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

Page 110 text:

Il was during this third year of the conspiracy that the defendants became somewhat disorganized if it were possible to become any more disorganized than they were. The conspirators tried at various times to elect a chief—but of such remarkable quality were all of their number that they could arrive at no decision. Finally, after casting ballots, some eighty-five or -six times, a genuine election was held. There were forty-seven candidates for election to the office of president. Sixty-five members of the clan voted. When the ballots were finally counted, the following was the result: “SQUIRE” TOAL, 102 votes; “RIP VAN WINKLE” KRAMER, 70 votes; GLORIA SWANSON. votes; “GIL” HUNTER. 52 votes and E. VARE, 49 votes. It was decided that inasmuch as “SQUIRE” TOAL'S supporters had been the most successful in stuffing the ballot box, that he should be awarded the presidency. This the SQUIRE modestly declined on two grounds: first, that his supporters had prepared their ballots two weeks before the election, thus making it too easy to stuff the ballot box; second, that Media was no place to pick a president from. Despite his declination, he was unofficially known as “Prez” for the third year. The Commonwealth then placed on the stand a gentleman who was dressed in a long black coat, white vest, long flowing tie done in a bow, knee boots and a large black felt hat. This gentleman, after being sworn, took a few pot-shots at the audience with one of his spare revolvers and said, “Mali name is STRONG, gentlemen, GAWGE V. STRONG, with offices in the Widenah Buildin .” MR. STRONG then testified that he was Professor in Constitutional Law and Acrobatics at the Temple Law School. He claimed that besides teaching the defendants of the various edicts of the “Soopreme Coat of O-ha-o,” he had taught them the use of the word “ubiquitous,” how to hang from a clothes-peg with one hand only, how to straddle the back of a chair without serious injury to the legs (of the chair), how to get small marks in examinations, and a few other tricks of cortortion that called for a combination of the talents of Houdini, Ivan Poddubnv and Pat Rooney. He was confident that they had learned their lessons well as regards the above. He added that in his spare time he had given them a few pointers on how to draw up a constitution and how to run a country with one. Among the latter were direct tax. indirect tax., inheritance tax, surtax, syntax, carpet tacks and attacks. THOMAS E. COMBER, JR., Esq., after being awakened by the tip-staff, took the stand with great alacrity. His sudden display of energy may be accounted for by the fact that this afforded him an opportunity to wreak his vengeance on one JOSEPH COMBER, his brother and one 100

Page 109 text:

Wills and Decedents Estates. I’pon being asked by counsel for the defense as to the nature of his lectures, he delineated as follows: “Ah, gentlemen! It is late September. Heavy-laden is the balmy air with the aroma of fragrant roses; roses nurtured by the chief gardener of the Pennington Estate. To our ears comes the soft music of bees busily buried in beautiful beds of blooming barberries. Through the casement windows streams the splendor of the afternoon’s golden sunshine, revealing to us, seated at his carved mahogany desk a perfect replica of a masterpiece of the Doges' Palace none other than Percival Pennington himself. Through the haze of the golden glow we perceive the decrepit form of a man bowed under the weight of a thousand meetings of the hoards of directors of six railroads, maybe seven, who knows! Lined with the furrows of care is his forehead, and crowned is he with the snows of seventy winters. On his desk, the rich colors of many bonds rival the radiant magnificence of the dancing sunbeams athwart the room, but his finely chiseled features are alight not because of these. Mark you, how tenderly and caressingly he clasps, in fingers now trembling, the delicately-tinted envelope which Arthur, one of his twelve butlers, has just brought him. As Pennington slowly opens the envelope, the delicious scent of Quelques Fleurs now fills the air. Hastily, the aged man adjusts his spectacles. His shoulders heave with the unrepressed sighs of which only the love-lorn are capable. Soon he presses a button under his desk. A young man, one of his many secretaries, appears, notebook in hand. “Henderson,” Mr. Pennington softly commands speaking now, not with the crisp terseness of Pennington. Chairman of the Hoard, blit in the gentle murmur of Pennington, the crooning lover, “take a telegram for Miss Saccharine Sweet, care of Florenz Ziegfeld, New York City: Darling, I and all that's mine. Here and hereafter are thine. Thou art my symphony. All else is cacophony. The message had barely reached its destination before Percival Pennington. overwhelmed bv bis emotions, had crossed the Divide which leads to that Great Beyond, from whose bourne no traveler returns.” Then MR. BOYLE, after a moment’s pause, continued, “I asked, ‘Gentlemen, did this constitute a will?’ MR. ABRAMSON thought it was a mortgage; MR. WHITE considered it a hold-up and MR. PHILLIPS said it was a disgrace. The concensus of opinion, however, seemed to be that the document constituted cogent evidence of the presence of a not-frequcntlv-encountered interblending of affluence, beauty, senile dementia and testamentary Cupid-ity. MR. BOYLE then left the stand. 00

Page 111 text:

of the defendants (another bad break for them). The witness, finding no resting place for his elbow which supported the cup of his hand wherein reposed his chin, called for a table or rostrom. With this supplied, the witness was enabled to continue. MR. COMBER, impelled by the force of habit, commenced to quiz the jury on the Law of Divorce in Pennsylvania, by Bossard. He quickly checked himself, however, and went on with his testimony, which was to the effect that he had lectured to the defendants on the subjects of Domestic Relations and by what methods a husband can dispense with supporting his wife. He discussed such questions as Cruel and Barbarous Treatment, confirming the view of one of the defendants, MR. CURRAN, the gentleman from Delaware County, that one coat alone would constitute cruel treatment, as for example one blow of a hatchet. On the whole, his testimony certainly did not greatly aid the cause of the defendants. WALTER H. CHAPMAN, Esq., My Nephew,” after obtaining from His Honor a cough-drop for his throat trouble,” swung one leg over the balustrade surrounding the witness box, thereby displaying a combination cubist-futurist design of pastel shades. He proceeded to testify that he had once given the defendants a lecture on Pennsylvania Practice, including the subject of Replevin. He could not identify any of the prisoners, saying that he had not seen them frequently enough. MR. CHAPMAN explained that while he had intended to testify at greater length, his doctor had ordered him not to speak longer than one hour, so, burying himself in a huge fur coat, he resumed his seat. A number of the defendants, numbering among them MISS GA- ZELLE,” “MY LORD,” DADDY D1NAL” ROSE, “ORTHOPIIONIC’ LONG-LEGS,” KRAMER, CAR-WORTH. SWEET” SALTER, et al, moved for a severance with regard to at least part of the crime. In support of this motion, depositions of one EDWIN SCOVEL, F2sq., and ALBERT E. BURLING, Esq., were produced. The substance of the testimony of these gentlemen is that they instructed the above-enumerated conspirators in New Jersey practice and procedure in the following courts: Small Cause, District, Orphan’s Law and Chancery. Were we otherwise “moved” by this motion, the fact that both the above gentlemen are not only New Jersey lawyers, but also are graduates of Temple University Law School, would render any tears we would shed of the crocodile variety (a crocodile being a large, thick-skinned reptile which weeps as it devours its prey and which bears a striking resemblance to many of the defendants).