USA > Connecticut > Litchfield County > The bench and bar of Litchfield County, Connecticut, 1709-1909 : biographical sketches of members, history and catalogue of the Litchfield Law School, historical notes > Part 11
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 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34
94
LITCHFIELD COUNTY BENCH AND BAR
well of Uncle Mich. as we used to call him and so did the people of Norfolk, for he was always a prominent man in the affairs of the town. He was a member of the legislature in 1830 and 1831, and there made himself conspicuons in the same way he did before the courts. He lived to a very advanced age.
CHARLES B. PHELPS
Settled in Woodbury soon after his admission to the bar, nearly sixty years ago. He continued in practice while he lived. He died suddenly, from a disease of the heart, at the age of seventy-two years. He held a respectable position as a lawyer and for two years was a judge of the County Court, while that court was holden by a single judge. All who knew him have a very pleasant memory of his genial humor, pertinent anecdotes, and witty and pungent say- ings. The younger members of the bar were delighted with his com- pany and all deeply deplored his sudden death.
MATTHEW MINOR
Of Woodbury, was a lawyer of good classical education and respect- able legal attainments. He had a native diffidence, which prevented him putting himself forward, very often on the trial of cases, but when his powers were brought out he made a respectable show. He belonged to one of the eminent families of Woodbury and for personal qualities was very much respected.
NATHANIEL P. PERRY
Of Kent, was a quiet, unobtrusive, conscientious man. He was the only lawyer in that town during the greater part of his professional life, and did a good local business. He was very diligent in the pur- suit of his profession and generally argued the cases that he com- menced. He was a member of the Senate for two successive years and died at the age of about sixty years.
HOLBROOK CURTIS
Was a native of Newtown but practiced law in Watertown. He was a judge of the County Court for two years was frequently a
-
..
7
JUDGE C. B. PHELPS
95
SEDGWICK'S ADDRESS
member of the legislature, where he had a good share of influence. He was usually chairman of the committee on divorces and his re- ports in such cases were very interesting. He was a man of good common sense and acquitted himself creditably as a judge, but his powers failed with his advancing life and he lived for several years in comparative obscurity.
ISAAC LEAVENWORTH AND ROYAL R. HINMAN.
There were two lawyers in Roxbury fifty years ago, Isaac Leaven- worth and Royal R. Hinman, who made a considerable show of busi- ness before the courts, but who retired from practice in the course of a few years. Mr. Leavenworth went into other business in New Haven where it is said he has been very successful and is still living at a very advanced age. Mr. Hinman held the office of Sec- retary of State for eight years, and published several pamphlets con- taining the statistics of many of the most prominent families in the state.
JOSEPH IL. BELLAMY
Of Bethlehem, deserves more than a passing tribute. He was a grandson of the celebrated divine of that name and was a man of great moral worth. He never had a very extensive practice as a lawyer, but was much imployed in various branches of public busi- ness. He was frequently a member of the legislature, and once rep- resented the sixteenth district in the Senate. He died in middle life, and all, of all names and parties, pay him the tribute of an affectionate and respectable remembrance.
THEODORE NORTH
Of Goshen, his native town, removed to Chenango County, N. Y., about 1823. He graduated at Williams College in 1806 with the highest honors of his class. He was a remarkably well read lawyer. and had a respectable standing as an advocate. He attained to eminence in his profession in the State of New York. He died some twenty years since.
96
LITCHFIELD COUNTY BENCH AND BAR
YOUNG MEMBERS OF THE BAR.
In 1820 there were several young members of the bar who had just commenced practice, some of whom afterwards became eminent, and two of them, Truman Smith, and his cousin Nathaniel B. Smith still survive. Besides these there were George Wheaton, Leman Church, David C. Sanford, Nathaniel Perry of New Milford, and William S. Holabird. These all lived to a period within the memory of many now in practice here. Perry died at an earlier date than either of the others and left a family, but he was still a young man when he was called away. Sanford became judge of the Supreme Court and was greatly respected for his eminent fitness for the place. Wheaton was celebrated for the great skill with which he prepared his cases for trial, and his arguments, homeiy in style, and common- place in method, were listened to with great attention. They were often charged with dry shots of wit which told upon his adversary and excited merriment with the bar.
