USA > New York > New York City > History of the Court of common pleas of the city and county of New York : with full reports of all important proceedings > 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
180
IN MEMORY OF HAMILTON : W ROBINSON
BORN-NOV-25-1814 : DIED.APRIL:7-1879 JUDGE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE CITY.AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK 1870-1879 "AN.HONOR.TO.THE JUDICIARY AND TO OUR PROFESSION" HIS-URBANITY AND-SINCERITY ENDEARED HIM TO US AND HIS-PROBITY HIS LEARNING AND HIS FAITHFULNESS TO DUTY-COMMANDED UNIVERSAL- RESPECT WE CHERISH PLEASANT-RECOLLECTIONS OF HIS WELL SPENT LIFE-AND-REVERE HIS-MEMORY AS
AN ABLE AND UPRIGHT JUDGE RESOLUTIONS OF BENCH-AND-BAR . APRIL-24-1879
confirmation of this I may add that when a few months ago I visited Westminster Abbey, the mausoleum of England's distinguished dead, in going over that grand home of departed statesmen, commanders, historians and theologians, I found but four memorials to Judges, and only one of them, Lord Mansfield, could be called a great Judge. Of the other three, only Sir Robert Atkyn, Chief Baron of the Exchequer in the time of William III., was a man of pre-eminent attainments; and of the others, Sir Thomas Bramwell, who presided at the trial of Mary Queen of Scots, and Sir Thomas Richardson, once Chief Justice, it may be said that they received the distinction of a memorial in West- minster Abbey for some other cause than their learn- ing and ability as Judges. Burke has said that the intelligent administration of law is the cement of human society, and upon it we depend for the preservation of life, liberty and property. For this we rely on those who fill judicial office. To fill this high trust, it is not necessary that he who fills it should be a great Judge. That distinction is due to times and circumstances as much as to ability.
All who knew Judge Robinson judicially knew he was a model Judge in the important qualities of indus- try in acquiring knowledge of the law, and discrimination in applying it, in uprightness, in patience, and in the thorough investigation of cases decided by him. No Judge of the Court ever followed more fully the spirit of the prayer for divine guidance used at the first ses- sion of the Court on February 2d, 1653. It is a benefit to society to make permanent record of such a judicial example. The sentiment that prompts it is an old one.
181
Archæologists dig up in Egypt and on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates memorials of those past civic fraternities that indicate how deep seated is the disposi- tion to honor departed worth.
RESPONSE OF CHIEF JUSTICE JOSEPH F. DALY IN ACCEPT- ING THE TABLET.
This occasion recalls the meeting held over sixteen years ago in this room, when the leaders of the bar and Judges representing all the Courts, Federal and State, of this district met to testify their sorrow at the death of Judge Robinson, their esteem and affection for him as a man and their respect for the commanding position in the judiciary and the profession which his ability and industry had gained for him. You, Judge Daly, then the Chief Justice of this Court, of which Judge Robin- son was a member, were unanimously elected to preside over the meeting. The vice-presidents included the then five Justices of the Supreme Court, of whom only two are now on the bench; the six Justices of the Superior Court, of whom two only now survive; Judge Blatchford, then United States Circuit Judge, who has followed into rest so many of his judicial contempora- ries; Judge William G. Choate, then United States District Judge, and five eminent lawyers now no more -Charles O'Conor, David Dudley Field, John K. Por- ter, William A. Beach, and Stephen D. Law. Among the secretaries was John M. Scribner, who commenced his professional career as an associate of Judge Robin- son before he ascended the bench, and who is present with us to-day.
On that day, April 24th, 1879, addresses were deliv-
182
ered by the favorite of the bar, Aaron J. Vanderpoel, by Judge Lucien Birdseye, Mr. Luther R. Marsh, Judge Van Vorst, and by Chief Justice Charles P. Daly.
