USA > California > Bench and bar in California. History, anecdotes, reminiscences > Part 15
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15
In 1881, Judge Campbell removed to Arizona, where he soon put him-
129
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
self at the head of the bar, and disabused the popular mind of the idea that he was a legal specialist. After five years in that region, he came back over the California line, and settled at Los Angeles. He has been for many years the regular counsel of the proprietors of the San Francisco Chronicle, and that continued engagement has caused his conspicuous reappearance in the metropolitan courts from time to time. He is married and has two grown sons in San Francisco, one of whom follows his profession and bears his name as was observed of Judge Heydenfeldt.
CHAPTER XIII.
A Chapter of Pleasantries-Wit and Humor of Bench and Bar-Sallies of Judge E. D. Wheeler-Judge Stanly's Order to "Burn That Petition "-An Elaborate Conundrum-Characteristic Conduct of a Jury of Lawyers-A Constable With More Pomp Than Discretion-Anecdotes and Recollections of Ogden Hoffman, A. P. Van Duzer, Solomon A. Sharp, J. B. Townsend, :M. C. Blake, William M. Zabriskie, C. T. Ryland, Joshua W. Redman, William Daniels, J. B. Murdock, and Others.
The law is reckoned a stern science; and it is certainly such to those attorneys who have not much to do. It is found to be tolerable by those whose tables are covered with fresh briefs of their own. Its jealousy, how- ever, is proverbial. It has been called " an accumulating science" and those lawyers " accumulate " most who most propitiate it. It settles estates, dis- penses fortunes, treats domestic woes, personal grievances, secures or denies individual liberty, affirms contracts, punishes crimes, upholds honor, protects life, sanctions death. But notwithstanding its solemn offices, it puts no mournful impress upon the hearts of its votaries-its humblest servants or its proudest embassadors. The average lawyer is a man of good cheer. When his aspect is grave his heart is light. Often, on the trial of a weighty cause, the shafts of wit will fly, not alone between counsel, but between counsel and the bench. It would seem strange that a court-room could be the scene of merriment, considering the serious nature of the business there transacted. The fact is, however, that more genuine wit has been heard, more hearty laughter has been evoked, in crowded courts than in club rooms, dining halls or legislative assemblies. We like to laugh at the blunders of others, and the more solemn the occasion the more ludicrous appears the blunder. The . court-room is pre-eminently the place for such things. It is either a witness, a juror, a clerk, a bailiff, a lawyer, or the judge himself-sometimes several of them together-to whom the mishap is due. 1
"Go and get me 5th Howard," said a distinguished San Francisco counselor one day in 1865, in the Fourth District Court. He was "distin- guished " hardly more for his ability than for his eccentricity, and he stopped in his argument to address these words to his clerk. He wanted the case of Nevitt vs. Natchez Steam Packet Company, reported in 5th Howard's Mississippi Reports, page 196; but he simply told his clerk to "get 5th
I31
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
Howard." Now, there are Howard's Mississippi Reports, Howard's New York Practice Reports, and Howard's United States Supreme Court Reports; and the clerk, when he had rushed, out of breath, into his employer's library, soon found on the shelf one 5th Howard, and clutching it hastily, returned to the court. But it was not Howard's Mississippi; it was a New York Howard. Taking the book from his clerk's hands, the counselor, bending over his memoranda, observed: "Your Honor, I will now read you the case of Nevitt vs. Natchez Steam Packet Company, reported in 5th Howard's Mississippi, page 196." Then he slowly opened his book, and turned to the page. Instead of being the case of Nevitt vs. Natchez Steam Packet Com- pany, it was Herustein vs. Matthewson. Looking at the cover, he found it was a New York Report. "Your Honor," he said, "I sent my clerk for the authority I wanted, telling him distinctly it was 5th Howard's Mississippi, and he has brought me 5th Howard's New York Practice. I think he did this mean act with malice aforethought. My experience with law clerks is that they are fit for nothing but to draw their salaries and eat free lunches." He took a breath of relief, and proceeded with his argument, the court having made a note of the absent book.
