212 OCCASIONAL HAPPY THOUGHTS. 



good. An attempt to hit off an original definition of " Con- 

 structive Fraud" was also, I have reason to believe, a 

 failure. 



As an example of Constructive Fraud I ventured upon the 

 instance of a builder who had undertaken to erect an 

 habitable and solid house and who had "scamped" his 

 work. I have since ascertained that this is not what the 

 examiners meant by " Constructive Fraud." 



A short-pointed question, evidently framed by a brisk 

 examiner, caught my eye. " A^o. X.—What is Replevin?" 

 I did not like to reply on paper that it was made up of the 

 words "7?^" and "_plevu/" which was the only answer that 

 suggested itself to me after looking at it for five minutes ; so 

 I put this on one side, and, like a Mazeppa among the 

 examination questions, Again I urged on my wild career. 



Page 3. On the second paper : Criminal Law. " If a 

 prisoner has received judgment, and the sentence be after- 

 wards reversed by a Court of Error, can he be again indicted 

 for the same offence ? " 



Here I was at home at last. "No," I wrote boldly. 

 "He could not be indicted for the same offence, because," — 

 now came an opportunity for a specnnen of my style ; the 

 examiners could judge from this what an acquisition I 

 should be to the bar as an advocate, — " because it is the 

 glorious privilege of a native Englishman, of one whose 

 birthright is to call himself free and never to know slavery," 

 — this was, I felt, a too evident paraphrase on the chorus 

 of "Rule Britannia;" but it looked well, and would succeed 

 admirably if declaimed, — " to be charged only once with 



