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

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

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 85 text:

the judge. Now, it was the judge's idea that a lawyer not only ought to have a reasonable knowledge of technical law, but that he ought to have some general information outside of the law as well. Therefore, he often asked questions upon matters wholly outside of matters legal. In this case, the judge leaned forward, toward the candidate, with savage mien, and shaking his head until his long hair was extended into the surrounding air, in stentorian tones pro- pounded the following: 'fMr. Candidate, where is the Amazon P If this particular candidate ever had any acquaintance with geog- raphy, the manner of the judge entirely frightened it out of him, and he promptly answered, In Africa. The subsequent career at the bar of this particular candidate shows that one may be an effi- cient lawyer and achieve high place at the bar, and still carry the impression that the Amazon is in Africa, for the committee did not by word or act indicate that the answer was wrong. Wliile in those days candidates for the bar were usually very ill-prepared and the examinations scarcely more than a farce, yet there were often exceptions to this general rule. There were am- bitious young men in those days who, in the absence of advantages furnished by a course of study in a college of law, yet mastered the elements of law under the guidance of some friendly practitioner, and were able to pass with credit the most rigid examination. How- ever, the fact that these examinations were usually nominal, and that candidates were seldom rejected, deprived students of those days of one of the stimulants to thorough work, and the busy law office is in many respects one of the worst places in which to pursue the systematic study of the law. fi' Oiling the Magna Charta 86