The late Solomon A. Sharp, once State Senator, and who held other high honors in San Francisco at various times, and who enjoyed a fortune for many years before his death, was not noted for his alertness of movement. He was also inclined to procrastination, being seldom ready to try a cause until after several postponements. One day, in the Nineteenth District Court, Judge E. D. Wheeler presiding (I coupled these names on page 85), a cause, in which Mr. Sharp was for the defendant, was called for trial, and Mr. Sharp astounded the attorneys present, and especially the plaintiff's counsel, by promptly responding "Ready." He was eager for the fray that time, although the case had never been reached for trial before. This was something the plaintiff's counsel had not anticipated. That unhappy man urged a post- ponement as persistently as he could, but having no legal ground, he did not say anything to the point. Mr. Sharp insisted on a trial, saying his witnesses were in 'court, and he called attention to the fact that no legal excuse was presented by the other side for not being ready. Then Judge Wheeler came to the relief of the plaintiff's attorney: "Mr. Sharp, I never knew you to be ready before. The plaintiff's counsel could not have foreseen this exigency. You have taken him, as well as the court, by surprise. Let the trial be post- poned for ten days." There was a general laugh, but Mr. Sharp declined to even smile until he got outside the court-room.
Judge Wheeler said many good things on the bench. His humor, which was of the quiet order, would peep out in his most important opinions. It was really entertaining to listen to him when he rendered a decision. In nine cases out of ten these were oral, and in many instances were delivered
132
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
without notes. They were certainly models in style, and manner of their rendition. He had all the facts in his memory, and weighed them calmly. His intonation was that of conversation in an assembly of friends. The mirth with which they were usually touched did not detract at all from their gravity, because introduced in happy illustration. It, of course, greatly heightened the pleasure of the listener. No judge whom I have ever heard render an oral opinion, not even Hoffman or Mckinstry, was more lucid in exposition than Judge Wheeler.
"Gentlemen of the bar," said this judge on taking the bench one motion day, "only short arguments will be heard; motions will 'go over ' very easily this morning. I want to 'go over ' myself."
Judge J. B. Townsend, who had been practicing at this bar for thirty years, and who, while being recognized as an able lawyer, had, strange to say, very slow movements of mind, appeared before Judge Wheeler one motion day, and the motion calender being called, ten were answered ready. Usually, ten "ready " motions can be disposed of in one or two hours. But Judge Townsend had the first motion, and another "slow coach " was the opposing counsel. Some of the attorneys who had other motions began to leave the chamber.
"Are you ready, Judge Townsend ?" Judge Wheeler inquired.
" Yes, your Honor," said Judge Townsend slowly.
" No other motion will be taken up to-day," Judge Wheeler remarked, and settled himself in his chair, the picture of resignation, or, like "patience on a monument, smiling at grief."
In the month of August, 1868, one Alfred Moulin was indicted by the grand jury of this city and county on nine indictments for libel, the parties defamed being Ogden Hoffman, Stephen J. Field, Delos Lake, Robert F. Morrison, Hall McAllister, George C. Gorham, George E. Whitney, Andrew B. Forbes and William F. Babcock. Now these are no diminutive names, it will be agreed. Moulin was a "crank," and the history of his long and strange experience in our state and federal courts, in admiralty, in criminal libel, in contempt, etc., would make quite a book. The nine indictments against him, for some unexplained reason, lay pigeonholed for nearly three years, the accused being on $9,000 bail, when, on July 10, 1871, he appeared in the County Court, and made motions for the dismissal of all the indict- ments. In support of his motions he held in his hand a printed petition of formidable proportions, which, not being vain of his elocutionary powers, he requested the clerk to read. The clerk read :
To the Hon. John A. Stanly, Judge of the County Court in and for the City and County of San Francisco. The People of the State of California, plaintiffs, vs. Alfred Moulin, defendant. On nine indictments for libel. Petition and complaint. Your petitioner, Alfred Moulin, being duly sworn, respectfully represents : That he is the
I33
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
defendant in the above entitled cases, and that he is and has been a resident of this city and county for the period of twelve years last past. That on or about the 28th day of August, 1868, Ogden Hoffman, Stephen J. Field, Delos Lake, Robert F. Morrison, Hall McAllister, George C. Gorham, George E. Whitney, Andrew B. Forbes, William F. Bab- cock, Henry H. Byrne, John Middleton and others, willfully, wrongfully, maliciously-
The Judge interrupted and said : " This is sufficient, Mr. Clerk. Burn that petition, and enter an order that the motion is denied, because the petition is couched in terms disrespectful to, and contemptuous of, the court and its officers."