LEMAN CHURCH
Obtained quite a celebrity for his legal acumen and sharp points of character. If a lawyer is to be deemed successful in proportion to the number of cases in which he wins he was far from being a successful lawyer. I am inclined to think that the spirit of forensic combativeness, which seemed to possess the whole man, led him sometimes to advise groundless prosecutions and to encourage groundless defences. He wanted to fight, no matter whether for the right or wrong, and the consequence was that he lost more cases in proportion to the whole number in which he was engaged than any other lawyer at the bar. Still, nobody could deny that he possessed eminent shrewdness and sagacity as a lawyer, as well as forensic ability of very high order.
WILLIAM S. HOLABIRD.
A native of Canaan, practiced in Colebrook, but spent most of his life in Winsted. He possessed talents which might have given him prominence and distinction as a lawyer had he devoted himself strictly to professional avocations, but he addicted himself more to other pursuits than to that. He was Lieutenant Governor for two years, and for a short time United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and I never heard any complaint of his want of fit- ness for either position. He experienced various fortunes in his worldly affairs, being sometimes poor and sometimes rich. At
TRUMAN SMITH
97
SEDGWICK'S ADDRESS
his death, which occurred soon after he reached the age of fifty years, he left a handsome estate to his family.
There were a few young members of the bar in 1820 who died after, a short career, some of whom were probably never heard of by the members of this generation. Their names now occur to me : Homer Swift of Kent: Philo N. Heacock of New Milford; and Chauncey Smith of Sharon. These started in professional life with ardent hopes and fair prospects of success, but their career was soon cut short by death.
GEORGE S. BOARDMAN,
Son of the Hon. Elijah Boardman of New Milford, was admitted to the bar in 1821. He was a young man of decided promise and was a special favorite of his uncle Judge Boardman. When I visit New Milford I observe, still standing, the brick fire proof office which his father built for him, but he lived only a few months after taking possession of it, and his death was greatly lamented through- out the community. His efforts at the bar gave proof of decided talent and he had made himself a special favorite among the mem- bers.
CONCLUSIONS.
The whole history of this bar for the last fifty years, teems with pleasant recollections. As a whole, it has a reputation for high toned integrity and professional comity among its members which is very much to its credit. If there have been instances of profes- sional delinquency, they have been so rare as to have made no mark on the record of the times.
I have now spoken, to as great an extent as the time will allow, of the men who flourished in this temple of justice fifty years ago. I have no time to give expression to thoughts which come up, with great urgency for utterance, upon such an occasion as this, or to review the history of the last fifty years in any other relation than those which appertain to the administration of justice here. The progress of human affairs during that period. towards their final con- summation, has been marked with great changes and vicissitudes. What shall be their development during the fifty years to come, can be of very little personal interest to me. I cherish the hope that this bench will continue to be occupied by judges of integrity, ability and of high judicial aptitudes, and that this bar will continue to be adorned with members whose pure lives and eminent attainments shall make their position one of honor and usefulness.
98
LITCHFIELD COUNTY BENCH AND BAR
Standing here alone, the only member of this bar who has been in practice for fifty years, I take pleasure in expressing to my brethren of more recent experience the deepest gratitude for the pleasant and friendly relations they have permitted me to enjoy with them during the whole of our acquaintance. By their kind amenities and the favor of the judges, the rays of my evening sun have fallen upon me softer than did those of my noonday. These precious remembrances will remain with me as long as I have consciousness, and in conclusion I say to my brethren, not as a thoughtless wish, but as an honest prayer-may God bless you. each and all.
Warner's Reminisentes
REMINISCENCES
OF THE
LITCHFIELD COUNTY BAR
DELIVERED AT THE
CENTENNIAL BANQUET
NOVEMBER 18, 1898
BY
HON. DONALD J. WARNER
4
DONALD J. WARNER
Reminiscences of Litchfield County Bar.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Bar. I thank you all sin- cerely that I am permitted to be present on this occasion, and the effort would require better language than I can express to tell you of my gratitude at your kind reception.
