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 12
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
He was frequently called upon to speak in Methodist and re- ligious meetings, he attended faithfully always, and in one of them he spoke of how they should work and toil to bring men into the fold. He said "brethren and sisters, you know the sharks follow the ship, now cast your nets out among them and you may bring in a lawyer as they brought me in." On another occasion he was speak- ing of the power of God, and talked well about it and wound up by saying "why God could take and throw me right through this meet- ing house, but he won't do it."
There was another old lawyer there when I was admitted to the bar in 1843 who gave me a great deal of good advice? He ad- vised me one day as a lawyer "if anybody offers you anything, take it, if it is nothing but a chew of tobacco." I recollected that and always took one.
Then there was Philiander Wheeler, a Yale College graduate, an educated man, a keen bright man, full of wit and humor, quick and happy in repartee, but after I came to the bar he never attended the courts at Litchfield, neither did Mitchell, but tried cases before justices and arbitrators. One day he was called in over in Canaan as an adviser to the justice in the trial of a man by the name of
JOHN H. HUBBARD
107
WARNER'S REMINISCENCES
Rockwell who was prosecuted for murdering his brother. Leman Church was the defendant's counsel and the Hon. John H. Hubbard was another, and the prosecuting attorney I think was Elmore, and it was a protracted case, and one forenoon the lawyers had a set-to as to the admissibility of evidence or some question that arose before them, and there was a great deal of controversy between the lawyers, and after very much had been said they adjourned and went to din- ner. The lawyers sat around the table and Wheeler came in and sat down. The landlord came and asked him what he would have. he wanted to know if he would take some of the goose. "No" he said "I have had that all the morning and I don't want any.
There was an old lady who possessed some property in Salis- bury, whom they called Aunt Polly. She was litigious in her character and she applied to every lawyer to sue somebody and when one would refuse she would go to another and finally she got a writ out for one of her neighbors and brought it before the Court. Wheeler defended the person that she had brought the suit against and he would stir up Aunt Polly until she become violent and quick- tempered. She had her money in specie tied up in one corner of her handkerchief, and he became so intolerable, as she thought, towards her that she jumped up and she just flung this specie at his head and it hit him, but didn't hurt him very much. He picked it up and put it in his pocket. No sooner had he done that. than Aunt Polly went for him and downed him over his chair and the lawyer on the other side said "stick to him, aunt Polly." That was a scene in court in the early days.
I come now to speak of a man to whom I feel greatly indebted. and I wish I could pay a better tribute to his character than I am able to, and that is the Hon. John H. Hubbard. He was a native of Salisbury and in his early struggles he had formidable opposition to contend with. In early life he was feeble and unable to work and finally he chose this profession, and by dint of educating him- self by hard study and teaching school winters he was admitted to the bar in the year 1826. He had a great opposition politically, it was the day of anti-masonry when the feelings of people were very much excited upon that question arising out of the alleged death of one Morgan in the State of New York. He adopted the views of the anti-masonic party and was opposed by strong men and he had a terrible struggle, but he held his own. He had that per- sistent indomitable never-die principle in him that carried him along and he became a distinguished lawyer of the bar of Litch- field County. He is a living example to young men, no matter what the circumstances may be, if he is persistent, if he is studious, if he bends his efforts in that direction with an inflexibility that is not to be beaten, he will in the end conquer. I owe a debt of gratitude to that man for he drilled me in the principles of the law to such an extent that he said when I went to the office of Judge Seymour so
108
LITCHFIELD COUNTY BENCH AND BAR
as to be present when the courts were in session and learn some thing of its practice, that I was able to be admitted as soon as my time of study should expire. He became a member of Congress and represented the 4th district. He was states attorney for the county for how many years I don't now remember.