The clerk obeyed promptly, tearing the petition into slips and throwing them into the stove.
In the United States Circuit Court, before Judges Sawyer and Hoffman and a jury, in 1873, in the course of the trial of Captain Clarke of the "Sunrise," for cruelty to sailors, the defense called a seaman to testify to the Captain's reputation for kindness and humanity. On cross-examination by General W. H. L. Barnes, the following was elicted :
"Did you ever hear Captain Clarke's reputation for kindness and humanity talked about on the Mary Bently ? (A former vessel of Clarke's.)
" Yes."
" Whom did you hear talk about it ? "
"Well, Tom, for one."
" Who was Tom ? "
" A sailor. Don't know his full name."
" Did you hear anybody else talk about it ?"
" Yes."
" Whom ?"
" All the sailors."
" What did they say ? "
" When I used to take them grub. "
"What did they say ?"
"They said it was good. "
" What was good ? "
" The grub."
Joseph Smith was arraigned at the opening of the term of the Municipal Criminal Court, San Francisco, November, 1872, on an indictment for burg- lary. Having 110 counsel, the court tendered him the services of Mr. Charles Aiken, which were accepted. "When the case was called for trial, December 6, 1872, George W. Tyler appeared for the prisoner. Mr. Aiken addressed the court at some length upon the situation, concluding with this elaborate conundrum : "Can an impecunious prisoner, who has counsel appointed for him by the court, and who afterwards comes into possession of funds, throw off on the lawyer who was ready to defend him for nothing, and secure the
134
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
services of another by the payment of a comfortable fee ?" An affirmative response from Judge Blake caused the counsel to withdraw, and Mr. Tyler started in to earn his " comfortable fee."
That is one of the ways in which the rights of American citizens are trifled with in this part of the country.
In the last named court, July 19, 1873, the case of a certain prisoner being called, and no response being made, the court said :
" Are the parties ready ?"
"I am ready, your honor," said the Assistant District Attorney.
After a moment's silence the prisoner arose in the dock and said, "I am not ready, your honor. My best witness is out of the city, but will be here in a few weeks."
"Have you a lawyer ? " inquired the Judge.
" Yes, your honor."
"Who is he ?"
" Mr. Aiken," (above mentioned).
"Then you had better let Mr. Aiken speak for you," suggested the Judge.
Thereupon that counselor arose slowly and said, finely : "Your honor, I was appointed by the court to defend this man, but I have maintained silence to see if some 'shyster' would not claim the case. None having done So, I suppose the prisoner has no money, and that I will really have to defend him." The trial was then commenced.
In the San Francisco Police Court, August 28, 1869, a prisoner on trial for vagrancy introduced in defense a lawyer, who, among other things, testi fied that he had been counsel for the accused in establishing the latter's right to an estate in the Probate Court. He said that when he took hold of the estate it was worth $1,600. He was asked how much the estate was worth when he got through with it. The question was objected to as being imper- tinent, and the objection was sustained.
