USA > California > Bench and bar in California. History, anecdotes, reminiscences > Part 7
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
He would sometimes make a bull: "Mr. Policeman, how far were you behind this boy when you caught up with him ?"
60
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
"I don't understand you, sir."
The court suggested that, perhaps, Mr. Byrne meant how far he had to run before he caught him.
"No, your honor," said Byrne, "I meant what I said. How many feet or rods were you behind him before you caught up with him?"
Failing to get any enlightenment on this point, he asked some other question. But he never would admit that he had blundered. Indeed, he never, in or out of court, would concede that he was at fault in anything. He was very obstinate. If he made a mistake, he would stick to it, would twist around it, climb over it, or dig under it, would obscure it with multiplicity of words, of allusion, of phrase, would do anything rather than let the court or jury see that he recognized discomfiture or defeat. He was, as are men of his temperament generally, very vain, but his vanity was perfectly harmless. He was never envious of other men's success in his peculiar line, and never underestimated the efforts of those with whom it was his hap to contend. Withal, he really possessed great simplicity of character. He would take advice from those qualified, in his judgment, to give it, and would follow it, so far as his impulsiveness would allow.
He enjoyed exuberantly life, literature, society; but, for many years before his death he seemed to labor under a burden which he vainly tried to shake off. As Dr. Griswold observed of Edgar A. Poe, he bore through life "the memory of a controlling sorrow." This was his unfortunate marriage. In the press of business, in hours of idleness, in the solitude of study, it was ever present.
Byrne was frequently pitted against Baker at the criminal bar. They, whose names I love to couple, delighted to cross swords with each other. "O, the blood more stirs to rouse a lion than to start a hare !" By a masterly stroke of cool presumption, Byrne once lifted Baker from his footing. The latter recited a fine poetic extract, and remembering Byrne's proneness to quote poetry, he turned to him and remarked, "I suppose the learned District Attorney is familiar with this quotation !" Byrne quickly responded with imperturbable front, " I should think so; I wrote it myself." The "Old Gray Eagle" curved his neck. Would Byrne dare to confront him in open court on such an issue? Could it be possible that in the crowded court-room there were some who would believe that Byrne really wrote those lines, and that he, Baker, was ignorant of the author of his own quotation? But he soon recovered himself and replied: "I never before saw or heard this gem attributed to the learned counselor, but when he asserts his paternity, it is not for me to deny it. I cannot say I know he did not write it, but I am ready to take the witness stand and state under oath, that I read these very words in Milton before the gentleman was born."
"Great minds often think alike," said Byrne, quietly.
61
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
In 1854, in San Francisco, Byrne met and married Matilda Heron, whose almost faultless impersonation of Camille afterwards won her a widely extended celebrity. They married in haste, and repented at leisure, if ever a couple did. So little was known of this marriage that after Byrne's death, some eighteen years later, when Matilda Heron came from New York to contest his will, the announcement created universal surprise. Although he always ignored it, the marriage was a solemn fact. Col. Philip A. Roach was an intimate friend of Byrne both in New York and San Francisco. When the actress told her story to the public in 1872, Col. Roach made an investigation and found that she had been duly married to Byrne by Father McGinness of St. Patrick's Catholic Church at San Francisco, in 1854. I had this from the Colonel on November 29, 1881. The light that was thrown upon this unfortunate alliance came from the sentimental actress herself. In an affidavit filed by her in our Probate Court, August 28, 1872, in the matter of her contest of Harry Byrne's will, she thus expatiated:
In the Probate Court of the City and County of San Francisco, in the matter of the estate of Henry H. Byrne, deceased. City and County of San Francisco, ss.
