USA > New Jersey > Genealogical and memorial history of the state of New Jersey, Volume IV > Part 10
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 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76
George Crawford Beekman was his third son, and named for his maternal grandfather. He was born July 2, 1839, in same dwelling where his mother was born and had always resided at west end of Middletown village. This house was accidentally burned down in 1892. At age of fifteen he entered the freshman class of Princeton College, and graduated in class of 1859, receiving the degrees of A. B. and A. M. in course. He entered his name as a student of law in the office of Joel Parker, of Freehold, Monmouth county. His first vote was cast the same year for the three Douglas electors on. the presidential ticket, erasing the other four electors. The leading politicians of three parties had made this ticket without regard to principle or patriot- ism. He erased its four electors who repre- sented the ultra-southern pro-slavery Denioc- racy and the "Know Nothing" party, as called. He did this without knowing or even considering that a majority of the New Jersey Democrats would vote the same way. He was therefore surprised when he found that these three electors were the only ones chosen. The good sense and instinct of the masses was clearly demonstrated in this unexpected result. Soon after, when South Carolina passed her act of secession, he wrote an article for the Republican paper at Freehold, now known as the Monmouth Inquirer. The article was signed "A Jackson Democrat," and expressed his views as to what would be the result if they were permitted to dissolve the Union peace- ably, as then advocated by Horace Greeley, in the Tribune. This article attracted consider- able attention, and evoked a savage criticism from James S. Yard, editor and owner of the Monmouth Democrat. He assumed the article was written by a "Truculent Abolitionist."
Mr. Beekman was licensed by the supreme court of New Jersey in 1863 as an attorney at law, and three years later as a counsellor. Joel Parker was elected governor of New Jer- sey in 1863; debarred from practice of law. lie kindly permitted Mr. Beekman to use his law office and library at Freehold during his term. The first three or four years of a young law- yer's practice is generally discouraging. Peo- ple fear to trust a lawyer without experience. The many reverses sustained by the Union armies and the enlistment of so many of the citizens of New Jersey greatly affected law business. After the war ended, the demoraliza- tion of camp life and war caused a great increase of civil and criminal business. The supreme court justice whose circuit included
1338
STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
Monmouth, Middlesex and Ocean counties, could not find time to try all the cases in the common pleas and orphan's courts of Mon- mouth county. The appeals and other business had accumulated for two years. In the winter of 1869 the Jersey legislature passed an act authorizing the appointment of a "law judge" for Monmouth county, with an annual salary of $1,800. The act prohibited the incumbent from practice of law during his term. Mr. Beekman was the first judge to occupy this position in Monmouth county. In absence of the supreme court justice the law judge pre- sided over the inferior court of common pleas, the court of gencral quarter sessions of the peace and the orphan's court. The first two years he was fully occupied in the trials of the accumulated cases and such new business as came in, the third year he had only the new business, and this did not occupy the courts over two months of continuous time during
During the three years Mr. Beekman served as judge he tried many civil and criminal cases as the court records in the clerk's office will show. Only a few were carried to the higher courts for review. None of these were reversed or even modified, but were all affirmed. Becoming weary of the idleness and restraints of this office, Mr. Beekman the year. At the last court over which he pre- > resigned it in the winter of 1873. His explana- sided only thirteen indictments were found by tion to the lawyers and their remarks at the last court over which he presided were pub- lished in full in the Monmouth Democrat of that week. If any one has any curiosity about this matter, the files of that paper for the year 1873, in the Monmouth clerk's office, will fully gratify them. the grand jury. The defendants all plead guilty, as the records of the court in the clerk's office of Monmouth county will show. As he was debarred from practice of law and had no other business, he spent considerable of his time in searching the old records of Mon- mouth county in the clerk's office. He found considerable information, showing where the first settlers in Monmouth came from, how the early courts were constituted and who were the judges, etc .; also the disputes between the Scotch and English settlers, and other facts of interest. Some of these researches he gave to James S. Yard, who published them from week to week in his newspaper. This was purely a labor of love as Mr. Beekman received no compensation and expected none. At a later date Mr. Yard had these articles, with others written by Hon. Edwin Salter, and some compiled by himself, bound together in books, entitled "Old Times in Old Monmouth," and put on the market at five dollars per copy.