In the Justice's Court, at San Francisco, 1866, the Justice being Mr. Alfred Barstow, since associated in law practice with Hon. A. L. Rhodes, ex-Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, an Irish woman brought suit against a wealthy man to recover a small sum alleged to be due for washing clothes. A jury being demanded by the defendant, it was agreed between counsel that the constable (Samuel C. Harding) should summon the jurors from the bystanders. The constable accordingly summoned his men from those in and about the court-room, and it so happened that every man cited was a lawyer. The return of the constable showed service upon D. J. Murphy, Samuel Platt, George J. Wight, Judson Haycock, Wm. M. Zabriskie and others, all lawyers. The legal aspect of the jury being discovered and alluded to by counsel for plaintiff, it was agreed by counsel for both parties that the jury
135
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
-the first twelve called-should be accepted, and each juror was pleased to waive his rights, feeling himself to be in familiar, if not good company. O11 the close of the examination of the first witness, who was the plaintiff herself, Mr. Zabriskie, who was a prominent criminal lawyer and foreman of the jury, took the witness in hand, and put about twenty questions to her, consuming some twelve or fifteen minutes. Then the legal juror next to Zabriskie imi- tated his example, and took nearly as much time. The other jurors in turn followed suit, until the poor woman had been exhaustively examined by twelve jurors, and two hours had been consumed. Another witness was called, and when the counsel in the case had got through with him, the im- patient woman looked at her attorney and the jury with a look of appeal, but the relentless Zabriskie soon dashed her hopes by putting a hypothetical ques- tion, and as he awaited an answer he ran his fingers through his hair, pushed up his coat sleeve some inches, disclosing his immaculate cuffs, and by his manner generally betrayed the utmost satisfaction with the situation, and his indifference to the lapse of time. Then, as that and the next two questions were being put and answered, there was a whispered and somewhat excited conversation between the plaintiff and her counsel. Soon the latter arose, interrupted Mr. Zabriskie's examination, and abruptly spoiled the programme of the legal conspirators on the jury-thus :
"Your honor," said he, " as the defendant has employed able counsel and brought several witnesses into court to resist the plaintiff's demand, I have sent for additional witnesses myself, whose appearance I first thought un- necessary. I have seven witnesses altogether, and the defense may have as many. I make no objection to the jurors putting questions to the witnesses, but I do not think it is 'in accordance with the eternal fitness of things' to pursue such a course on this trial. Our demand is just but very small, and we have concluded to make the defendant a present of it rather than suffer the penalty of sitting here and seeing fourteen witnesses examined at the rate of three a day. Your honor will please dismiss the case at plaintiff's cost. I will pay the jury's fees out of my own pocket." As the plaintiff left the court- room precipitately the Justice said, " The case is dismissed." The plaintiff's counsel stepped up to the jurors to pay their fees, and said : "Haven't you fellows any better business talent?" The jurors accepted the two dollars each, and sent the total to the plaintiff, who thus, out of her lawyer's money, camne within one dollar of "getting even."
A certain "small farmer " near the town of Sonora woke up one fine morning, and found that the grass had been cut from an inclosed plot during the night. Going into town, he found some freshly cut grass in front of a hay dealer's premises, and had the hay dealer prosecuted for larceny. The accused, on his examination before the Justice of the Peace, showed that he
I36
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
was on a ranch ten miles off when the grass was stolen. His counsel asked for his discharge.
" Go slow," replied the Justice. "Let him first show who did steal it."
"Your honor," said the counsel, " I will effect my client's release by habeas corpus. I never could get justice in this court."
"No, sir," replied the Justice. "You never shall have justice in this court, while I am here."
In the Municipal Criminal Court, San Francisco, February 21st, 1873 - (the Judge being M. C. Blake, who was Mayor ten years later), W. D. Saw- yer, counsel for John E. Dunn, convicted of robbery, and arraigned for sen- tence, asked a postponement of sentence, to enable him to prepare an argu- ment on a motion to vacate the verdict. He remarked, incidentally, that every one was presumed to know the law, but this was a fiction ; it was well established that a great many do not know the law, and their ignorance was not their fault. Judge Blake conceded that no one knew the law-not even judges-except those on the Supreme Bench.