Matilda Heron Byrne, at present in aforesaid city and county, being first duly sworn, says: I deny that I have a considerable quantity of, or any quantity of, or any real or personal estate, either in the State of New York or elsewhere, sufficient for my support, or held by me in common with Robert Stoepel, or held by Robert Stoepel for my benefit. I have not a dollar in the world, either in real or personal estate, nor is there any rela- tion under heaven between Robert Stoepel and me, not even our only living child, the posession of which I have obtained through her father's proclaiming her illegitimacy. Since the dissolving of my marriage with Robert Stoepel, he has refused to pay one dollar towards the support of either his child or me. When my sad illness, caused by suffering through the overwhelming calamity of my domestic wreck, between those two men, Henry H. Byrne and Robert Stoepel, overcame me, Robert Stoepel refused to pay my doctor's bill or that of his child; refused to clothe or pay for the education of his child. What, then, can be meant by his now holding property for my benefit, I am at a loss to know. Before my leaving New York for San Francisco, Mr. Stoepel sent a mes- senger to me offering to settle on my child a large sum of money, if I would sell all right and claim to her. This when I was on the bed where I had lain an almost con- firmed invalid for fifteen months, and whence I arose to recover, by act of habeas corpus, my little daughter, who was being kidnapped from me to be transported to an obscure and remote place in the Pyrenees. So much for the estate now being held for my benefit.
As to the suit alleged to have been commenced by me in 1869 against Robert Stoe- pel, if such suit was, or is, in existence, I have no recollection or knowledge of it what- ever. About eighteen years ago I was married to Mr. Henry H. Byrne, with the agree- ment that I should remain on the stage for two years, with the hope, on my part, that I might achieve as great a success in the East as I had in San Francisco. After my return from Europe where I dramatized "Camille," studied under the best masters, and pur- chased a complete theatrical wardrobe, there was not one prominent manager who would open his doors to me. It was failure after failure. The large amount of money I spent in Europe, and what I sunk in San Francisco under bad advice, had now impoverished me. To Mr. Byrne I faithfully depicted every disaster.
The two years passed; he came, as by promise, and, as I thought, to claim me.
62
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
I was in Philadelphia, in the bosom of my family. Mr. Byrne remained three weeks in New York, without even writing to me. Even this I forgave.
At this time an engagement in Pittsburg was opened to me, whither he at length followed me, accompanied by two members of my family. Inquiring why he so neglected me, he answered he had been led astray by some California friends. This, Ialso forgave. During the four days he remained with me, we discussed all my professional calamities, wherein I told him my sorrowful conviction that I never would be the great artist my soul had so long hungered to become, and that now I was perfectly resigned to follow him and his fortunes. To all of this the dear gentleman most evidently thought a great deal, but very little answered.
The last morning came. I was offered an engagement in Buffalo, and I asked, "Must I go to Buffalo, or may I go with you?" To which he answered: "Go to Buffalo."
Then and there we parted; I to Buffalo; he to his friends. One other year passed, when Mr. Byrne's letters came rarely. At last they ceased entirely. I could not believe he had failed to write to me, and so I mentioned it to my brother, Alexander Heron, President of Heron's Line of Steamships from Philadelphia to Charleston and Savannah, but my brother said, "Tilly, if you had one spark of your mother's pride in you, you would never speak to that man again; he has deserted you." This was a bitter blow to the young actress. A third year had passed since our marriage, since which I never received one dollar from him-not even a little token. After my first shock was over, I wrote to Mr. Byrne calmly, and, under the advice of my brother, asked for a divorce. An immediate reply came to me, in which he used these exact words: "Place this letter in the hands of a lawyer, and it will make you as free as the hour you were born." I placed the letter in the hands of a lawyer, John Hopper, of 110 Broadway, New York, and told him to procure me a divorce. About this time I had begun slowly to succeed in my profession, and it was not surprising that a young girl should have flatterers and snares about her. Often rehearsing "Camile," I envied the humblest woman in the theater who had a husband's protection. In New Orleans I met the conductor of our orchestra, who was polite, respectful and kind to me. We met again in New York, where he presented his parents, sisters and brothers to me; also, his brother-in-law, Vincent Wallace, the composer. They hinted a marriage. I told them I was poor. Robert Stoepel answered: "Wealth is impertinent: we will be poor together; I love you and will labor for you; it is your love I would marry, not your purse." I asked for time. Time passed and I played Camille in Wallack's Theater for 100 nights, achieving a great success. In that triumphant