In making these researches in the clerk's office, he came across the name of Mordecai Lincoln as a resident of Monmouth county between 1707 and 1718. He married Hannah, only daughter of Richard Salter and Sarah Bowne, his wife. Sarah Bowne was one of the three daughters of Captain John Bowne and Lydia Holmes, his wife. She was born November 27, 1669. John Bowne was one of the leading men who procured the Monmouth patent from Richard Nicholls in 1665, and was one of the leading men in the settlement
of Middletown and Shrewsbury. Hannah Salter, wife of Mordecai Lincoln, had a brother named Richard Salter, who was chief justice of the supreme court of New Jersey between 1750 and his death. Mordecai Lin- coln, with his family, removed in 1718 from Monmouth county over into what was then Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, at a place some sixty odd miles west of Philadelphia. He had a son named John, who removed to Rockingham county, Virginia. One of John's sons migrated over into Kentucky where Abra- ham Lincoln was born.
He at once resumed the practice of law at Freehold. The first important case in which he was employed was the famous Allaire will case, which had been in litigation in New York many years. Under the management of an able Chicago lawyer it had been brought over into New Jersey, as the lands lay in Monmouth and Ocean counties. George C. Ludlow, after- wards governor of New Jersey, and Courtland l'arker, a celebrated Newark lawyer, were the lawyers for the last wife and her child. Owing to an indispensable call on the Chicago lawyer, he was obliged to leave the burden of making reply to above named lawyers and it fell on Mr. Beekman. The jury found a ver- dict for his client, but it was afterwards set aside by the supreme court and they never got another. The next important case, extending through four years, in which the whole man- agement devolved upon him, was against a defaulting tax collector of Freehold township, Monmouth county. He was a man who had been active in the Republican party for many years, had held township offices and served also as one of the inspectors of the New Jersey states prison under the Republican party. He also had four or five brothers residing in Monmouth. Some were men of influence in
I339
STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
the Republican party, and others in the Dem- ocratic party. One of these brothers had served as keeper of the Sandy Hook lighthouse some fifteen or twenty consecutive years under the Republican party. Another brother named Austin, had held county offices under the Dem- ccratic party, who had also sent him to the New Jersey legislature, where he served one term as speaker of the house. He also had two or three other brothers who were quite prominent and influential, some in the church and some in business.
George W. Patterson, prior to the close of the civil war, had been an active worker in the Republican party. After serving one or two terms as inspector of the criminals in the New Jersey state prison, he was refused reappointment. He then came over to the Democratic party and was elected in the spring of 1871 tax collector of Freeholder township, Monmouth county. He gave eight men, chiefly farmers advanced in years, as securities on his bond. They signed through good will, and at his request without compen- sation. The next year he was again elected, and again for the third time in the spring of 1873. Some new men went on his bonds, and some of the old sureties continued to sign in each of these three years.
He had sometime prior to first election engaged in the hotel business at Freehold. A man named Wade Johnson, who had kept a livery stable at Freehold many years and accumulated a capital of about $8,000, was persuaded by Patterson to become his partner and buy the Union Hotel at Freehold. This was an old and first-class hotel prior to their purchase. As Johnson put in most of the capital his name headed the firm as Johnson & Patterson. Patterson was a liberal land- lord and popular with the politicians and boys. In April, 1874, LaFayette Conover, a. friendly creditor of Patterson, filed a petition in the United States court at Trenton, New Jersey, to adjudge him a bankrupt. Patterson soon after filed a list of his individual indebtedness. It amounted to $24,000. Among his creditors named were Stewart Brown, of Freehold ; Bill Warrick, of Hightstown; and a man named Reynolds, of Newark ; all three money lenders, or "bonus men," as popularly called. The amount owing to these three men amounted to about $10,000, showing that Patterson had been paying excessive sums for their loans. Pat- terson's assets were only a few worthless notes. Wade Johnson lost all his capital in the
bankruptcy of his partner and soon after died a poor man.
