Temple University School of Law - Restatement Yearbook (Philadelphia, PA)

Page 104 text:

in them a sundry knowledge of the rights of personal security, the rule in Mr. Shelley’s well-known case, of the law of external sovereignty and applications, misprison of felony, of the law of springing, shifting, dodging and leaping uses (now collectively known as the “Charleston Uses”), title by marriage, execution, escheat, Commonwealth Title and Trust Company, etc., etc. Mr. Bedford further testified that he was led to believe that all of the alleged students had acquired a passing knowledge of the subject of elementary law by reason of the fact that three of their number, namely, “PREZ” COLLMER, RILL HUPLITS and JOHN FINNEY, who happened to be sitting adjacent each other, answered sub-division (a) of question !) of the examination correctly. Whether the additional charge thereby entailed is that of conspiracy, forgery or obtaining a passing mark under false pretenses we are unable now to decide inasmuch as this has not been raised properly in accordance. with appellate practise. S. STANGER ISZARI), ESQ., of Camden and other points, next took the stand to testify against the accused. MR. ISZARI) admitted that he had tried for numerous successive weeks to show to the accused some very simple methods of contracting contracts. He further admitted that he was not thoroughly convinced that he had made any impression on accused, asserting that they £ Bref 'fry “played like horses.” Under cross-examination, however, he denied that they looked like horses, most of them reminding him of a long-earred breed of the same genus. Asked to identify several of the culprits, he pointed out “Fireman” Goulev, saying that he recognized him by the curious perk of his ears whenever a bell rang. He also recognized a moustache known as “Nathanson.” Questioned as to his examination, he asserted that several of the alleged students had passed them, adding that he considered his questions fair, being the same he had given for twenty years previous. He denied emphatically that OSCAR FRIEDMAN was the brightest one in his class, saying that Oscar himself must have given rise to that rumor. The Commonwealth then attempted to prove by JAMES Y. TRACEY, JR., that the defendants had studied common law pleading under his tutelage. Under cross-examination, he denied their ever having given up the task as a hopeless one. Undaunted by their failure to prove this point by MR. TRACEY’, the Commonwealth called to the witness stand MAJOR LEMUEL BRAD-DOCK SCHOFIELD, Assistant District Attorney and erstwhile warrior. The Major, with great delight, recounted with what expertness he had guided the trailing defendants through the labyrinthine maze of absque hoes, fleas in a basement, similiters, profert and overs, insimul com-putassets and negative pregnants, from which maze he triumphantly emerged with them, leaving them unscathed—but bewildered.

Page 103 text:

CASE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, EX. REL. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL us. 62 LAW STUDENTS 1. Crimes—Attempt to Study Law—Chorus Girls—Parties—Late Hours. Whether an alleged student charged with the crime of Attempt to Study Law can set up as his defense that inasmuch as throughout a period of four years, he attended gay parties at divers times and places, showed a natural propensity for the society of young women, kept late hours and was without visible knowledge of the existence of the Volstead Act (thinking same to be a Vaudeville skit) and therefore was not a “Law Student” within the meaning of the Act of Assembly. 2. Evidence of Criminal Intent—Liability of Owner of Law Looks for Non-User— Contributory Negligence in Accidentally Opening Law Looks as Leaving Ujwn Conviction for Attempt to Study Law. Held, that where an alleged student offers to show that he owns but did not use law books, evidence tending to raise any inference as to his contributory negligence in opening another alleged student’s law book, even by accident, is admissible as rebutting the presumption of his ignorance of the law. Appeal by defendants from Court of Como-on Please No. 13, September term, 1922, and continuing through three other terms. Argued June 18, 1926. Affirmed by a “full” court. OPINION BY HECK, P. J. This case is appealed by the appellants. In the lowest court, the appellants were convicted of the crime of attempt to study law and were sentenced to hard labor for life at practicing law. Appellants, GLADYS HOBART, “DADDIE” HOCKSTEIN, “CONGRESSMAN” COLDER, cl al, have taken this appeal and the case is now brought before us for review. The appellants assign as error, inter alia, the finding that they are endowed with capacity for acquiring legal knowledge, contending that no court would be justified in reaching this conclusion and therefore it is impossible that they be guilty of the crime charged. For a proper consideration of the questions presented by the appeal, it is necessary that a thorough review be made of the transactions out of which the charges arose and of the testimony adduced at the trial. The appellees contended that during a period of four years, the appellants, who originally numbered some 110 alleged students-at-law, sixtv-two of whom are now in the toils of the law, the remainder being still at large, attempted at various times to study law. J. CLAUDE BEDFORD, ESQ., called as a witness on behalf of the appellees, testified that on or about Monday, September 25, 1922, at 7.00 P. M., a polyglot group of non-descripts attended a mass meeting and riot, at which he entertained them with lurid tales of his six months in the state legislature. Thereafter, on successive Monday nights, he alleges that he lectured before this same group and endeavored to instil

Page 105 text:

Mis Honor, JUDGE CHARLES E. BARTLETT, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas No. 1, Philadelphia County (which is in Pennsylvania), cheerfully testified against the defendants, lie stated that the alleged students had once been the victims of his Tort-iire. Additionally he testified that while it was incumbent upon him in his role of their mentor to inculcate in them a comprehensive knowledge of the essentials of negligence, he had found little opportunity in this particular for the exercise of his pedagogic talents, inasmuch as they apparently had a natural aptitude for negligent practices. His Honor also said that lie had permitted them to imbibe freely of the law of deceit, but feared that they had learned this subject too well and later evidenced their thorough knowledge by deceiving him of their complete mastery of the entire law of Torts. The Commonwealth, bv the same witness, not only brought out the fact of the scienter of the accused, but also of their gross familiarity with libels, slanders, malicious prosecutions, probable causes and possible effects, assaults and batteries and malicious interferences of various natures. At this point it was noted on the record by agreement of counsel that very late in the scholastic year the “Iz” Durhams and Mathew Quays of the class, aided and abetted by their henchmen and phantoms, felt a crying need for leaders. As a result of these patriotic desires, the notorious “weight” of authority, 11. “DEAN” GOTTLIEB, was elected president by the modest plurality of 2511 votes, 252 of which were folded but not creased. Because of this slight technicality (or “irregularity”) the registration commission ordered them thrown out, but inasmuch as the winning candidate was seated upon the ballot box, no one with sufficient strength to remove him could be found, and so he was declared duly elected. Other officers were elected at the same time (and under the same circumstances), but as their activities were so great and their fame so far-flung mere mention of their names without further comment would he desecration of memory of their invaluable services. Therefore we content ourselves with saying that “SAM” WORTH, the Orthophonic Mayor of Riverside, was Vice-President, HENRIETTA MOSS was secretary, and JOHN CONNOLLY was treasurer (no accounting of funds ever being made). S. STANGER ISZARD, Esq., was recalled to the stand and stated that he had “professed” in Equity (which is a very “pacific” subject), and also taught the defendants’ Hygienics, insisting that all come into Equity with clean hands. In order to be perfectly equitable, lie raised the technical objection that he was not properly qualified to pass on the guilt of the defendant’s Attempt To Study Law, inasmuch as the subject on which he was prepared to testify was that of Equity and 115