Thus will the gravest magistrate sometimes unbend. Judge Blake seemed, in his quiet way, to enjoy it, when the laughter of the lawyers pres- ent assured him that he had made a "palpable hit." The prisoner's counsel proceeded, and said something about his client having been neglected and deceived by his friends. District Attorney D. J. Murphy (interrupting): " The counsel cannot seriously hope to have the verdict set aside. He is, no doubt, appealing to time, in the hope of getting his fee in the case. I will not object to indulging him a while longer."
The passing of sentence was postponed for a few days, during which time the fee is thought to have been paid, as the motion to vacate the verdict was not further pressed.
Justice of the Peace Ford, of Martinez, who held that distinguished office at an early day, thought it essential to the dignity of his tribunal that it should be formally opened by constabulary proclamation. On one occasion the constable felt more than usually well, and opened court in these stirring accents: "Hear ye ! Hear ye ! the Honorable Justice's Court of Martinez is now open, pursuant to adjournment. Everybody will come to order, and everybody, whether they are plaintiffs or defendants, shall have fair play and a11 equal show !" The Justice called the constable to him, and officially re- buked him. " What do you mean," said he, "by such talk as that ? What will become of my business if I give the defendant an equal show with the plaintiff. I am not safe with you here." Thereafter the constable's formula was shorter. Judge Dwinelle, of the old Fifteenth District Court, in whose dis- trict was Martinez, more than once told this story on Justice Ford, in presence of the latter, who always insisted however, that it was a base calumny.
In the case of somebody against John H. Moses, tried in the brave days
137
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
of old (about 1851) before Justice William Daniels, at San Jose, J. B. Mur- dock for plaintiff, Wm. T. Wallace (since Attorney General and Chief Justice); for defendant, the plaintiff obtained judgment, an erroneous entry of which led to a tedious complication. As was frequently done at that time in Jus- tices' Courts, the judgment was written up by the attorney for the prevailing party. In this case, Murdock entered judgment against Moses Scott instead of against John H. Moses, his mistake arising from the fact that Moses Scott was a witness on the trial. Wallace discovering the error, informed the Justice that he would be sued for damages if the defendant's property should be sold on execution upon such a judgment. The Justice refused to issue execution, or to correct the judgment. In his despair Murdock concluded to appeal from his own entry. The appeal came before the County Court, Joshua W. Redman, Judge. Murdock had the court against him all the way through, being told that he could not take advantage of his own error. He left the court-room abruptly, with an expression of contempt. The court directed the baliff to call Mr. Murdock back. In another minute Murdock entered the court-room, and approached the immediate precincts of the judicial presence, with hat against his breast, bowing and smiling, and marveling whether he would be lightly rebuked or heavily fined.
"You seem agitated, Mr. Murdock," said the justice. "I only called you back to remind you that there is an old proverb, which has been made one of the rules of this court. 'If a man burns himself, he may have to sit on the blister.' Good-day, Mr. Murdock."
And Murdock withdrew, with grave mien.
A certain rawbone Jack was once the rawbone of contention (replevin) in San Jose, in the court-room of William Daniels, J. P., an old Englishman, before mentioned, who had settled in that locality A. D. 1846. C. T. Ryland, since a leading banker, but long a prominent lawyer and politician, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Sanford, Santa Clara's first District Attorney, a fluent, flowery speaker, and a wit of no mean order, represented the defen- dant. Sanford was partially deaf. The evidence being all in, Ryland " waived the opening," whereupon, and while Sanford was arranging some papers, the Justice announced judgment for the plaintiff, and the Constable immediately delivered the animal to that party, who rode off upon him. Sanford, not hearing the words of the Justice, and assuming that they referred to Ryland's offer to waive the opening, arose with deliberation to speak. He had proceeded some few minutes, to the great amusement of his opponent, when the Justice stopped him and said:
"Mr. Sanford, there is no use in your arguing the case. I have already given the plaintiff judgment."
