School matters. One with such an idea but deceives himself. The interest of the students is as lively as ever, but thanks to the conservative element their method of procedure is now more dignified. Then they demanded redress. Now they respectfully ask to be heard. And we think the cause has gained greatly by the change. The Trustees can but entertain respect for this more dignified bearing, and will be far more likely to think seriously of the dissatisfaction that exists. And while it may be impossible to grant the requests of the students, we do not doubt but that such arrangements will be made as will very materially remove much of the trouble complained of.

The students will do well to watch quietly the course of events. Each student must decide for himself what will be his course after the present year; and since the excitement is now over he should be able to do so calmly, and with regard to his best interests. We offer no word of advice. We but ask him to weigh carefully all sides of the question. Whether he remained here or not must be his own decision.

For one thing we do stand-justice to all. The Trustees must rightfully take into consideration all the conditions which drew men to this School, and cannot consistently abruptly change those conditions. It must be remembered that the Law School is not on the same basis as a primary school, or even a college. When a man places his name upon the register of a law school he thinks of the future, as well as of the present. His entire plan for three years is carefully marked out. All other things are brought into harmony with that plan. To change it abruptly is injustice itself.

Let it not for a moment be thought that

we deny the right to the authorities to modify a course of study. Far from it. But we do think that those authorities, from their own sense of justice alone, cannot consistently revolutionize a whole. course of work without, in some way, making amends to the gentlemen injured by the change-be they few or many. The number should not be considered. And we are perfectly willing to leave the question in the hands of the authorities. We desire no outside interference. We believe the question will be decided with fairness to all. But before closing, let us be perfectly clear on one point. If in the course of events injustice should be shown, the TIMES will speak its disapproval in no uncertain terms. On the other hand the TIMES can be relied upon as consistently representing the best thoughts on the state of affairs.

We have made no allusion to our new professors for next year, for the reason that we do not, as yet, consider ourselves well enough acquainted with either them or their methods to express any opinion. We shall endeavor before the next issue to obtain enough information to make such a statement.

In our last issue we promised a farewell article from Professor Chase, for the April number of the LAW TIMES. Professor Chase had promised to try to write this article, but on account of his increased work has found it impossible to do so. And we desire to say here, that we consider that the Middle Class owes a deep debt of gratitude to Professor Chase for the large amount of extra work he has taken upon himself in giving the gentlemen of that class the Saturday afternoon review of Evidence and Torts. This review is an act of kindness which every member should

be very thankful for; and we are sure that the gentlemen of the class will know how to appreciate this kindness, and also how to show their appreciation of it. All will feel that the review is highly necessary, and this chance to obtain it, we hope, will not be wasted. We hope to see the large majority of the class at these reviews--both for the sake of the gentlemen themselves and on account of the respect they owe to Professor Chase. If he is thoughtful enough to give the time for these extra lectures, surely no gentleman can do less than attend. The lectures are from 4:30 to 6 o'clock every Saturday afternoon.

EVER since the resignation of Dr. Dwight was first made known, it has been the desire of the Editors of the TIMES to arrange a "Dwight Number," which would be a testimonial of the sterling qualities of our ever kindly remembered friend and professor. The editors are very glad to say that this testimonal is now an assured success. It will consist of numerous articles, written by some of the more prominent of the graduates of Columbia Law School, expressing their love and gratitude for their former instructor. The articles will cover the whole period of the Law School, and it is expected that they will make a very important contribution to its history. There will also be a very interesting history of the course of the Law School under Dr. Dwight, written by one who is fully conversant with all the facts. Besides this the book will contain four handsome engravings of the present building and a former one. It is hoped to make this "Dwight Number" a most appropriate gift to Dr. Dwight from all the present and former students of the Law School. The Editors make this advance announcement in order to create an interest in their work

among the students, and we ask for the hearty co-operation of all. Let us make it a labor of love on the part of all.

THE latest catalogue of the New York Bar Association makes a very commendable showing for Columbia Law School. The whole membership of the association is 1039. Of these 510 are graduates of the Law School, or have been connected as students with the School. Now the first class graduated at the Law School in 1860, so that the oldest graduates can now be only about 52 or 55 years of age. But at least 150 members of the Bar Association are over this age. Subtracting 150 from 539 therefore we have 384, as the number of members, not Columbia law students, under the age of 55. We see therefore that of the whole number of members who could have been students here, the number who were connected with the School is notably in the majority. This is a showing of which any law school could be proud, and proves that the Columbia Law School is the most important factor in the legal education of our New York lawyers. The standing of these gentlemen is evidence of the good results obtained by the Columbia course. No better testimonial of the abilities of our instructors could be given than this showing of the membership of the Bar Association. It remains to be seen whether or not Columbia Law School will better her present enviable standing. We wonder how many of the present students will add their testimonial to this already large majority.

