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

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).

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 112 text:

The Commonwealth capped the climax by placing on the stand their “star” witness, FRANCIS CHAPMAN, Esq., Dean of the Law School since 1902. The Dean qualified as an expert witness, incidentally informing the Court and Jury that during his career at the bar of over 35 years, he had never yet lost a case, oh, yes. except one and in that case the judge didn’t know but that would be contempt of court. When counsel for the accused asked the Dean whether the defendants did or did not acquire any knowledge of the Rules of Stephen, the Dean’s shoulders characteristically heaved with subterranean merriment. In response to questions of counsel regarding his Evidence Examinations, the Dean replied that he considered them so easy, and the answers so obvious, that he could hardly be warranted in using them as a gauge of the students’ intellectual development. Asked for specimen question, the Dean presented the court, jury and assembled Fungozos with the following choice selections: Tresspass by Sancho Panza (the great Hungarian Rhapsody) versus Sir Geoffrey de Bouillon in the United States Small Cause Court for the Eastern District of Mesopotamia, Southern Division. Sancho Panza had the rights of piscary in the Dead Sea. Desiring to export salmon to Alaska, the said Panza applied to Sir Geoffrey De Bouillon, a corporal of the Afghanistanian Trench Aviation, for a ship’s manifest so that the freight train with said fish aboard, could immediately clear the town, as those of the populace remaining unsuffocated had risen in rebellion. Mr. De Bouillon, who was nattily attired in the fatigue uniform of the I. W. W , was about to grant the manifest, when he was offended by one of Mr. Panza’s pet fish barking at him. Dr. De Bouillon manifested his displeasure by refusing to grant the manifest. As a result, the enraged fish lost its voice, and Panza brings this action. On trial of the cause, the defendant attempted to prove that he was acting in self-defense, and offered in evidence his ruined uniform. The court overruled the offer and non-suited the plaintiff. The defendant, his compassion aroused, appealed, (a) Why shall the court rule and how come? (b) As part of your answer, give a three-word exposition of the Pennsylvania Rule as to Parol Contemporaneous Evidence, (c) What in the world has this to do with the Evidence, anyhow? The Dean additionally mentioned that he had also instructed the defendants regarding Habeas Corpus, Corpus Juris, etc. “Ethical Teachings of the Runners,” “Ways of Not Obtaining Legal Business,” “Methods of Starva-,S tion,” “What Every Young Lawyer Should Know,” etc., are a few titles of lectures also delivered bv the Dean.