Sanford (with that look of disgust which too often is seen on the lawyer's. face when subjected to judicial outrage)-"The - you say !"
I38
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
" Come to order, sir. Court is about to try another case," said the Justice.
" Is this the truth ?" asked Sanford, turning to Ryland.
.
"Yes; and my man has the mule two miles from here by this time," answered Ryland.
"Well, your honor," said Sanford recovering, "I would bow to your decision, if it were properly amended."
" How is that ?" asked the Justice.
" My client," continued Sanford, is fond of the beautiful jackass which has been taken from him. If the plaintiff will return him, I will give him instead an animal of much more positive and prominent qualities in the assinine line-a very jewel of a jackass-that is, with your honor's acquiescence."
" Why should I acquiesce?" asked the Justice again.
" Because," said Sanford, "the jackass that I should deliver, is the astute judge of this court."
A severe fine was promptly imposed, but never paid. The matter was pleasantly adjusted the same day at a bar of a different sort.
A special policeman convicted of assault and battery, in striking a pris- oner on the head with his club, not necessarily or in self-defense, appeared before the Police Court, San Francisco, August 29, 1873, to receive sentence. Colonel A. P. Dudley, his counsel, moved for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence. He made an earnest appeal for the intelligent consideration of the court on behalf of the officer, who, counsel said, had been misrepresented while endeavoring to perform faithfully his arduous and difficult duties. The counsel twisted off into a tirade against the Prosecuting Attorney, who, he said, had hunted down a fellow officer of the law-in this instance with a vindictive spirit. Said the Colonel, concluding: "Well might this excellent policeman exclaim, in the language of great Cæsar, when stabbed by the chief among his supposed friends in front of the Roman Capitol, Et tu, Brute !" The Prosecuting Attorney was partially stupe- fied with astonishment for a moment, and then a cloud of ferocious indigna- tion overcast his classic features, as he sprang to his feet and demanded the protection of the court from such infamous abuse. His honor commanded the Colonel to arise, and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in stigmatizing an officer of the court as a brute ! The culprit was somewhat disconcerted, but managed to stammer out an apology, to the effect that the expression which had given offense was merely a Latin quotation, which he had heard some time in his school days, and was a mild rebuke uttered by Cæsar to his friend Brutus-whom he was accustomed to call Brute, in a jocular strain, for short-when the latter stabbed him in the back. Brutus was an eminent lawyer of old times, and an honorable man, and the compar-
I39
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
ison conveyed in the quotation which had unfortunately wounded, was not intended to disparage his friend, the Prosecuting Attorney, for whom he entertained the most profound regard. (sic.) T. W. Taliaferro arose in support of the offending lawyer, and intimated that he was familiar with the circumstances referred to by Colonel Dudley, and that the remark attri- buted to Cæsar was merely uttered in the manner of earnest inquiry. It might be literally translated, Who threw that last brick ? The court remarked that the explanation was timely, full and satisfactory. The Pros- ecuting Attorney accepted it as complete, but he expressed his dis- approval of the habit indulged in by some lawyers of dragging in double entendre quotations from the dead languages This scene was reported at the time, and in reproducing it I have used most of the reporter's words.
"Your honor," said a witness on the stand in the Police Court of San Francisco, August 8, 1873, "the Prosecuting Attorney is trying to confuse me by surrounding my statement with legal vermifuge?"
"I think a little vermifuge will not hurt him, your honor," said the Prosecuting Attorney; " he is evidently trying to worm himself out of a fix," " If the attorney for the people," said the Court, "proposes to step from the domain of law into that of medicine, he will please not ask the court to fur- nish him with his first patient." "I'm through," said the people's advocate, and the witness left the stand.