I will now speak of another gentleman, a lawyer in Salisbury, Roger Averill. He was a graduate of Union College, tall, erect and well proportioned, dignified in manners and a lawyer of fair ability. He practiced in Salisbury for some years, but the field was not sufficiently wide and he moved to Danbury and practiced there, until he was made Lieut .- Governor during a portion of the time of the distinguished war governor, Gov. Buckingham. He was my opponent in many cases that we tried and he early taught me an important lesson in table pounding. In a case we were try- ing before a justice I became quite vehement and brought my fist down on the table so strong and so often that he commiserated me and felt sorry for me, and he kindly placed a law book upon the table on the spot where I had been hammering and said "Brother Warner, I am afraid you will injure your hand, the book is softer." That took all the starch out of me.
Another gentleman by the name of Norton J. Buel was a native of Salisbury. He studied a portion of his time under the venerable Charles F. Sedwick, and the latter portion of it under Judge Church when he was practicing in Salisbury. He moved to Naugatuck in the first place and afterwards to Waterbury, but he frequently tried cases in this county and at this bar. He was a successful lawyer and a gentleman, and one who acquitted himself with great ability as a lawyer.
Moving along East, we come to North Canaan and we find John Elmore, he was a native of the town and I understood he was a very popular young man when he started in business, he was sur- rounded by many friends, he was very genial and a hale fellow well-met, everybody liked Jack Elmore, and he was on the high- tide to become a successful lawyer, but his convivial habits dragged him down.
Leman Church, who was a half brother of Samuel Church, was a native of Salisbury, and he attended the law school of Judge Gould at Litchfield. He located at North Canaan about the same time that Elmore did. Instead of having ntany friends to aid him he had to encounter the opposition of the prominent men of the place. I asked years ago an old gentleman who was familiar with North Canaan why it was that they all stood by Jack Elmore and not by Church. Well, he said, Elmore was a congenial man, he was a pleasant man, he had all the social elements in him that were attractive. While they never saw Church, he never met us any- where and if he did, why there was no congeniality between us, they were all opposed to him in the town, I mean the prominent men ;
1
IOQ
WARNER'S REMINISCENCES
but he studied his books and thought deeply. He would occasion- ally have a case, and bye and bye his star began to rise, and though he could not and did not command the love, yet he commanded the respect of the people by dint of his great talents and power. I con- sidered Leman Church one of the ablest lawyers and the best equipped on all occasions that I ever met. He had a keen, quick perception, he had that continuousity of purpose ; he did not pander to please the multitude nor to the applause of the individual. He ploughed a straight furrow along his own course, and he attained the highest position at the bar at an early age. He had the keenest blade of satire, wit and humor, it abounded with him; at repartee he was never at a loss, nor upon any question that the judge might propound to him whether he ever had the case under consideration or not : and always acquitted himself with the highest ability. I speak thus of him because I was so situated when I first came to the bar, the other lawyers being older, I was forced to call upon Leman Church, and he aided me and always assisted me in any case for which I might call upon him. Physically he was tall, frail in appearance, he had a hunch with his head slightly deformed, a shrivelled face, lean and gaunt, and his apparel was always neat but of the coarsest character. His feet were clad in heavy brogan shoes, but the redeeming feature of his countenance was his eye, and such an eye would convince you gentlemen when cast upon you as being that of a man of powerful intellect. Now to speak of his ability as a lawyer. Porter Burrall, the son of William Bur- rall, a Canaan man, a highly educated man was president of the Housatonic Railroad. Some of its directors lived in the city of New York and some question arose in relation to the management of the road and there were lawyers in New York who had the question under advisement and they had expressed opinions in re- lation to it. There was a final meeting appointed for the further discussion and the determination of the question involved. Bur- rall called upon Church and told him he wanted to have him to go down to New York City and attend that Director's meeting. Church said in his peculiar voice "I am not going down among those dandy lawyers they think they know everything, and I am not going. However, Burrall had great faith in him and insisted upon his go- ing, and he finally went down, clad like a clod-hopper and he sat down in that convention. The opinions of these distinguished New York Lawyers were called for and finally Mr. Burrall said, "Mr. Chairman, I wish my friend Mr. Church of Canaan might be per- mitted to speak." Well Church got up, a most inferior looking man, you can't find one to compare with him in that respect, but he went at the question under discussion and laid them out so broad and clear and so perfectly lucid that he established them, and his views were finally adopted. He could not bear a fop, he could not bear what he called a Miss. Nancy, or vaporism of any kind, he