About this time the township committee of Freehold discovered that there was a shortage of nearly $10,000 in the taxes and school money collected in the year 1873. Three of his old sureties and four new ones signed Patterson's bond as collector for the year 1873. They were all men advanced in years, who signed at Patterson's request, and through good will. At this time there was no suspicion of any embezzlement during the first two years, Pat- terson had collected on the duplicate of taxes and school money in year 1873 nearly $40,000. In the spring of 1874 the township committee found a shortage of nearly $10,000, or one- fourth of the whole amount collected. The sureties were men supposed to be worth no less than $5,000 and not over $20,000. Patterson kept no books and his accounts were greatly tangled. He seemed to retain his influence over these sureties, and they were induced to believe that they could escape their liability as bondsmen and that no jury would find a verdict against them. They were all old resi- dents, and largely connected by blood or inter- marriage with other prominent farmers of Freehold township. The township committee were compelled to direct a suit at law against them. Mr. Beekman instituted the suit against George W. Patterson and his seven sureties then living on the bond signed by them in March, 1873, in the supreme court of New Jersey. They shrewdly employed two of the leading lawyers of the county to defend them, one was Charles Haight, a leader of the Demo- cratic party, and the other William Vreden- burgh, a leading man in the Republican party. The suit was instituted in June, 1874, and was not ended until 1878, or four years later. In that time six of the sureties on the different bonds were dead. Knowing that the numerous defendants and their relatives had considerable influence and that many of the men who made politics a business, sympathized with Patter- son. Mr. Beekman applied to the supreme court for a struck jury to try this cause. This application was granted and twenty-four of the most intelligent and upright men answered to their names in January term of 1875, when the case came on for trial. Twelve of these men were sworn as jurors, each side having their usual number of challenges. The trial lasted nine days. Mr. Beekman was counsel for the township, while Mr. Haight and Mr. Vredenburgh represented the defendants.
1340
STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
George W. Patterson was the first witness called for the defendants. The jury retired at 2 o'clock p. m. of January 23, 1875, and returned at 6 o'clock the same afternoon, rendering a verdict for the township of Free- hold against George W. Patterson and his bondsmen of 1873 for $9,223.59. The De- fendant's counsel, Mr. Vredenburgh, had excepted to some evidence offered by plaintiff during the trial, as to a certain amount of school money received by Patterson and not accounted for ; that this money was received in 1872, and was chargeable against the bonds- men of that year. As no charge had been made and not even any suspicions entertained that Patterson had embezzled any money dur- ing the first two years, this objection was over- ruled by the court, and exception taken by counsel of defendants. On rule to show cause, obtained by Mr. Vredenburgh, evidence was taken which clearly established the fact that this money was taken in 1872, and the bonds- men of that year were liable. Under this state of facts the supreme court set aside the verdict and granted a new trial. This objection of the defendant, and the new trial, directed close attention to his accounts in years 1871 and 1872. It was discovered that Patterson had pilfered over $1,400 of tax money in 1871, and over $2,000 in 1872. On March 4, 1876, two suits were instituted on bonds of 1871 and 1872. The supreme court justice, on his own motion, referred all these suits to Joseph D. Bedle, who had served as a supreme court justice and as governor of New Jersey. He heard evidence and counsel on both sides and made his report April 27, 1877, on the three cases. He reported $1,404.59 embezzled by Patterson in 1871 for which his bondsmen of that year were liable, with interest from June 13, 1874. He reported $2,226.93 taken in 1872, and $9,460.96 embezzled by the collector in 1873, for which the respective bondsmen of these years were liable, with interest from June 13. 1874. Exceptions were filed by the defendants to these reports which made a jury trial necessary and compulsory. The bonds- men on the two bonds of 1871 and 1872 would never have been sued but for the discovery made and brought to light on the trial of the 1873 bondsmen by their own lawyers. Now the same lawyers are fighting to relieve them from their liability. Not willing to go before the ordinary jurors called by the sheriff, on account of the number and influence of so many defendants and their numerous relatives and friends, Mr. Beekman again applied for struck