Never was there a meeting of the bar which had less of mere formality and more of genuine personal feel- ing. Judge Robinson had been taken away by death in the fulness of his powers, in the prime of life, in the midst of his active judicial labors, while the witnesses of his early efforts still survived, and there was not an expression of regret uttered that day which did not come from a full heart and reach a responsive listener.
The lapse of sixteen years finds his memory still cherished by the members of the bar. One of his then associates on the bench, distinguished for the sound- ness and vigor of his judicial opinions, has taken the leading part in the preparation of the beautiful and fit- ting tablet which is to-day unveiled in its place in these halls. With Judge Van Hoesen comes also the former Chief Justice of the Court, who, ten years after laying down the cares of office, in obedience to the constitu- tional mandate which fixes the limit of judicial service, appears full of strength and power, which we all hope and trust may be continued him for many years to come.
Judge Robinson deserves these tributes as a man. The years which I spent with him in the closest friend- ship and united by the strongest ties showed me that he possessed a heart full of good will, generosity, forbear- ance, patience and love. His disposition was transpar- ently candid and open; no corner of it harbored an inclination to injure a fellow-man for any cause or upon
183
any provocation. He was possessed of the tenderest feelings; a slight to one of his friends wounded him more deeply and lastingly than the person for whom it was intended; an affront to himself, though keenly felt, was pardoned and forgotten.
A great lawyer among the greatest lawyers of his time, a loved companion of the brightest wits of the bar, the kindest, gentlest and most considerate of asso- ciates, his union of gifts and qualities showed a fine blending of the natural and spiritual in his life. I will not lift the curtain from the sanctity of his inner life more than is sufficient to disclose to the generation that succeeds him that he was unaffectedly and sincerely reverent-a quality indispensable to true greatness of purpose and achievement. In one sense only was he a public man, and that was in the exercise of his judicial functions. In politics as such his busy professional career left him no time to mix; but he was personally known to men who in his time swayed the political des- tiny of the State, and there was not one of them who did not love and respect his uprightness, independence and high sense of duty. As we see to-day, the recol- lection of these qualities time has not been able to efface nor length of years to deaden.
It is in memory then of one of our most eminent Judges, one of our dearest associates, one of our most exemplary citizens, that you present to the Court which he adorned the commemorative tablet now unveiled; and we accept it on behalf of our Court, of the whole judicial body of the county and of the whole community which witnessed and profited by his great judicial ser- vice.
184
DAVID MC CLURE.
WILLIAM B. HORNBLOWER.
WILLIAM ALLEN BUTI.ER.
JOHN H. V. ARNOLD.
MEETING OF THE BAR AT THE CLOSING OF THE EXISTENCE . OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 30, 1895.
Pursuant to the invitation of a Committee of Ar- rangements composed of Hon. George M. Van Hoesen, chairman; Austen G. Fox, James R. Cuming, John M. Scribner, William Hildreth Field, George L. Rives, Ferdinand Kurzman, David McClure and James P. Davenport, who were appointed at a preliminary meet- ing "to make arrangements for exercises that shall commemorate the respect and good feeling that the bar of New York has always entertained for the Court of Common Pleas," the members of the bar assembled in the General Term room of the Court in the County Court House, at 2 o'clock P. M., on Monday, December 30th, 1895, the day before the date fixed for the disso- lution of the Court under the new Constitution consoli- dating all the Superior Courts of cities with the Supreme Court of the State.
There were present besides the Judges of the Court, Presiding Justice Van Brunt of the Supreme Court ; the Judges of the Superior Court of the City of New York; the Surrogates; the Judges of the General Sessions; the Justices of the City Court of New York; the Justices of the District Courts; the former Judges of the Common Pleas, Charles P. Daly, Henry Hilton, and George M. Van Hoesen, the members of the committee, and a
185
vast concourse of members of the bar which filled the room so completely that many were unable to gain ad- mittance. Upon the entrance of the Judges from the private chambers they were received with great ap- plause.