THE Court of Appeals has lately amended its rules relative to the admission of attorneys and counsellors-at-law by substituting the following in place of rule 2 : "Before any person shall enter upon the

examination in English composition, first-year Latin, arithmetic, geometry, English, and U. S. history. This amendment is another step in the right direction, and will receive the hearty approval of the New York Bar. To New York and Brooklyn it will, in some respects, be a blessing. Before the year 1882, during which year the Regents' Examination came into existence, the fact that a man's "shingle" was decorated with "Attorney and Counsellor-at-Law" was not considered a safe criterion in judging his education or legal knowledge. There were many lawyers, but few there were who deserved the title. If, when a person applied for admission, he was in blissful ignorance of the multiplicationtable, it was not reckoned a disqualification, but only an unfortunate circumstance. He was asked a few questions, and if by the help of the power above, or, better, the examining power, he answered correctly, he was allowed to pass.

Unscrupulous politicians, "heelers," and saloon-keepers all alike, having nothing to recommend them except the facts of their being warriors of Tammany and possessing the necessary money to make the path smooth, were allowed to hold themselves out as lawyers. These lawyers, pardon the libel, by their mistakes and unprincipled sharp practice, brought the profession in such disrepute as to render a radical reform necessary for its protection. The first step taken toward such reform was in 1882, when the Court of Appeals adopted the now existing rules. These rules required the passing of a Regents' Examination, with which we are

all familiar. The subjects added, by the recent amendment, to those already required are Latin and geometry. A knowledge of the former is most essential in the study and practice of law, and there are many of us who regret our ignorance of the same. The latter will serve as a mental discipline, and of course will work no harm. Therefore, as this change does not affect the present Middle Class, and in no way justifies a petition to the Court of Appeals, I think we will all admit the amendment a most judicious one.

THE Concentrated essence of gall with which the gentlemen connected with the Blue and White are blessed, is very apt, we find, to show its existence under very annoying circumstances. The gentlemen who are delegated to post notices of the time of the issuing of the different numbers of the Blue and White, seem to have no thought of the rights of others. Surely their courtesy must be hid under something. When these gentlemen find a notice of another paper on the board, it would be well for them to put themselves to the small inconvenience of finding another place for their own. But not content with monopolizing the blackboards, these gentlemen even go to the extent of tearing down the notices of other papers-posted upon boards made especially for these papers-and displaying their own notices in glaring colors thereon. If the gentlemen of the Blue and White would consult these papers, they might perhaps, for a consideration, be induced to loan the use of their private boards. Until that time we think it would be well for the Blue and White to keep on its own side of the fence.

X. The existence of a written instrument may be attacked by parol evidence. There are always two questions possible as to every instrument. ist. Is there an instrument? 2d. If so, what does it mean? It is only the second question that is affected by the rule under consideration.

XI. Omissions and errors in a contract may be rectified by an action in a court of equity. The error in such a case must be mutual. The court is said to reform the instrument. This rule does not in general apply to a will, as there is no consideration. Under present practice, an action may be brought to reform and also for relief.

XII. The rule does not extend to receipts for money or goods unless in substance a contract. Nor to passenger railway tickets, etc.

XIII. The rule does not prevent the introduction of evidence that the contract has been modified or discharged. reason of the rule fails in this case. There are three cases.

The

A. Discharge of parol or written contracts in general. These may be discharged by mere word of mouth.

B. Contracts required to be in writing by statute. Here an absolute discharge may be made by word of mouth, but not a new agreement, since the new agreement must itself be in writing. Noble vs. Ward, L. R., 2 Ex., 135; Goss vs. Lord Nugent, 5 B. and Ad., 65.

C. Instruments under seal. These cannot be strictly discharged by parol, but a

parol consideration subsequent to the instrument may be shown, and this will discharge it on equitable grounds. Nash vs. Armstrong, 10 C. B., N. S., 259 ; Canal Co. vs. Ray, 101 U. S., 527. This is not varying a contract by parol evidence. See opinion. Noble vs. Ward, supra, was a case where the time for performance of a sale of goods under the statute of frauds was extended before breach by parol. This was held not to be binding, being itself void by statute. Goss vs. Lord Nugent was similar in effect, as the contract to be enforced was partly in writing and partly by parol. See Hill vs. Blake, 97 N. Y., 216, as to variation in substance not being lawful. After breach there must be a consideration, or there must be a release under seal. The subject of discharging a sealed instrument by parol evidence is considered in Canal Co. vs. Ray, 101 U. S., 527. The rule in equity is declared to be undoubted. Cases at law are also cited. Dearborn vs. Cross, 7 Cow., 48: Flemming vs. Gilbert, 3 Johns, 527; 4 S. and R., 241.

CHAPTER II.

LAW OF PLACE.

Section I. Lemmon vs. People, 11 N. Y., 562, holds that rules of comity of nations or private international law give way in presence of a positive local statute.

Different names by which known:
(1.) Private international law.
(2.) International private law.