IIO
LITCHFIELD COUNTY BENCH AND BAR
went too far perhaps in that respect, but he had a happy gift of puncturing bubbles and I will give you one or two instances of it. Now you know that when young men come to the bar and make their first appearance before a Jury, they wish to make an impres- sion and sometimes be classical and ornate. There was brother Hitchcock who lived in Winsted, a man for whom I held the high- est respect, and whose memory I revere. He and Judge Granger and myself were great friends. Hitchcock was a partner of Hol- abird. They had a very important case to be tried at Litchfield. Hitchcock had made great preparations in the case, and it was among his first efforts at the bar in the way of argument and trial, and he familiarized Granger and myself with the case and we felt a very deep interest in his behalf. Hitchcock in the course of his argument animadverted upon one principal witness in the case against him, he was a very important witness for the other side, and it was very important for Hitchcock's client that the Jury should not take his word or the testimony he gave before the Court. In the course of his argument Hitchcock said, alluding to that wit- ness, "why, gentlemen of the jury, he is the very 'folliculus,' in this case." A little further along he said "He is a Jupiter Tonans, gentlemen of the Jury." When Leman Church came to answer that he said "Now, gentlemen of the Jury my young friend here, brother Hitchcock has attempted to mislead you : why he has talked about one Miss Polly New Rose gentlemen of the jury, have you seen any such witness on this stand?" "Not satisfied with that, he has imposed upon you again, he has talked about a witness here by the name of Jew Peter Toe Nails." As soon as we could, Granger and I took our hats and went out. Another case we had in the Superior Court in which Leman Church was interested, we had medical experts in, and a learned Doctor by the name of Fuller from New Haven was there as a witness against the interests of Church's client. He went along very learnedly, as such physicians do, and when Church came to cross-examine this witness he com- menced by saying "well, now, Dr. Fooler" and he took the wind out of him pretty effectually.
Another illustration of his mode of examining a witness. There was a great controversy in years gone by between Jedediah Graves and Sylvanus Merwin, father-in-law and son-in-law, about a man who went and took up the tombstones of his children and offered them for sale on an execution for a judgment.
Graves was a pompous sort of fellow, he was a trial justice in the town of New Milford and he was called upon to testify to what was said before him on a trial. He went along well and easily and was turned over to Church for cross-examination, and Church in his questions began to imply that he was going outside of the truth. After a while the witness stopped and says "Squire Church, I have a realizing sense of the obligations of my oath, I have ad-
III
WARNER'S REMINISCENCES
ministered them and I protest against your insinuations." Church said "Squire Elliott, if you have got through with your peroration, please answer my question."
Now I come to speak of that distinguished man in North Canaan, Miles Toby Granger. He was a graduate of Wesleyan University at Middletown in this state. He was a school teacher on a plan- tation down in Mississippi, teaching the sons and daughters of the surrounding plantations, and during that time he studied law in Mississippi and was admitted to the bar in that state. He came back to Connecticut and went into the office of Leman Church and studied law with him for the purpose of obtaining a knowledge of Connecticut laws and was admitted to the bar after 1843. He was the greatest wit, humorist and wag of the bar, he was the very Mark Twain of the bar. His savings, his wit and his humor might be read as Innocents at Home instead of Innocents Abroad. He was skilled in doggerel poetry as he called it. He would see the ludicrous and ridiculous in persons and things that no one but he thought of, and he would bring it out to the great amusement of his hearers. His very first argument in the Superior Court was in poetry. It was the case of Dunham vs. Dunham. Dunham brought a petition for a divorce against his wife, he was a widower when he married, and she was a widow. They were both very old and infirm, their spouses were dead and they desired companionship, and so they inter-married. Jack Elmore brought the petition and in that petition he set up as a ground, a fradulent contract. Judge Ellsworth, a very grave man and a deacon of the church in Hart- ford was holding Court. Granger led off in the argument for the defense and Church was to close the debate. His whole argument was in poetry, but I remember nothing but the last verse, which was this :
"Now all his hopes in ruins lie. Crushed by this prolapsus uteri."
