University of Nebraska College of Law - Yearbook (Lincoln, NE)

Page 83 text:

'icing PEERLESS nro. co. v. New YORK, N. H. at H. R. R. 511 case whether, when the engine was to be used for shitting. the train was drawn Qnto the siding. The evidence reported is not in- consistent with a tinding thatg when the en- gine and car were drawn upon the iding, as in this instaiice, the universal practice hitherto had been for the train to remain there without moving for several hours. It this be so, there was ample evidence that her conduct was not careless. lf. on the co' trnry, the engine and car were occa-sit' backed down on the siding, as on sion, the question is not so clt lack of absolute certainty in f decide it lf the deceased steps had been used by the public ,and the' defendants' employes for inany years, were evidence from which it might be found that the defendants should have anticipated that some one of the public or of their employes might be on the path at the place over which they were about to move the train. Reason- ahle men might also find that, having rea- son to anticipate a human being might be in agposition to be seriously injured bythe '1 contemplated, men of ordinary pru- 'i ' renard to their general obliga- 'teir lawful business as nuld not set in motion ' 1 that result., With- car would not be niovef' S OHS to Dl'9V91'1t it' her conduct at the tin ' -Qgzgy-Ri-B X 1' the DQFSOHS WT10' by that ofa person of n 162211 defifl-MOB tertaining the same Qgf fg n X vitees. Mitchell tfiinty. iviieum X 9 , i s f f ' Art. 074: Shea gent would be f' C-' - , -Cl. 7742 Davis tion whether : jgii tl. 1085 Myers not. Whether ' ',! HN ,ft fgff' ktl. 892. The stand front th x 'A' :fl 'ns Whatever was at this t c it I If MWQW e of care is lzacliiiig dowi 1 5.3 The fact caution to'av gr' .fit '- 'S UDOU tae u Jon which t Mx i Fr f -IOUFS wi 1- tliat some re. - , E 'E P Zfliginal I'6Z1SOll' tt in the at-151-AQ'i75'lx ' ,53 9 3' .1 g unusual, gd. If the Q' Xp 22s ,E-ff-15:5 R7 ztion. The as a person jGf'0A ,yT-fifth ' when an to the dange. 4, .X-, X 2 of a pre- prudent penst ' G 5 did take 111 not negligent. Xfs- ,I fag., ,gi tx lx K I ,- xine, ' f Evidence oi 5 0 K -2' , - YN vt I .o pnt in evi- when crossing Qff - . estion of the fear ot trains, ' tnts' employes ctpufm. such t Q33-32,5 f N senger car, en- when the condu Qi -' V depend upon closed, but is no a train of any having some tent -eight, or mi!- of care upon the g of the rules, 1. Railroad, T3 N. Xt -tb ,+R were intended evidence, therefore ls, these rules this case to prove ca fp f fgiiil x I Whether they time she was seen upt. . 6 X . fl Ehertrial may was killed. For a part JW before us. entered upon the railror ' f ' vidence ofi the ed by the station buildin, se should have who testified as to her cc 5 qv UC gs not conceded that she une f' 'VW' 4 trial granted. began to cross, that the tra f 4-' x, the siding, the evidence v , f tendency to establish that s.. , - X X certained-that fact during . which her action is notdisclost M V- NEW YURKY N- dence. This -fact appears to ha 3- R- R- ceded, and no harm was done by RI-N v. SAME. sum of the evldeuce' Whether' if 3'-' ,supreme Court of New Hampshire. Sullivan. looked, she would have seen the brahemnn June 5, 1905.5 ?l?2r'filF'if'tEFi?,F3fn'?f?.iiS1Sii1 aff ill? 1-..GA'-Elerie--.019eo.Qs - FIRE-NEGLIGENCE How I See Through a Case on a Sunny Spring Day

Page 82 text:

This is not advanced as an explanation of the fact, alluded to by Sir Henry Maine, that while the Roman military men seem to have given themselves unreservedly to the downward social move- ment under the empire towards Asiatic luxury, the lawyers, the only other professional class in that society, generally adopted the stoic philosophy and stood out against that movement. Certain it is, they were the conservative force of that time, and under the em- perors guided the development of the legal system which is the most lasting and permanently important of that people's work. Law of course implies force and is in fact a system for apply- ing force to those who, it is assumed, can not otherwise be success- fully governed. The Quaker in renouncing force rightly renounces also the advantages offered by legal proceedings. Perhaps, when we have attained in the west to the heights of a Confucian system of civilization we may be able to do without it. Perhaps, when we have reached the Chinese stage of development, and have ceased to find, or search for, new natural forces, have developed all our resources and neither can nor care to amass more wealth or dispute over it, like the Chinese, we may be able to do without professional lawyers. Perhaps we shall, like them, when even under such circumstances a dispute does arise, send a calm- minded official to collect from each party as large a doizccm' as pos- sible, to assure them that they are both right, but that there is no longer anything to contend about, and to exhort them to pious contemplation of Confucian virtue, as exemplified in his own person. Wliile the legal struggle still continues to be a feature of our civilization, however, lawyers must conduct it according to rules applicable to the game. It would be well, also, for them to recog- nize the indispensable character of those rules and that a general failure manfully and honestly to abide by and apply them will de- stroy the power, profit, and usefulness of the profession. If they would have standing as a class in the community, they must respect the work of their own and their predecessors' hands-the law and its judgments. - 6 su n anim srsznn I5 me Tuma., ,au-r -me vsmzmz-r is mg -rnmsf' .... 0'CoNNoR 83

Page 84 text:

EARLY BAR EXAMINATIGNS IN NEBRASKA BY PROFESSOR HENRY H. NVILSON 'Until a few years ago the district courts of this state had the power by law to admit candidates to practice. Often, these exami- nations were little more than formal, and, indeed, in some cases, there was no examination at all, but merely a report of the commit- tee recommending the admission of the candidate. It was quite the custom, at the opening of each term of court, for some lawyer who had a student in his ofice to move the appointment of a committee for the examination of candidates for admission to the bar. The court thereupon usually appointed the mover and two or three other members of the bar to hold the examination. Some of the judges took a very serious view of this proceeding, and ordered that the examination take place in open court, and that the ofhcial stenog- rapher take down the questions and answersg but, ordinarily, the judge paid no further attention to the matter, and upon the coming in of the report of the committee, admitted the candidate, if favor- ably recommended, without personally having any knowledge of the examination. Candidates were not infrequently admitted to practice who had never given any serious study to the law, or, indeed, to anything else. The chief feature of the examination was sometimes a dinner set up to the committee. Candidates were usually informed by their friends that they certainly would be asked for the rule in Shelley's case. So the can- didate was always prepared to give the rule in the abstract whether he understood its meaning or not. In order to ascertain whether the candidate really understood the rule in Shelley's case, a member of the examining committee once put to the candidate a question involving a concrete illustration of the rule. The committeeman asked the following question: Mr. Candidate: If A were the owner of a farm and he should convey it to B for B's life, then to C for Cys life, with the remainder over to the heirs of B, what estate would C take under the rule in Shelley's case? The candidate, wholly unconscious of his wit, blandly answered, Real estate. At another time, the late Chief justice Oliver P. Mason was a member of the examining committee. After the younger members of the committee had plied the candidates with a large number of questions on the law, he was turned over to the tender mercies of 85