hour I did not forget the poor musician. After a successful trip all over the Union, I sought John Hopper, who told me my case was all right, and that I was a free woman. An inexperienced girl, how could I then know the world or its laws? And I was away from my only friend, my brother. John Hopper urged my mar- riage, assured me I was free to marry, and engaged his brother-in-law, Rev. Mr. Gallordet, to marry Mr. Stoepel and myself in St. Ann's Church, where, in the presence of a large number of friends, Mr. Hopper and his wife Rosalie placed Robert Stoepel's hand and mine together before the altar. Years passed, honor accompanied, and pros- perity attended our mutual industry. Certain obligations called me to San Francisco. I left our happy home, where I left my only child and her father, and arrived here. The day after my arrival Judge - called on me, and informed me that through an old friend he came on behalf of his client, Mr. Byrne, relative to a divorce which Mr. Byrne claimed. I was naturally annoyed, and requested to see Mr. Byrne in person, which the judge positively and imperatively refused. Worn by a long voyage, away from friends and home, in a strange land, I said it was not fair to bring me in such light before the
63
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
public, to which - replied that the matter could be settled up in the country by parties there wlio would be operated upon to keep it secret. I answered : I did not know that that was the way in which justice was dispensed in California, and asked on what ground could Mr. Byrne make so outrageous a request. Whereupon, Mr. - read to me a certain paper, which I could not comprehend until he came to the word "adultery," when I told him to proceed no further. He then substituted for the odious word "desertion." Again I entreated an interview with Mr. Byrne, and again was denied, the judge adding, "Have you no pride? I tell you if Harry was weak enough to see you, I, as his counsel would forbid it. The man despises you." Next day I met Harry on my way to rehearsal. He turned ashy pale, and exclaimed, "Why, Tilly !" I asked what he meant by sending - every day to annoy me in the midst of my labor. He denied all knowledge of the affair, and an interview between us was decided npon.
Thereafter we had a long, serious and affecting interview, explanation and recon- ciliation. After that he came constantly to see me during my stay in San Francisco. During our long conversations Mr. Byrne's constant theme was my being his wife again. He forbade - ever to mention divorce to me. But the industrious - was not dis- heartened, for he reminded me that after I was two mouths married to Harry, the latter had sent me $1,000 and that it would be a graceful thing to repay it. Well, I said, since you are so zealous in your friend's behalf, I will pay it. Sell that water lot, on which you insist he has been paying taxes, while I can prove my brother-in-law has been really paying them. Sell the lot-pay your client principal, taxes and interest on the same. The lot was sold for $2,300. The purchaser refused to lay down the money until I signed it by my real name in the presence of Dr. Harris, Judge Freelon and some others. I took the pen and wrote " Matilda Heron," then, hesitating, I said : What else? and both Harry and Freelon answered aloud: "Byrne," which, to the best of my knowledge, I then signed.
In our next interview I asked Harry what on earth that signature meant, and he answered : "You are not Stoepel's wife, but mine ; your property is mine ; that beautiful home of yours is mine ; you are mine ; your very child is mine ; you are my wife. Your divorce from me was either illegially obtained or fraudulent."
This intelligence pained me exceedingly. Just then I received a dispatch of my brother's death. I was obliged, even in my double affliction, to perform three nights. At last I broke down ill, and all that tender respect and love could do, Harry Byrne did for me. I had two physicians, but he sent his own. He sent Mr. Freelon to assure me that, if anything serious should arise from my illness, he would send a faithful messen1- ger to accompany me home. I got well and traveled up the country. Not a city I performed in, scarcely a day passed, but brought a letter from Mr. Byrne. When it became necessary for me to go East, he became extremely melancholy, even to weak- ness. I could only arouse him by expressing the hope that I would return to him. He planned that we should go abroad for some years. I told him I would go home and state my position frankly to Mr. Stoepel. In parting with me he exhibited great sensibility and deep feeling. On my return to New York I immediately and frankly told Mr. Stoepel all, without a particle of reserve. Then arose a question of property between us. Mr. Stoepel saying : "Then if you should die Byrne can claim all." I answered : "These were Mr. Byrne's exact words." From that hour strife and confusion surrounded me. Between two husbands-my brother dead, a daughter's honor and my own involved -I knew not whither to turn. I made a retreat to the convent to compose myself, leav- ing which I was thrust into the Supreme Court by Robert Stoepel vs. Matilda Heron Byrne, to compel me to consent to a division of property as partners in business. I did not wish to divide our property, but to keep it together for the child, so I engaged Mr.