The meeting was called to order by ex-Judge Van Hoesen, who nominated for chairman Chief Justice Joseph F. Daly. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously and Charles A. Runk and John Proctor Clarke were named a committee to inform the Chief Justice that he had been selected to preside. As the Chief Justice entered and assumed his place he was re- ceived with prolonged applause. On nomination of ex- Judge Van Hoesen, Mr. Wilbur Larremore, son of former Chief Justice Richard L. Larremore; Mr. Henry A. Robinson, son of former Judge Hamilton W. Robin- son, and Mr. George Irving, son of the First Judge John T. Irving, were requested to act as secretaries. The secretaries took positions on the bench with the Chief Justice and the other Judges present.
The Chairman desired to know the pleasure of the meeting, upon which Mr. David McClure rose and said :
ADDRESS OF MR. DAVID MC CLURE.
MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN :
This occasion impresses me as of more than passing interest, meriting all of the attention it has attracted.
When, in 1882, in London, the Courts of Law located in Westminister Hall, and the Courts of Chancery in Chancery Lane, were transferred to the new Royal Courts of Law, the occasion was deemed of sufficient importance to warrant ceremonies participated in by
I86
England's Queen, Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice before a gathering including that country's most distinguished citizens: this, although the occasion was simply the change of abode of the Courts in ques- tion. And those Courts were by those ceremonies dignified before the people of England, and that peo- ple's respect and reverence for them increased.
To us, this occasion is vastly more momentous. A Court with a past reaching back to the earliest days of our municipal, and far beyond our national, life, whose record is honorable and meritorious, is about, if not to die, to at least in the marriage of the Courts about to take place, lose that identity and name which it has held for more than two centuries.
It is therefore "good for us to be here?" It is proper that we should pause for a moment in these fleeting hours of a year fast passing away, a season significant of death and life, the old and the new, and while giving voice to the confident expectation that the consolidated Court of which the Judges of this Court are to form part will exist and labor for the benefit and to the pride of the people, mark the death of this old, time-honored tribunal, and in the spirit of justice and kindness note its work and merits.
It is told that in some of the ruraldistricts of Ireland a beautiful custom prevails which influences a traveler meeting a funeral procession, standing by the roadside, with head reverently uncovered, to lay upon the bier a wildflower or a few blades of grass, and so I, as this old Court is passing away, although regretting that I have no flowers of rhetoric with which to brighten and per- fume, yet reverently pay my humble tribute of respect.
187
Our people are too much disposed in these days, to slight the work and sacrifices of holders of judicial and other offices, and too slow to accredit to those who serve the public in official stations, dispositions unself- ish and for the public good.
Our Judges cannot be held in too high respect, our Courts in too high reverence, and we lawyers should be prompt in fostering such respect and reverence as well by our united expressions as by our individual pro- fessional action.
This occasion is full of interest to all of the citizens of this great metropolis, for in the march of progress which it has grandly made, the Court of Common Pleas has held an honorable place. You cannot take from the Court its past as a part of our municipal life and history. That "at least, is secure." Surviving until now, the changes of government, the vicissitudes of politics, and the dangers of constitutional conventions and judicial commissions, it has come down to us in this day with a record of usefulness and dignity which compels our admiration. There must have been in it much of merit to endear to the people this Court of Pleas, as it was designated in one of the old charters of the city, and of Common Pleas, as it afterwards became, calculated by its title alone to keep it in touch with the people, to warrant its long life. Its age and place alone entitle it to our respect.