He was a great fellow for giving names to persons. He dubbed me by the name of Elder, and it has been carried on to this day, and I believe I had been so addressed since I have been here. Why he did it I don't know, whether an elder of the Methodist Episcopal church or some other persuasion I havn't any idea, he never ex- plainded it to me. He was full of his jokes and quirks, it made no difference whether it was foe or friend, but it was all in good na- ture. Well, you all know his history in later life when he was highly honored, represented his town in the Legislature, in the Sen- ate and represented the 4th district in Congress after his retirement as a Judge.
Col. Jacob B. Hardenberg, he was a native of Kingston, N. Y. He was a good lawyer, a soldier and a warrior at Gettysburg under Col. Pratt. I might well say of him "he was the bravest of the brave."
I12
LITCHFIELD COUNTY BENCH AND BAR
Now I come to one of my first students, George Washington Peet. He was a native of Salisbury and read law in my office and completed his studies in the law in the Harvard Law School. Soon after his admission he located in South Canaan in the office of Judge Burrall and commenced practice there, and afterwards at Falls Village. From his maternal ancestry he inherited the power of acquisitiveness which was but little diluted by what he inherited from the paternal side. And only semi-occasionally did he commit waste by profuse expenditure. He was a unique character. Peet was a nervous, excitable, confident, energetic, bold man. He went in pursuit of money and he got it. He was not devoid of wit and by it occasionally entertained us. We boys were playing tricks upon each other, as I presume they are now, the younger members. Hitchcock had a good deal of that in his makeup, and one day at the Court in Litchfield in warm weather Peet was down there with his linen coat on, and in those days the clerk had on his desk a wafer box with little red wafers, we didn't have mucilage then, but we used red wafers to stick things on, and Hitchcock got out a lot of these every little while, then would wet one of them and go around and slap Peet on the back and stick on a wafer, and soon got him pretty well pasted. Peet was marching around in different places making an exhibition of his back, and finally he found peo- ple were laughing at him. Peet would ask, "well, what are you laughing at" and then they would laugh the more. Finally some- one asked "What the devil have you got on your back, Peet?" Peet was very indignant and accused Hitchcock of trying to make him the butt of this bar.
As I said, Granger gave names to everybody. There is a place in South Canaan called Dogtown, and years ago there was a tavern there and the place of trial of many cases. That was Peet's stamp- ing ground, and Granger and others met him there, and so Granger gave him the name, not of the constellation exactly, but he called him Attorney Serious, the dog-star, the brighest star in dog-town.
I pass along to Norfolk. There was Michael Mills. He was a tall, lean lank, bony man, high cheek bones and rather tawny face. Granger called him the Sachen of Norfolk.
Then comes William K. Peck, Jr., he was a native of Harwin- ton ; his parents moved with him to Salisbury when he was a young boy. He studied law in my office and commenced practice in Nor- folk. He was very fond of making public speeches when ever an opportunity presented. Abolitionism and temperance were his favorite topics and he availed himself of every opportunity to make speeches, and in that respect, so far as capability of addressing pop- ular sentiment at his age of life, he had decided talent. Granger called him Duke of Norfolk. When he contemplated settling in Norfolk, one of the good deacons of Norfolk came over to see me to inquire about him and informed me that Mr. Peck had referred
GIDEON HALL
113
WARNER'S REMINISCENCES
him to me and wanted to know what sort of a man he was. I told him he was exactly adapted to Norfolk. He said "what do you mean?" I replied "in the first place he is a very moral man, a man of excellent moral character ; in the second place he will be an ad- mirable successor of Michael Mills in his physical make-up, he has a peculiar tawny brown hair, high cheek bones, and in another re- spect he is a black republican" as they called them then. The old deacon laughed and said he guessed he was the man. So he settled there and I believe acquitted himself with ability. After he had been there a while he removed to Michigan where I have heard he became a successful lawyer. 1 felt proud of him as a student in my office.
