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

Page 113 text:

And now, it seems this desperate group of individuals played their most daring card. They attempted to hoodwink the faculty into believing that they had not studied law by partaking of various extra-curricula activities that are inimical to concentrated study. Accordingly, they chose as their leader for this purpose, JOHN J. COLLMER, a man endowed with a reappearing moustache. Then, in order to give the impression that a gay old time was being had, they did nominate, elect and constitute, MARIE ROSE MAGEE, Assistant City Solicitor extraordinary, as Vice-President. HARRY ROSEN-BLUM, the “note” worthy chronicler of the pedagogical pronunciamcntos, was ordained as Secretary, and GEORGE PHILLIPS, the famous mimic, as Treasurer. It was decided to give a big banquet at which all the faculty were to he entertained, and that then and there they were to put said faculty in such good humor that it would be impossible for faculty to do other than believe in their complete innocence. MR. SPOFFORI) was chosen as Head Banqueteer, and a capable staff assisted him. The conspirators also decided that they would issue a hook containing the full pedigree and life’s story of each and every conspirator, their famed deeds and achievements, and containing their photographs (we hesitate to say likenesses”), which book was to be used as evidence in disproving any case against them. The famed “Archbishop” WmmSmme2 LEON “Happy” “Handshaker” ROSE, yclept “Rab-bey” was designated as Chief Compiler, and “SAM” WORTH, moving picture magnate, he chose as his Business Manager. Their desire to publish a printed record was prompted by a realization of the fact that this would probably constitute the only publicity the subscribers would ever attain and their yearning for some sight of their names and achievements in print took this form. Some of the defendants’ own evidence is rare and damaging. For instance, MR. BENJAMIN BELLET, esteemed Thespian, on the stand replied under cross-examination as follows: Q. What is marriage? A. Mv dear Sir, marriage is an ethereal contract of two heavenly souls, we might say. Q. What do you know about marriage? A. Virtually nothing, we might say. Q. If A is married to B, and A should slap B, would she be justified in leaving A? A. Well, that all depends—if B was of such a vicious temper-ment as to justify Mr. A’s tapping her in the countenance of a nature

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.

Page 114 text:

possessed of zephyr-like good heartedness, this gentleman would be under no obligation to support same, nevertheless, this has nothing to do with the case. MR. OSCAR BROWN, S. S. S. (South Street Sheik), being formally sworn. Q. MR. BROWN, can you explain the case of the American Beer Company vs. Wisconsin Dry Goods Company? A. Well—it’s like this—the American Beer Co. were manufacturers of beer. I remember reading, while on one of my trips to Washington, where I tried a few cases before the Supreme Court, winning them all, the Senator said, “Oscar, why don’t you come into Congress with me sometime,” so I said, “Nothing doing.” I’ve got enough work showing the Speaker how to make the legislature work, so this girl said to me, “Oscar, I think your eyes are beautiful.” Well, I’m not egotistical, but I said, “This will cost you five hundred dollars. My bosses would throw me out of the ofiice if they knew I was working for practically nothing.” Well “said Vare,” I don’t expect a big loan but you might slip me a little change, etc. We do not consider it necessary to receive any more of the defendants’ testimony, since whatever they might have said would be held against them, and that would be tinged with suspicion. Considering all the evidence in the case, we find that this group of conspirators must have been guilty of something. No group can long be exposed to the temptations of such a law school as Temple University provided, without making some attempt at studying the law—no matter how unconscious the attempt may be. Upon the testimony in this case, we are satisfied that there was no error by the court below which was not in favor of the defendants. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the record remitted with instructions that execution of the sentence be carried out at once. LEON S. ROSENTHAL, Esq., BLOCKLEY BLDG., PA. ( HARRY D. GOTTLIEB, Esq., CRePorters KIRKBRIDES HALL, PA. »