Page:Samuel F. Batchelder - Bits of Harvard History (1924).pdf/415

 was being taught, not from the artificial grammar, but from the natural translation. The rest of the class was apparently hoping for a quick arrival of the millennium, when, “the law” being fully “known,” there would be no need of cases in the courts to decide it.

Then came the new and dreadful ordeal of the examinations. Better than pages of description, the questions on the papers show the difference between the systems. The old professors called wholly for definitions and rules: “When and by what statute were lands made alienable in England after the Conquest?”—“What is the difference between an action of trespass and an action of trespass upon the case?” The new Dean presented actual problems for solution: “If A contract with B to serve him one year at so much per month, and at the end of six months’ service he dies, will his representatives be entitled to recover against B for the six months’ service; and if so, how much and upon what principle?”—“If a debtor tender to his creditor the amount of the debt on the day it becomes due, and the creditor refuse to receive it, and afterwards sue the debtor, how should the latter defend himself?”

Dismay filled the School. What chance now of learning what the law was? The number of students began to