juries in all three cases. These jurors was struck at Mr. E. W. Scudder's residence in the city of Trenton, on September 6, 1877, at 7:30 o'clock p. m. One hundred and forty-four men were selected from residents in Monmouth county by the justice. The respective counsel could each strike off any twelve persons out of the forty-eight, leaving twenty-four for each case to be returned by the sheriff. As three cases were to be tried, forty-eight men selected il! each case by the justice and reduced by the lawyers to twenty-four men, made it neces- sary for the sheriff of Monmouth county to siimmon seventy-two men. The three trials came on at the courthouse in Freehold, Octo- ber 2, 1877. The same lawyers appeared for defendants in each cause. These juries were impannelled in due order, beginning with the bondsmen of 1871, and ending with bondsmen of 1873. The verdicts confirmed the reports of the referee, J. D. Bedle, except a little more interest had become due. If the bondsmen of 1873 had made no fight, the smaller defalca- tions of 1871 and 1872 would never have been discovered, and the bondsmen in those years would have escaped all trouble. Hugh Mana- han, William B. Sutphin, David C. Dancer, Christopher Probasco, Adam Marcellus and Richard Davis were among the bondsmen of George W. Patterson who died while this liti- gation was pending, and prior to any payments by them to the township. The death of Wade Johnson, and all these men, followed directly on the heels of Patterson's bankruptcy. Alto- gether, of twelve men who signed as bondsmen for Patterson during those three years, only six survived, who were young in years and better able to stand the trouble. It was a hard and bitter fight, but it established a precedent, that sureties on official bonds must be held respon- sible, in spite of sympathy. In no other way could innocent taxpayers be protected.
Another case tried during those years and finally adjudicated in the New Jersey supreme court, is reported in Ioth Vroom, of the Law Reports of the State, page 22, etc., entitled Stewart Brown vs. McIntosh. The court here decides that illegal interest or bonus money on loans can be recovered back from the Shylock, or note shaver. Mr. Beekman obtained this decision for his client, McIntosh, after litiga- tion lasting some three years. It made the statute law clear, and had the effect of break- ing up or crippling the open and notorious way, this usury business had been carried on in New Jersey.
The case of Thomas Stout against estate of
-
I34I
STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
Henry Seabrook, deceased, was another case which appears in the New Jersey Law Reports, in which Mr. Beekman represented the widow, who was executrix under the will of her hus- band. She knew nothing of her husband's busi- ness, which he had carried on at Keyport, in Monmouth county. The plaintiff's brother-in- law, Walling, had been a partner of Seabrook at one time, and later his clerk up to his death. Stout's son had also been a clerk in his store. These two men, close relatives of Stout, knew all about his business, while the widow was wholly ignorant of it. An important account book which Seabrook kept was missing and could not be found by the executrix, while, strange as it may appear, the plaintiff had a copy of it made by his son, while clerk, Stout employed J. D. Bedle, who had been governor of New Jersey and a supreme court justice, also other able lawyers. The widow and executrix placed the whole matter in Mr. Beekman's hands, saying she knew nothing about the busi- ness, and he must do the best he could. If the claim was just, she wanted to pay it, but if wrong, she wanted to reject it. It seemed
suspicious to her, but whatever the courts of. New Jersey adjudged, she was willing to abide by. She was a remarkably intelligent woman, and a public speaker on church and temperance work. She left, however, the whole case in her lawyer's hands, and seemed wholly uncon- cerned as to the result. She never came near him during the progress of the case, or made any inquiry as to how he was getting along with it. After the final decision of the last court, she wrote a very touching letter, saying that she had placed implicit trust in Providence, and at no time had worried as to the result. Mrs. Teresa Walling Seabrook was a well- known woman, and highly respected through- out Monmouth county.