But to us as lawyers there is additional and higher reason why we should be impressed with the impor- tance and solemnity of this occasion. This is not only an old Court, but it is a Court of superior jurisdiction, upon the bench of which have sat distinguished Judges
188
who have labored in the public interest, and made records spotless as to integrity and bright as to genius and industry. I may be pardoned reference to one who to our delight still passes among us, not at all as linger- ing on the stage of life, but with full strength, keen intellect and wit, full of charming reminiscence, entitled because of age, character, intellectuality and duty well performed, to the title of New York's first citizen, whose incumbency began before many of us were born. It were reason enough for these exercises that ex-Chief Justice Charles P. Daly, whose name and that of the Court will always be inseparably connected, is able to make us happy, as he has done by his presence among us.
And then, how the walls of these rooms and of the older Court rooms in the City Hall, have rung with the eloquent tones of the lawyers who in their day were the giants of the bar. Occasions like this are stopping places on the highway of professional life, and here pausing we look back over the road we have traveled. During more than a quarter of a century of active work in the Courts I have seen in those old rooms great lawyers who have passed away, whose learning and eloquence charmed both bench and bar.
Fame is at the best, transient and fleeting, human endeavor is often unappreciated, the good that men do often dies with them. Our words of to-day will soon be forgotten, and yet as in this ceremony we shall have performed in part our duty to this ancient and honora- ble Court, all who have taken part will feel that the day has been well spent.
The committee charged at the preliminary meeting
189
of members of the bar with the management of the exercises for this day, was directed to prepare a resolu- tion appropriate to the occasion, to be, if adopted, here with your permission, placed upon the record of this Court. I am favored in being selected to present for your consideration this resolution :
As under the amended Constitution the Superior Courts of cities are to be consolidated with the Supreme Court of the State, the Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of New York will soon cease to exist as a separate branch of our judicial system,
Therefore we, members of the bar of the City of New York, place upon record this public expression of our respect for the Court, of our regard for its Judges, and for the value of their labors; of our good wishes for them in the new field of duty to which the Constitution calls them; and of our gratification that in the entire history of the Court, which began with the dawn of this city's existence, there is no page that would be bettered by excision and erasure. The names of the Judges who have in the past sat upon its bench are inseparably connected with the development of the system of jurisprudence of this State which has been a guide to the Courts of the other States of the Union; and the steady increase of its business in the last few years is a convincing witness that to the very end the Court has grown in the confidence of the bar and the people of New York. The Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of New York will live in the good work that it has finished, and in pleasant recollections of its courtesy, its dignity, its usefulness and its uprightness.
ADDRESS OF EX-CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES P. DALY.
MR. CHAIRMAN: As this Court will go out of exist- ence to-morrow, I have been asked by the chairman
190
of the committee who has had the arrangements for this meeting in charge to give an account of how it came into existence, with such other historical matter respecting it as might be interesting and appropriate. I have agreed to do it, but shall do so very briefly, as there are several other gentlemen present who are to address the meeting.
Lawyers who have given any attention to the system of jurisprudence we inherited from England know that after the Norman conquest there was in England a great Court called the Aula Regis. It was a Court held by the king, or, in his absence, by an officer called the Chief Justiciary, assisted by the principal officers of State and such barons as were summoned to attend it, in the hall of the king's palace, for a certain number of days called a term, in the periods of Christ- mas, Easter and Whitsuntide in whatever part of England the king at that time might be; in other words, it was a part of the king's household. It was held with great pomp and ceremony, especially when the king presided in person, which William the Con- queror frequently did, sitting with his crown upon his head and upon a high bench, more elevated than the seats around him, from which we get the term in use to the present day of the "bench."
The chief business of this great Court, the highest in the realm, was of two kinds that were distinguished from each other by the terms "Pleas of the Crown" and "Common Pleas:" the Pleas of the Crown embrac- ing crimes and misdemeanors, all matters relating to the revenue, and all other matters in which the govern- ment was interested, while Common Pleas were dis-
19I
putes or complaints between individuals in which was included all questions relating to land or what was called real actions, which was at that time the chief subject of litigation. Now the largest part of the busi- ness that came before the Aula Regis was that coming under the head of common pleas, or what we now call " civil actions," and it was felt to be a great hardship that the suitors in such actions had, for the determina- tion of them, to go before the King's Court, in whatever part of England that Court might be. It was one of the grievances presented on behalf of the people when Magna Charta was wrung by the barons from King John and which was removed by a clause in that great charter declaring "that Common Pleas are not to follow the king, but are to be heard in some certain place." This provision led in the reign of Henry III., about or very near the year 1234, to the breaking up of the Aula Regis into two Courts, creating a separate Court which was permanently fixed in London for the trial of common pleas, and to which the name was given of the " Court of Common Pleas."