64
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
James T. Brady to defend the case. Unfortunately that gentleman in a short time died. On requesting his partner to resume the case that gentleman said : "Matilda, you will have trouble with Stoepel, for I have had a communication from Mr. Byrne who says you are his wife, that your divorce from him was not legal." Weary of publicity, dis- heartened, desperate, I left that office, and made over to Robert Stoepel every piece of property and every dollar I possessed on earth. From that time, too depressed to act, I was supporting myself and my child by my education, when two years ago I was prostrated by severe fever, and kept my room and bed for fifteen months. I was con- valescent, and was sent in midwinter to the seashore, where the news of Mr. Byrne's death reached me ; also, telegrams and letters telling me to come to San Francisco. I have come to defend my honor and my rights. From the investigations made by my lawyer in New York at the time of the litigation between Robert Stoepel and myself, I became fully satisfied, and do now firmly believe, there never was a divorce between Henry H. Byrne and myself.
[Signed] MATILDA HERON BYRNE. Subscribed and sworn to this 27th day of August, A. D. 1872, before me,
[Seal] SAMUEL HERMANN, Notary Public.
There was a compromise effected between Mr. Carpentier, the executor and legatee before named, and Matilda Heron. Mr. Carpentier's final account shows that Matilda Heron received $1,000. The fact is, I have it on good authority, she actually received $5,000.
The Mary Cross, to whom Mr. Byrne left $5,000, was a young woman from Philadelphia, who learned the millinery art in the same institution with Matilda Heron, through whom she became acquainted with Mr. Byrne. She was Mr. Byrne's housekeeper in one of his houses, corner of Howard and Twelfth streets, and in his sickness showed him unremitting attention. He really was indebted to her for many acts of kindness. He was not married, and in periods of sickness and gloom, consequent upon excess of conviviality, he invariably sought her house and found hospitable welcome.
It has always been an enigma to the bar and the community that Byrne left his estate to a man who already had ample means and was not of his blood. This may clear the mystery: Byrne, while not a money worshiper, and while numbering among his ardent friends and admirers thousands of people in the humble walks of life, yet looked up to moneyed men, and cherished unfeigned regard for those who had displayed the ability to accumulate wealth. He sometimes repeated an expression which he attri- buted to his father, that "a poor man could not be honest." He had no near relatives to survive him. He did not want his estate squandered, and felt that it would not be appreciated if left to any impecunious companions. Among his immediate personal friends was one who knew how to make money and how to take care of it. Carpentier and Byrne, moreover, had known each other in the East. When Byrne, before the close of his second term as District Attorney, in 1854, went to New York on a visit, he left his
65
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
office in charge of Carpentier. The two men were both bachelors (Byrne practically, at any rate), and this tended to knit them closer together. Just as Byrne was about to pass into decline, and softening of the brain seemed approaching (in 1871) he told a friend that he would like to spend some years in Europe, but did not have the ready means. Like many other well-to-do men he sometimes felt that he was poor. He said he did not want to mortgage his property. This friend mentioned the matter to Mr. Carpen- tier, who promptly said that Mr. Byrne need not let money matters trouble lim an instant-that he, Carpentier, would supply him with all funds required. This was communicated to Mr. Byrne before his will was drawn. Shortly afterwards Mr. Byrne was ill and on the bed from which he never arose. Mr. Carpentier visited him and seeing his serious condition, staid by his bedside day after day and night after night until the end came.
It seems, then, that although Byrne left his estate to one who did not need it, although he could certainly have done more good with it, he yet bequeathed it to one of whom he could say: "He was my friend, faithful and just to me."
CHAPTER VII.
Lorenzo Sawyer-With McDougall in Illinois-In the El Dorado Mines in 1850 -- The Early Bar of Nevada County-A Remarkable Murder Case-Honors in San Francisco -. A Long Tenure on the Bench-Judicial View of the Chinese Question-The Authorship of the Sole Trader Act-The Principles of Masonry-Firsti Meeting with the Eccentric Lockwood-References to A. A. Sargent, Judge J. B. Crockett, Jno. R. McConnell, E. W. Roberts, E. F. W. Ellis, Stanton Buckner, C. H. S. Williams, Roderick N. Morri- son, Frank M. Pixley and Tiburcio Parrott.
