In re Mason

Headnote

Motion for leave to file a regents’ certificate of examination ■mme pro tune.

In April, 1890, the petitioner began the study of law in the ■'office of a firm of practicing attorneys, whom he caused to file the certificate required that he had commenced such study. At that time he lacked in qualifications certain studies required to procure a law student’s certificate, and was informed that he had three months in which to make them up. He commenced a course in such studies at the Rome Free Academy, :and, in June, 1890, upon a regents’ examination there, was successful in all of said studies except arithmetic. He at once wrote the examining, department of the University of the State of New York, asking for a special examination in arithmetic, and was informed that special examinations had been abolished, and no examination would be held until September 23, 1890, at Syracuse. The petitioner tried this examination and at its completion inquired of the special examiner in ■charge when and how he would be advised as to his success, .■and was told that if unsuccessful his papers would be at once returned to him at his post office address marked “ rejected,” :and if successful, he would receive no communication and •could rest assured that he had successfully passed his examination. Deponent then returned to Rome and continued the study of law there, and received no communication from the university. In July, 1893, he wrote the examination depart

ment of said university asking to have his law student’s certificate forwarded, 'and was informed that no record of his examination in arithmetic could be found. Upon investigation, he ascertained that the examiner before whom he appeared at Syracuse was no longer in the employ of the university, and there was no record of the university having notified the petitioner that he had failed in that examination. The petitioner then learned that the next university examination would be in Syracuse in September, 1893, and he there passed an examination in arithmetic and was given a law student’s certificate, which the petitioner believed and understood was to be handed up and only used upon his application for •admission to the bar, and was not aware that it was necessary io be filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals.

The following is the memorandum of decision:

“ This seems to be a hard case on the law student, and the blame of his failure to know that he had not passed in the particular study in September, 1890, seems to he equally upon the Rome Academy and upon himself. Under our decision in Matter of Moore (108 FT. Y. 280) we think we cannot grant the present application.

“ The motion is denied.”