A Digest of Important Cases on the Law of Crimes

One objection often heard to abridging the reports of cases students are asked to study is that it does not give the student a correct view, which can be had only by seeing the case entire. A moment's thought would prevent anyone making such a statement. No one ever saw a case reported entire; the official reports are themselves only abridgments. The law library of the University of Michigan contains a printed report of the case of Perrin v. Lepper boiled down to sixteen volumes of about 1000 pages each; but in the official reports most cases are even further abridged, the extent of the abridgment depending on the purpose and discretion of the reporter. Others say that the opinion of the court at least should be given entire; yet most of those who say this profess a fondness and preference for the English decisions because of the succinct and logical statements of arguments and conclusions found in the English reports; which, as we all know, is due largely to the fact that the reporter does not give the opinions of the judges in full, but revises the language, and prints only what he deems of general interest. Their preference for the old cases, in which this policy was practised even more extensively than in these days of cheap printing, is also noticeable. There are many reasons why cases for students should not be given even as fully as in the official reports, for example: the official reporter addresses himself to readers for all purposes, the teacher is instructing on one subject; the judges do not speak to give instruction on law, but because the parties are entitled to know how their case is decided and why; judges do not always stop here, the teacher's report of a case certainly should.

Another reason often given for asking the student to read great masses of undigested material is that he will find it so in practice and should learn in school how to use it. Thus many are persuaded; but the statement is not true. No one but the under-graduate law student ever uses such material. The reporter has the record and briefs of counsel, which time and space forbid to the student. The lawyer has abridgments of these generally, and always the reporter's syllabi; which would be depended on by the indolent student, and would be a stumbling-block to all students. The lawyer with a question to examine does not have a book of selected cases on it put into his hand to read, nor does he take down and ransack the reports of decided cases to find the answer to his question. Generally he has a glimmering notion as to what the law is; what he wants is authority for it, and a precise statement of the doctrine. For both of these he looks first to his texts, digests, etc., and then to the reports of decisions there cited. Then he reads-not like the student, one case on each of many points taken up in successionbut many cases all centering about one point.

Further, the purpose of the student and the purpose of the lawyer are wholly different, in fact the reverse. The lawyer starts with the facts and seeks the decision of the law upon them; the student starts with the decision of the law and seeks to learn its application

to facts-if by studying cases, it is to appreciate its application to other facts, if by studying a text it is to appreciate its application to any facts. The decision is put into the hands of the student; the lawyer must find it. Whatever merits there may be in the so-called case system of studying law now in vogue, it is evident that there is no foundation for the claim that it is the natural or practical method. A more practical case method would be to put into the hands of the student a book of undecided cases involving close questions; but with no indication of what the question is or where to find the answer; both of which the student is asked to give. Or better yet, let him learn the facts from the student who witnessed them; and then let him discover his rights and remedies, and pursue them to judgment and execution, as our students do in our practice court. While such a case system of studying law would be severely practical, it probably would not be practicable as a sole or general method of study.

This book is not offered as a solution of the difficulties of the law student and teacher, nor is anything claimed for it. Frankly, it is an experiment, made with the hope of presenting a more connected and general view of the subject than can be acquired by reading cases unabridged, of which the student can read but few on a topic, nor even one on each topic, without infringing on the time due to other courses. It is hoped and believed, also, that a more definite, concrete, and precise knowledge of the law will be obtained from reading such a book than could be acquired by studying a text of the same size. As it is a departure from accustomed lines, opposition and criticism are expected. If this experiment is not successful, perhaps another may get from it a hint that will suggest a better plan.

In selecting the cases to be abridged, an effort has been made to choose those that have drawn the most attention, comment, and citation. The reputation of each case is shown to the reader in part by reference to the various collections of important cases on crimes in which it has been included. Probably many cases have been included which more mature deliberation would have excluded, and as many omitted which should have been included. For these and other errors the charity of the reader is requested. Especial acknoweldgment is due to Miss G. E. Woodard, assistant law librarian, for making the table of cases, for adding the parallel citations, and for much other assistance in getting the matter into type. JOHN R. ROOD.

Bøker