If I understand the purport of what is expected of me on this evening it is that I shall give my reminiscences of the Bar, of the sayings and doings of the dead who have passed before me. As a preliminary matter I wish to call your attention to an earlier period in my life in relation to the great inroads made by the Legislature of the State of Connecticut. upon the ancient laws. Fifty years ago last April, through a rupture in the democratic party in Salis- bury to which I belonged, a faction, I ought to say, not being identi- fied with either, but attending to my own business rather than to any political aspirations, I was urged to stand for the nomination for representative to the House: I did so, was elected and became a member of the Legislature which held its session in May, 1849. Fortunately or unfortunately I was elected, in my 29th year, although at that time I was considered a very youthful man to legislate for the people of the State of Connecticut. Lafayette Foster, the distin- guished gentleman, state senator and judge of the Superior Court, was the Speaker of the House : Hon. Charles J. McCurdy afterwards minister to Austria and a judge of the Superior and Supreme Courts, was Lieut. Governor and presided over the Senate. I was highly honored, without any solicitation on my part, by being ap- pointed on the Judiciary Committee. Of course I had to go to the tail end of it, a very proper place for me, --
Mr. Huntington :- But that tail wagged the dog.
Mr. Warner :- Well, I will tell you about the dog later. In the year 1847, three distinguished men in this state had been ap- pointed a committee to revise the statutes of the state. That con- mittee consisted of Governor Minor. afterwards a Superior Court judge, Judge Loren P. Waldo and Francis Fellowes, a lawyer, keen and shrewd, of Hartford, on that committee. The very first thing that was referred to our judiciary committee was the report of this revision committee, and our very first subject were the details of that report. They appeared before us at our first sitting. And al- low me to say right here, that chief-justice Butler of Norwalk, then state senator, was the chairman of that judiciary committee. The revision committee had drafted one or two laws which they wished the judiciary committee would see were offered in the Legislature
102
WARNER'S REMINISCENCES
and passed so that it might be incorporated in the revision which would be published that year.
This was only an act permitting and authorizing, in a suit between parties, that the party in question should have the privilege of call- ing upon the opposite party as a witness to testify to the facts that he might inquire about. Judge Waldo was also on the judiciary committee, repesenting Tolland. The distinguished William W. Eaton was his colleague in the House. I, being the first at the tail end of the committee, was called upon after the discussion to give my opinion. The opinion which I gave I had a long time under consideration in relation to the law of witnesses and parties inter- ested being permitted to testify. Chairman Butler called upon me to give my opinion. I said distinctly, (it was in the presence of the revision committee also ) that I was opposed to any such law. They had said to me it was a copy of an Act that had been passed in the State of New York, a recent statute there, and I gave my reason as being opposed to it, one great reason was this, that an honest party might be compelled by a scoundrel to testify to a fact that would be damaging to him unless he had the same ability to testify himself. And I was in favor of going further, I was in favor of passing an Act which would sweep away and wipe out that century- old doctrine and permit every man, party or interested witness in any form, to tell his story before a court and jury, that justice might be done. I said further "look over your Connecticut reports and you will find decision after decision where questions have gone up to the Supreme Court to ascertain whether there was a shred of interest in the witness that testified before the court. I said to them "we have the action of account in which witnesses are permitted to testify ; we have the action of book debt in which all parties may testify, and how many cases will you find in the reports in this state where the question is laid before them whether an action which was brought in book debt did not properly belong in an action of general assumpsit.