One of the hardest and most bitterly contest- ed cases in which he was ever engaged, was that brought by John W. Gaskell, a school teacher, at Englishtown, in Monmouth county, against Rev. Charles Everitt, a Presbyterian minister, Rev. Percy Perinchief, a Methodist preacher, Charles S. Tunis, Garret R. Conover, Luther V. Dey and William G. Conover, de- fendants, who resided at or near Englishtown, Manalapan township, Monmouth county, The suit was for libel, and $15,000 damages were claimed for the injury to Gaskell's feelings and reputation. For some reasons, consider- able political feeling was aroused, and a num- ber of prominent politicians sided with Gaskell. Mr. Beekman tried hard to get a struck jury,
but for some unaccountable reason, which he could not discover, his application was denied. The community about Englishtown was "all agog" and greatly excited over this trial. Mark Sooy, a prominent lawyer of Mount Holly, was associated with Mr. Beekman. The defendants. outside of the two clergymen were respectable farmers and business men residing at or near Englishtown, all were men with families and children. They had preferred charges against Gaskell in writing to the school trustees of the Englishtown school, asking for his removal as teacher because of his bad character for chastity and because of his introducing a book or novel, called the "Last Days of Pompeii," which de- scribed some of the vices and licentious customs of the people of that city. He had, as was proved, read this book to girls between twelve and sixteen, pupils of his school, and also recom- mended others to buy and read it. This last charge was not denied. John Laird, a promi- nent leader of the Democratic party, sided with Gaskell, and his influence with school trustees prevented action adverse to the teacher. They then, as a committee representing the parents of the children, appealed to Rev. Sam- uel Lockwood, county superintendent of schools. He was also a Democrat, and had no other income except that derived from this office. He also refused to remove Gaskell. This case came on at Freehold in May, 1889. The general panel of jurors, as selected by the sheriff, were men having little sympathy for or association with clergymen. They knew little about the curriculum prescribed in the public schools, and were objectable for other reasons. known to defendants' lawyers. The wonder increased why a struck jury had been denied in such a case. The question involved required educated and intelligent men. The jurors im- pannelled were better qualified to decide how horses, cattle and hogs should be raised, than the duties of school teacher and what books. girls should study in our public schools. Sev- eral of the defendants had daughters who at- tended this school, and who had read the "Last Days of Pompeii," under Gaskell's directions, as was proved and not denied. One of the jurors on this panel had served a term in states prison from Middlesex county, as was dis- covered after trial was over. The defendants proved by several witnesses that Gaskell's gen- eral character for chastity was bad at Eng- lishtown. A number of witnesses from Eaton- town swore his character for chastity was bad when he was teaching school there. The jurors, however, sympathized with Gaskell, as a man
1342
STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
after their own hearts, who had been greatly damaged by those "bad ministers and dissolute parents" and adjudged he had been damaged "two thousand dollars." The court, however, cut this amount down to $1,000.
Mr. Beekman, during the forty years of practice at Freehold, tried many other civil and criminal cases, some of which attracted great public interest and involved important interests. The New Jersey Law and Equity Reports show some of these cases, but the great major- ity were never carried out of the county courts of Monmouth. The court minutes in county clerk's office will show these cases and results.
In 1876 Mr. Beekman was sent as a delegate by the convention of Democrats held at Tren- ton, to the presidential convention of the na- tional Democratic party held at St. Louis. Joel Parker, who had twice served as governor of New Jersey, was thought to have a good chance for the nomination of vice-president if a western man was nominated for president. The convention was strongly in favor of Mr. Parker, and would send only men, as delegates, who were sincere. All the men selected, pro- fessed fidelity for Parker, but afterwards, as it turned out, did so only to receive the posi- tion. At heart they were for Mr. Tilden, of New York, and even in communcation with his agents. This was the first presidential conven- tion Mr. Beekman had ever attended, and he supposed the proceedings would be conducted with fairness and dignity. Instead of any fair- ness, or expression of the honest sentiments of the delegates, it was a gathering of men from every part of the United States, wholly unac- quainted, and so scattered about the city of St. Louis, that they cauld not get acquainted or exchange views. In the three or four days fixed for the meeting, the men of New York City, Chicago, Baltimore and other great cities had formed their plans and made all arrange- ments for the nomination of Mr. Tilden. Hendricks, of Indiana, was the real man who should have been nominated. He was the logical candidate and would have been elected, for the west held the balance of political power. Nor would the Republican party have dared to count him out. Yet so well had the friends of Tilden controlled all avenues of news, that not a single paper in St. Louis would publish anything in Hendrick's interest. So with other sources of influence, or deliberation by the con- vention itself, it was all cut and dried to nomi- nate Tilden. There was no consideration, de- liberation, or exchange of views, by the mass of delegates in the convention. If Hendricks
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.