The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-01-11

--~----.'
as possible" ~.
1 Isuggestcd tn It there we're legal difficulties
which would pOSo me. his answer was cOin-
IDENTIFY, Not Bit All law is founded upon
the principles OF common sense. Reduce any
apparent legal difficulty TO first principles, ana
there you are. Il subsequently tried this; ana
certainly there was, but didn't get any fur, :,
therl. sBut technical terms one must get
I objected. He was quite indignant;
.si'echpi al terms, said he, "can be master
ed in o. weeks reading. His lheory was that
hardly any lawyers knew anything OF law; tlil.
the men who got on the best knew the ieast'
which is. to The beginner, encouraging as
theory. but fails YOU when reduced to practice,
or, more strictly speaking, when you, as par
rstcr. are reduced to no practice. However,
what man dared dared, aid in went. read
nv paper through carefully; it didn't seem to
contain nue. law that ]. was acquainted with;
but remembering my friends advice about
first principles" and common sense, setted
down TO one question. 1t was this:
"Why is notice of prior incumbrance, etc.,
which ought to be, but is not, registered IN a
County Registry, efectual to observe prl-
orityp"
I tried to reduce this to principles of com
mon ense. After muca thought it struck N
that psrhaps if commenced the answer on
paper it would come right of itself somehow.
So I began slowly on large sheet with big b
up IN one corner, "BecAuse-" yes, exact
". because why? It looked like the answer to
riddle. I glanced round at my nelghbors;
they we're all scrlbblny away at various rates,
heads down, we'll at their work. Ihe examiner
had his eye on me. so made 1clnt 10 pe
thinking deeply, and scratched out Because"
slowly, and then wrote it down again in dlf-
ferept character on another sheet OF paper.
After few minutes found that had only
been sketching fancy portraits OF httl exam
iners with big heads all about tie page, With
au occs sinai Ieminiscelc4 of the lincaments OF
Hobbies g. Grumbury. This I felt wouldn't
PASS me. so T made bold Jump to number
seven, in consequence OF recognizing the word
mortgage"
"No. VH.-Why ls person taking mort
gage of property and knowing that it was sub
ject to an equitable mortgage postponed to
the latter2"
It was necessary to write something, 80 I
commenced by saying that "By the word mort
gage we mustu' rstand - tnls scraecn,
ed out, and o. reconsideration began again
thus: 'iTo enter into this subject as fully as 1t
deserves, we must reduce the technical ques-.
ton to the first principles OF common sense.
There stopped. 1t was no good. An attempt
to hit off All original definition of construct
i've Fraud" was also, have reason to believe,
failure.
by brisk exami er. caught my eye. "No. X.
What is replevin2' l didn't like to reply
that il was made up Of the words ire" and
s.plevin," which was the only answer that sug-
gested itself to me after looking at it tor live
minutes 80 put this on one side, and, like q
Mazeppa among the examination questions,
saga he urges on his wild career"
Page 8. On the second paper Criminal
Law. eff prisoner has received Jud2 ment,
aud the sentence be afterwards reversed 6y a
Court Of Error, can he be again indicted for
the same offence 2"
Here was at home at last. "No," wrote
boldly. He could not be indicted for The
same offence, because, here was an opportu-
nifty for specimen Of my style; the examners
should be to the bar as an advocate-'because
it is the Il rlous privilege OF born EnClsn,
man, OF one whose brthright is to call himself
tree and never to know slavery, this was, l.
felt, too evident paraphrase on the chorus OF
"Rule Britannia" but it looked well, aud would
succ led admirably il declaimed,- be charg-
ed once with tle same offence; and being con.
visited or unconvlcted it mattered not, he coud
never, ver,"-'Fue Britannia" again:
ought to have given my attention to maritime
law-'sbe again placsu at the bar before twelve
CT his fellow -coun rymen, ready 10 lake nls
stand f,lr the offence once committed, and'-
here felt I was getting weak, and might lapse
iuto unconscious verhlage, 80 pulled up with
s'in fact it was totally against the principles OF
English law" aid English common sense, on
which all law was founded, this came IN well
Ito try man twice tor only one offence.
After this effort paused. What was the next
question The next was pendant to the for
mer, and ran thus:
s'Hlue Nt reason for yoar dr1S,oer."
<Tuis took me aback. 1t involved reading my
answer over again. could see no leason for
it. The more thought Of it the less relson l
could see. In fact, the whole case came grad
ually to assume a totally different complexion.
WHY shouldn't man be tried twics ii he de-
serves t, or could LIE be caught again? Caught
againl" That suggested q new train OF Thought.
Perhaps the question turned upon this suppo-
stion. Yet, if so, it was absurdly like Mrs.
Glass recipe of ' First catch your hare, and
couldn very well write that down, as it might
look like impertinence towards the examiner or
benchers, OF whoever they were who had to
read these papers. G,oe the r-oson for your
anS,cer No, couldn't see any. There was
no re son for it, except that 1 didn't know
any other" I'd lelve it, and pretend hadn't
seen it.
Here was SIMPLE one, almost pretty in it's
simplicity, What constitutes the crime OF
larceny?"
Taking pocket handkerchief was the FIRST
answer that arose to my lips. But why only q
D ockeL handkerchief? That wouldn't do. Try
''to take anything" That sounded like an in
yltaton to luncieon-Would I take anything?
know what larceny ls. 1t WIS mere quibbling
to say it was theft. No. The uiua uoce portion
commenced.
Gould l." was asked, estate some cases in
which an indictment would lie for words
spokenP"
can Indictment would lie," began sticking
closely to the form OF the question, for words
spoken when"-here l cons. d.red. The ex-
miner waited. He didn't suggest anything,
80 b gan agaln-"Words spoken, that ia
IN words spoken, an Indictment would lie "a
sudden inspiration. Ihad mistaken the sense
of the word lie. had it, and finished bril-
liantly, can Indictment, III fact, would lie, il it
said, for instance, tnat such and such word
I heightened it out on purpose to give legal
tone to my explanation-"said to have been
spoken had not been spoken. The examiner
looked up end asked me if had understood
his question. On ny replying perfectly, he
thanked me, and told me might 20. He HAD
had enough of mo. But was beginning to
take rather L tency to him. should like to
have engaged him in general conversation.
We should have understood one another then.
He made not, of my name, and it WAS in
tlmated to me the nex5 morning that further
attendance on my p,rt in Lincoln's Inn
Hall would, for the present, be dispensed with.
l found that, in addition to giving this In
spired answer, I had sent up my papers with
my one answer written, mixed by mistake with
two sheets full OF grotesque examiners, adml-
rably drawn BY me- with large heads and little
legs. This WIS my mistake at Lincoln's Inn.
attended tue lectures and din-
uers, was called to the bar, sat down by mis-
take ION that occasion) next to one of the |
Judges of tn, land ut the bencuers' table, and
WAS politely removed by the butler,