Well, the next gentleman was the late Hon. John P. C. Mather of New London who sat at my right. He concurred with me, and so it went around from lawyer to lawyer and laymen, we had an excellent layman there, he did royal work, and it was passed unani- mously with the exception of Judge Waldo, who said: "I am in favor of the law, but we tried it last year in the Legislature and it could not pass and the people are not ready for it, and I have con- chided that the next best thing to do is to adopt the law of New York." Well, there was then in the House a man named Peck of New Haven, a brilliant man, a lawyer by education and a leader of the Whig side; there was Trumbull, later Governor, there was the elder Charles Chapman who were leaders from Hartford, there was Chauncey Cleveland, Ex-Governor, a power anywhere, his name and his fame are known to you all; there was William W. Eaton
103
WARNER'S REMINISCENCES
also. Well, I was finally instructed by the chairman, Judge Butler to draw up a bill and have it presented. I drew the bill which was introduced in the House or Senate. I forget which. It immedi- ately passed the judiciary committee, and was introduced into the House, and also in the Senate. It lay upon the table sometime there and the matter was often cussed and discussed. Judge Dutton came to me while in the House and said to me "Mr. Warner, every member of the Superior and Supreme Court is opposed to this law, it is such a radical change that they think a great injustice, wrong, fraud and perjury will be perpetrated in the administration of jus- tice." I said "Well, I can't help that, I am in favor of it." So it went along, and one day Judge Dutton came to me in my seat and said to me "Mr. Warner do you intend by that Act that a criminal should testify in Court?" "By no means, sir." Dutton said "Well, he has a right to." I said "No, sir." Well, we looked at it and he explained it to me, to my astonishment I felt as if I had done a very wrong thing, that I had disgraced myself by drafting a bill that extended the law to criminals, and I looked at it and it convinced me that he was right. I immediately went to Chapman in his seat and told what Judge Dutton said and I told him I thought it per- mitted of such an interpretation. He replied "well. it does, now what shall we do?" After a thought, he said "Warner, draw an amendment, when it comes into the House, just move an amendment to the bill." Well. I drew the amendment and soon after that Chap- man came to me hurriedly and said "that bill has only passed the Senate by the casting vote of the Lieut .- Governor, don't you intro- duce that amendment, don't say a word, unless objection is made in the House, and then you can offer the amendment." The bill came into the House passed by the Senate and the usual formal vote was gone through with and the bill passed in the House. Chapman came around to me and said he "Well. Warner, it went through like grease." Thus was passed the law which made a radical change in the administration of justice and permitted interested parties in criminal as well as civil cases, to testify in their own behalf. That law I consider one of the wisest laws that was ever passed by this Legislature and the roll of honor for it stands to Connecticut, and I thank God that some of its labor belonged to Litchfield County.
The very next term of the Superior Court in Litchfield County after that session of the Legislature was held in August and pre- sided over by Judge Church, a native of Salisbury and one of the best lawyers on the bench. There was an interesting criminal trial on the docket, a lawyer of prominence from New York and Judge Seymour were the prisoner's counsel. The defendant had put in his evidence when Judge Seymour arose and said to his Honor, "here is a statute passed by the last Legislature, I am not clear in my own mind as to the proper interpretation of it, whether it will permit the prisoner to testify or not, but I am of the opinion that he
104
LITCHFIELD COUNTY BENCH AND BAR
has that right, and I submit the question to your Honor for the purpose of determining." The Judge with considerable acerbity of feeling animadverted upon the passage of that law as cutting up root and branch of the old principle which had come down to us and which no one had conceived ought to be changed. He thought it would introduce fraud and perjury and all those things which go to outweigh and destroy justice as administered by the court. Then Seymour, after the judge had decided that the prisoner had the right to testify, said to the States Attorney "Then I offer you this prisoner to testify, I don't propose to put him on the stand for he might say something which might inadvertently injure his case" and that was a shrewd act on his part. The States Attorney de- clined to accept it and the prisoner did not testify.
Now there was another radical change and overthrow of the com- mon law principle, and that was that no plea in abatement of a suit brought in an action of tort should bar the prosecution of it, which was in effect that the right of action for personal injuries survived. In other words, that the executor or administrator of a person that had deceased could continue an action commenced by the deceased. Well, that was a charitable act, but too radical for many of the lawyers, but it passed the Legislature and no one has seen fit since to have it repealed.
Now I will tell of an incident which I heard which shows the workings of the old law. There was a distinguished lawyer by the name of Loomis in Bridgeport, a merry fellow full of fun, and there was also Dwight Morris. This was before the passage of the law of the survival of actions for personal injuries and before the law allowing criminals to testify. There was a wayward son down in Bridgeport who had an old, warm, kindhearted father. This way- ward son had cost the old man many hundreds of dollars and great grief. He had recently committed some tortious act and he was prosecuted criminally and convicted and then prosecuted civilly for damages and his body was attached, and the poor old father gave bonds for his appearance at Court.