Lorenzo Sawyer holds for life the most exalted judicial station in Califor- nia, and his career on the bench has already been longer than any other in the annals of the State, except those of Judges Hoffman and Field. A quiet, unas- suming man, his forensic record is yet full of interest, and to those who may have the idea that his life has been uneventful, I promise a pleasant surprise.
He was born in Jefferson County, New York, May 23, 1820. (Judge S. C. Hastings was born in the same county, six years earlier). Like the Shafters, who were born in Vermont, four and eight years before him, he had the blessing of a noble parentage, and, like them, reared in the home of honesty, simplicity, sobriety and frugality, he heeded every parental counsel, and has led a life of exceptional beauty and purity. His father has been dead some years but his mother lingered until passed ninety-two, dying on June 9, 1886, at Belvidere, Illinois. Their golden wedding was celebrated at that place, February 11, 1869, when there was a happy reunion of their descendants and relatives. On that occasion the Hon. Joel Swain Sawyer, of Minnesota, the next eldest son, delivered to the aged couple an affecting memorial address, which closed with these words:
"To the principles of morality, virtue and Gospel truth, early instilled into their minds, enforced by your examples, do your children owe whatever of good may appear in their characters, whatever of success they may obtain in life, whatever of public or private consideration and esteem they may inspire; and as a fitting return for your care, your integrity, and the other Christian graces illustrated by your daily lives, you now realize the assurance of the sacred proverbialist; your children shall arise and pronounce you blessed-as we do this day."
At this "wedding" a hymn was sung which had been sung at the
67
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
marriage fifty years before, to the same tune, Exhortation, and from the same books.
Lorenzo Sawyer was born on a farm, and lived there until his sixteenth year. In winter he attended the district school; in summer he helped to bear the harvest home. The neighborhood contained a large and excellent library, of which he availed himself at night and on Sundays. After passing a year at the high school at Watertown, New York, called the Black River Institute, he went with his father and family to Pennsylvania, where a new farm was located and cleared. The next eight years were spent in teach- ing school in New York and Ohio, and in reading law, which profession he had decided to follow before he first left his native State.
The first law office he entered was that of Hon. Gustavus Swan, who then led the Ohio bar in land controversies. Judge Swan soon retired from practice, and Lorenzo Sawyer then was received into the office of Noah H. Swayne, afterwards a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. There he had the benefit of excellent instruction until his admission to the bar in 1846. He then went to Chicago, and passed a year in the office of James A. McDougall, who was three years his senior, and who was then Attorney General of the State, and who afterwards represented California in the upper house of Congress. He then went to Wisconsin, settling in a little town which bore the name of his native county, and, forming a partnership with John E. Holmes, then Lieutenant Governor, commenced the practice of law.
The old Whig party is dead only in name. Its principles are interwoven with the country's life. Daniel Webster and Henry Clay-these were the men whom Lorenzo Sawyer followed in politics. He had pitched his tent, however, in a locality not very congenial to Whig ideas. His industry, good habits and strong common sense showed that he was the right man, but he was not yet in the right place.
He built up a lucrative law practice for that locality but he was ambitious, and his chance for political preferment in that region was not flattering. So, when the cry of "Eureka !" echoed around the world, he was glad to respond.
In July, 1850, he arrived in California, having crossed the plains with a company of young men from Wisconsin. It was a journey of seventy-two days-" an unprecedently short trip " they called it. Mr. Sawyer sent to the Ohio Observer many incidents of this trip, and his articles were copied by several Western journals, furnishing valuable data to emigrants who followed him.
El Dorado ! Beautiful name, most appropriate for a county of California. In that county Mr. Sawyer first rested after crossing the plains. Like Judge Bennett, immediately on his arrival he went to work in the mines to get a stake. Finding that his profession presented a golden opportunity, he went to Sacramento and commenced law practice. He soon removed to Nevada
68
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
City. His career there was comparatively short, but was cast in an eventful period, and the history of the bar of Nevada county, which was written by the Hon. A. A. Sargent, makes Lorenzo Sawyer one of the most prominent figures of that day. His library at first consisted of eleven volumes, brought from the Prairie State. His brief life at Nevada was broken by a visit to San Francisco, where he had decided to locate permanently. Disaster here came upon him. The honors this people had in store for him were unrevealed, and, being twice burned out of his office, he returned to his mountain town, where he was destined to win great local fame.
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.