Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/211

 168

tinguished from the other in principle, and whether in the one or in the other or in all there is room for adverse criticism as to the correctness of the conclusion reached and the soundness of reasoning upon which it is based. Still another, while asking questions sufficient to direct and keep the trend of dis cussion in the proper channel, encourages a yet wider scope of discussions, thereby evok ing the free expression of a great variety of views, some of which, it is not too much to say, even border on grotesqueness and ab surdity. All these methods have the advantage of keeping alive the interest of the students in the work and of encouraging independence of thought and free criticism. If the views uttered happen to come in conflict with those of the court whose judgment is undergoing review, such views are not, on that account, either frowned upon or treated with levity, but are freely encouraged; for in all law schools it is understood to be the preroga tive of both teacher and student to criticise the courts and excoriate their decisions whenever it is deemed necessary. One bene fit accruing to the student from this, is to learn the importance and desirability of con sistency in judicial decisions, and of the es tablishment of fixed rules and adherence to them rather than to avoid temporary hard ships and inconveniences in individual cases. But while it is true, as has been stated, that each teacher has his own peculiar way of applying the case system, there is one ob ject which all instructors have in common, and that is the use of cases as the basis of instruction. Collateral reading is enjoined and lecturing and oral exposition by the in structor are by no means avoided, but all the investigation that has been made, and all the discussions indulged in hinge upon the question or questions decided in the case tinder review before the class. To illus trate: Suppose the course is one in dam

ages. The particular doctrine considered by the class we shall say, is that of Proxi mate Cause. The teacher has stated the doctrine in a general way and perhaps some cases upon it had been previously taken up and discussed. In the case now called for the student makes a brief report as to the facts and the legal conclusion at which the court has arrived. Let us say the case is that of Doe v. Roe. Roe is a farmer, who, while gathering rubbish on his land, negligently set fire to the combustible material and per mitted the fire to spread, as a result of whidi the house of a third person, say Jones, was burned. From the house of Jones the wind blew sparks of fire to the barn of Doe, the plaintiff in the case, causing a conflagration which destroyed or injured the barn, to the plaintiff's damage. The court holds that the defendant's negligent act of setting fire to the combustible material was not the prox imate cause of Doe's injury, each conflagra tion being treated as a new and independent cause. The instructor then calls for another case upon the same subject from the same or a different student. In this case it is held that the fire which consumed the last build ing was the result of a continuous uninter rupted succession of events due to the negli gence of Roe in setting the fire and per mitting it to spread; that, therefore, such negligence must be regarded as the proxi mate cause of the plaintiff's injury, and that the defendant is liable. It may be that the point in the last case arose on demurrer to the declaration or plea, while in the former it was raised by a demurrer to the evidence. It is sufficient to know that the question of substantive law decided is the same in each case, and that in principle the decisions are squarely in conflict. It now becomes the function of the teacher, not so much to de cide for the class which of these two cases states correctly the principle of law involved as it ii to direct the discussion in such a