Now I come to Winsted. William S. Holabird was a native of South Canaan. He was physically a large, tall, splendidly made-up man, imposing in appearance and presence, and he was the great democratic leader of the bar. He was a politician and he was a man around whom the young democratic lawyers liked to gather. He had excellent conversational powers and they were always interested in his conversation. He was really one of the instructors in politi- cal matters among the democratic lawyers, and he was then in ac- tive practice. He had some bitterness in his make-up. but his friendship was as strong as his hatred was deep and unforgiving.
Gideon Hall was an opponent, and as a lawyer and in politics they were diametrically opposed. Holabird was vindictive some- times, and his hatred extended down too far.
Now I come to another unique character, and that was Gideon Hall. He was a lean, tall, gaunt man. he was in full practice, and continued in practice until he was appointed Judge of the Superior Court. Ile was a hard worker, diligent : his contests were elabor- ate, many and severe. Hall and Holabird were opponents always in politics and lawsuits, never associated. Hall was very prolix in the conduct of trials, and remarkably so in his arguments before the court and jury. The one hour rule had not been passed when he practiced. Hall would occasionally make attempts at oratory in his trials, and here is an illustration of it. He had a suit in court for his client, the plaintiff in the case. It was a contest over a piece of rocky land of no value comparatively speaking. During the trial he was often talking about the littleness and smallness of the case, and it was so alluded to in the argument by the counsel for the defense. This was a sort of an exordium or peroration in which he said it was not available on account of the super-abundant fecundity of its soil, but because it was ancestral estate and had come down from a long line of colonial ancestors.
In relation to Hall, there is one thing which shows the estima- tion of the bar. This story was told to me by the late George C. Woodruff of Litchfield. A lawyer of this county had a suit in court, a young lawyer and he had associated with him George C.
I14
LITCHFIELD COUNTY BENCH AND BAR
Woodruff. It was a case asking for the appointment of a committee in chancery which was to be tried out of term-time, and the question arose who should be that committee. Of course, if the parties agreed on the committee, the court would sanction it, otherwise the court would have to decide and appoint whom it thought best. Negoti- ations were made between the opposite counsel, Woodruff on one side and Hubbard and Granger on the other side, and Hubbard and Granger suggested Hall as a good one for the committee-man. The young man went to see Mr. Woodruff and told him that they pro- posed to have Hall appointed committee, and Woodruff said to him "don't you have him, why he will get things all mixed up in his report so that we shall not get head or tail to it." The young man reflected and said "Mr. Woodruff. that may be just what we want." Well, it turned out so, it was mixed and Woodruff won his case.
I come now to the friend of whom I have spoken, Roland Hitch- cock. He was a native of Burlington. He read law in Holabird's office and he was admitted to the bar in about 1844, and became a partner of Holabird and practiced law in Winchester until ap- pointed as Judge of the Superior Court. I always liked the man, and so well did I know him that his peculiarities never interfered with our friendship. He at times exhibited much wit and humor and enjoyed the funny side of things and contributed his share to the merriment of the bar. There was a streak of melancholia in his nature which always made him sorrowful. It lasted him through life, and in the last few years of his life, had a woeful effect upon him. lle was testy and often irritable in trials. As an illustration of that I remember a case in which Granger and myself were on one side and Hitchcock on the other before a committee at Canaan. Ilitchcock's client was one Hart, a notable character and who was easily stirred up. In the course of the trial Granger. knowing Hart's peculiarities would stir him up and he would rattle along and interrupt the trial so that Hitchcock would sometimes get mad at his client and he would once in a while issue an expletive on the subject. He was very fixed in his opinions of the law and un- changeably so at times. He was through and through an honest man and administered justice impartially in the courts where he was judge.
I go now to Barkhamstead and speak of the late Hiram Good- win. He was in full practice, his clientage was not only in his town. but extended to the adjoining towns in this and Hartford County. I considered him an able lawyer. He conducted his trials with skill and his arguments were clear and logical. As a judge of the County Court he gave satisfaction.
I come now to New Hartford. Roger H. Mills was in prac- tice there many years before I came to the bar. He was of fine ap- pearance and high standing at the bar. He was a member of the Senate in the Legislative session of 1848 at the time these radical
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.