. / could see no
reason for it. The more thought of it the
less reason I could see. In fact, the whole
case came gradually to assume totally
different complexion. Why shouldn't a
man be tried twice if he deserves it, or
could he be caught again? Caught
again 20 That suggested o new train of
thought. Perhaps the question turned
upon this supposition. Yet, if SO, it was
absurdly like Mrs. Glass's recipe of -" first
catch your hare"; and couldn't very
well write that down, as it might look like
impertinence towards the examiner, or
bencherS, or whoever they were who had
to read these papers. Giue your reason
for your ansacer. No, I couldn't see any.
There was no reason for it, except that
"didn't know any other" I'd leave it,
and pretend / hadn't seen it.
uara was a simnle one almost nratty in