In 1853, Colonel James once defended in the San Francisco Court of Ses- sions-T. W. Freelon, Presiding Judge-a man charged with assault with a deadly weapon. The accused and the person assaulted were both Irishmen. They having been old acquaintances, and their families being neighbors, their friends negotiated a treaty between them, which they ratified. It was agreed that the complaining witness would be as light as possible in his testimony, and the whole prosecution, so far as the witnesses were concerned, was decid- edly weak. "Patrick, " said Colonel James to the complaining witness, "now, didn't you tell the defendant here before he struck you, that he was a d -- Irish "Faith," answered Patrick, "and I did not. How could I, when I'm one myself!"
In the early days of San Francisco, Joseph Hetherington shot and killed Dr. Baldwin, on an open lot at North Beach, in a dispute about their rival claims to the land. He escaped conviction, but afterwards, having killed an- other physician-Dr. Andrew Randall-in the bar-room of the St. Nicholas Hotel, July 24, 1856, he was hanged by the Vigilance Committee one month later. 'When he was tried for the murder of Dr. Baldwin, Harry Bryne was District Attorney. In his closing speech for the prosecution, Bryne became very animated and severe. He expressed regret that no witness had been found who could give an exact recital of the circumstances and manner of the killing. "O, that Dr. Baldwin were here!" he exclaimed, looking fiercely at
.
140
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
Hetherington. " O that for one hour he could have revival from the grave, and tell us of the deep damnation of his taking off ! O that I could call Dr. Baldwin !"
The court bailiff, who was usually half asleep, was roused from his leth- argy by Bryne's ringing tones, and|catching only the words " call Dr. Bald- win," promptly opened the door, went outside, and cried out: "Dr. Baldwin! Dr. Baldwin! Dr. Baldwin! Come into court!" Then stepping back into the court-room, he announced, "There's 110 answer!" A solemn stillness pervaded the chamber as the bailiff made this strange invocation to the grave, but when he returned and said, "There's 110 answer!" the scene presented an aspect so ludicrous that even Bryne, who had been interrupted in the heavy part of his work, had to cast the shadow from his brow, and join in the general glee.
Judge Ogden Hoffman has been on the bench of the United States Dis- trict Court in San Francisco for thirty-seven consecutive years! He is of a distinguished family, son of a great lawyer, has a fine mind, received an excellent education, and, when we consider the length of his judicial tenure and the stirring period in which it has been cast, we see how large a theme the local historian must find in his career. I will only tell now one thing of him, and it will be at the expense of the Hon. A. P. Van Duzer. Mr. Van Duzer was then Assistant United States District Attorney, an efficient man in that place ; indeed an efficient man at the bar, as well as a public speaker of no mean powers. Enjoying the respect of his professional brothers, he yet supplies them with amusement, at times, by his peculiarity of speech, manner and habit. Mr. Van Duzer was prosecuting before Judge Hoffman and a jury, a man indicted for selling unstamped matches. He seemed more than usually anxious to convict his man. His voice was loud, his sentences rolled out upon each other in pell-mell succession, his gesture was fierce, his eyes were on fire, his whole aspect inspired fear. Standing on tiptoe, with his right hand lifted on high, and his shirt collar unbuttoned, he reached the climax of his wrath: then, descending, as it were, from the empyrean to the dull earth again, he brought his clenched fist down upon the table with an energy that seemed to come from more than mortal power. The whole jury shuddered. The table cracked, the pyramid of books top- pled over, hats were hurled to the floor, and the inkstands emptied their con- tents, as if in black wrath, into the lap of the defendant.
Just then, Judge Hoffman in a spirit of mercy, interfered. " Mr. Van Duzer, he said, "do you think that your argument has been helped by these extraordinary exploits? If you imagine that noise is an element of argument, I wish you would send out and get a Chinese gong; I would prefer to hear that." Mr. Van Duzer said he was through, and the case was given to the jury.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.