This worthless son was a merry-go-round fellow and he began to have some feelings for his old gray-headed father, who was in great grief and sorrow and in great affliction ; his money was nearly ex- pended on his boy who was so wayward. Well. Dwight Morris was the junior counsel who was most familiar with the case that had to be tried at the approaching term. and this rollicking fellow came into his office one day and talked over the case and the facts in it, how much they could do and what circumstances would mitigate the damages. He said "Well, now. Morris, supposing I should die be- fore that case comes on ; would that have any effect on the case ?" Morris said "Why, yes, that would end the case." This son then replied "By God. I guess I had better die first." Morris said "I think that is a damned good idea." A few days before the session
105
WARNER'S REMINISCENCES
of the Court Dwight Morris hurried into Loomis's office and said "My God, Loomis, I guess I have committed murder." "Why?" "Why our client is dead, he has committed suicide : he came into my office and said he guessed he would die if it would end the case," and in a foolish manner I said "Why, it would be a damned good idea." Well, the case went out, the poor old man's money was saved, and he lost his son.
It is a well-established fact that in the law repealing that old common law which prohibited an interested witness to testify, Con- necticut was the pioneer. And that Westminster Hall in England from which we received our common law adopted that very act that was passed by the Legislature of 1848. And from there it has ex- tended all over the United States.
Brethren, I commenced reading law in March, 1841, under the instructions of Hon. John H. Hubbard at Lakeville, and I spent a portion of my time under his advice at Litchfield so that I might have the advantages of attending Court there, and under the in- struction of the Hon. Origen S. Seymour. that venerable and great man. I completed my studies with Mr. Hubbard and was admitted to the bar at the August term, 1843. Now as it was expected of me that I should speak of the lawyers who are gone, that I knew when I was first admitted to the bar, I shall go in routine and start with my native town.
Before I come to those that I knew. I wish to speak about an- other man, one of the pioneers of law in the town of Salisbury, be- cause lie was the ancestor of a very distinguished race of people, the ancestor of that prominent man, a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States who went from the State of Pennsylvania and died a few years ago. Adonijah Strong was one of the rough- est pieces of granite, I suppose, that ever existed. He had a strong powerful mind, he was full of wit and humor, he was illiterate, but he had great common sense and he had great force and ability and effect upon the court and jury, as I have learned by tradition. Adonijah had a peculiar voice, it is said, and he had a good old wife by the name of Nabby, and a great many stories are told about him. He was a strong man and belonged to the Congregational Church and a great supporter of it. There was another colonel there, a distinguished man, Col. Joshua Porter. He was the ancestor of distinguished sons, one of them was a cabinet officer under the presidency of John Quincy Adams. Now about the time that the Methodist people organized a society in Salisbury there was a great deal of opposition to them. I guess there was more objection to them than the Salvation Army has seen in these later days. They held a meeting in my old school district on Ore Hill, and Col. Strong and Col. Porter had made up their minds that they would go over there, but not for any very religious purposes. Well, they each had a peculiar reputation. Col. Strong had the reputation of im-
106
LITCHFIELD COUNTY BENCH AND BAR
bibing considerably and eating heartily. Col. Porter had another reputation, but I will let you guess what that was. It is spoken of in the Scriptures. Well, the clergyman who was to officiate on that occasion had been advised and Col. Strong's character was por- trayed and so was Col. Porter's. They went in and sat down, and, as I said, for not very worthy purposes, and after a while the clergy- man was speaking about the characteristics of different individuals, and he said "where is that wine-bibber and a glutton?" Col. Strong got up and said "here I am, sir!" and sat down. The next thing the preacher said when speaking of the wickedness of the world, "and where is he." Col Porter sat still. Strong said "Col. Porter, get up and answer to your name as I did?"
Now I will come to those whom I knew in Salisbury. There was John G. Mitchell of Salisbury, I believe he was born in Southbury. He came from a very pious parentage and was admitted to the bar, and came to Salisbury at an early age. He was not an educated man academically speaking, he was rough in his manners, uncouth, but he always maintained a reputation of a man of the highest integrity, but that is common among laywers in Litchfield County. Everybody esteemed him. He had in his office a very few books, old and musty, but he was a trial justice and judge of probate after the establishment of the Salisbury district. He was also connected in merchandise with Mr. Walton under the firm name of Walton & Mitchell, and he lived to an advanced age. He was rough and un- couth, but he had great redeeming traits. Late in life he came under the influence of a revival in the village in Lakeville and be- came a very religious man to the astonishment of everybody.
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.