In the reign of Henry's successor, Edward I., justly called by Coke, the English Justinian, the Aula Regis, as such, was abolished and a new Court formed in its place with nearly the same jurisdiction as a legal tribunal, to which the name was given of the King's Bench; and, to distinguish the King's Bench from the Court of Common Pleas, the latter for some time, or occa- sionally, thereafter was called the Common Bench, but its original name remained of the Court of Common Pleas, and it continued to be called by that name until it ceased to be a separate tribunal.
192
The establishment of this tribunal which was fixed permanently in London led to very important results. It has been said that we owe to it the preservation of the common law. The administration of the law before that time was chiefly in the hands of the ecclesiastics, who were trained in the civil and canon law, and they were gradually substituting that foreign system for the common law to which the people were deeply attached. The establishment, therefore, in the language of Stephens the commentator, "of this princi- pal Court of Common Law at that particular period and at that particular place, gave rise to the Inns of Court which collected together in London all the common law lawyers of England, and by which the common law was enabled through their influence and firmness to stand all the attacks made by the canonists and civilians who sought to destroy it;" and all those who value the liberty enjoyed in this country and in England and which has been secured by the common law, will feel how great that service at that particular period was. Of all the higher Courts, the Court of Common Pleas was for centuries the popular Court and had among its Judges some of the most distinguished names in the history of English jurisprudence. I will not now stop to repeat those names. It is sufficient to mention two of them, Coke and Eldon.
The Court existed for 641 years when it was amalga- mated with the other higher Courts in 1875, retaining however its historical name as the Common Pleas Division.
When this city, in 1664, was taken from the Dutch by the English, the commander of the English expedi-
193
tion and the first governor of the province thereafter known as New York, found a court established here called the "Worshipfull Court of the Schout, Burgo- master and Schepens" which had been in existence from 1653-242 years ago: the Schout being equivalent to our Sheriff, Burgomaster to our Mayor, and Schepen to that of Aldermen, which Court combined the two- fold qualities of a municipal body for the local govern- ment of the city and of a Court of Justice having both civil and criminal jurisdiction. Governor Nicolls altered the name of the city from New Amsterdam to New York, and gave the same name to the province, which, before that, had been known as New Nether- lands. He desired also to convert this important Dutch Court as far as he could into an English tribunal. The task was not an easy one. All the proceedings were conducted in the Dutch language. The Court, there- fore, had to be conducted as before under the Dutch law and in the Dutch language which it was for many years thereafter under the governorship of Colonel Nicolls and of his successor Lord Lovelace. But Nicolls determined to do something, at least, to give it as far as possible an English character, and as he was a soldier, and not a lawyer, he no doubt availed himself of the assistance of Matthias Nicolls an English lawyer, who had settled in New Amsterdam before it was cap- tured by the English. One might naturally ask what an English lawyer could find to do professionally in this little Dutch town, as New Amsterdam then was; but he had been employed by the Dutch governor, Stuy- vesant, in his controversies with the New England colonies, and as there was considerable trading between
194
the inhabitants of these eastern colonies and the Dutch capital, there may have been professional business for an English lawyer. He was in fact such a useful and capable man that Governor Nicolls shortly after he took possession of the city, made him Secretary of the Provinces, which he continued to be until the city was retaken by the Dutch in 1673. He was a well informed lawyer, and he no doubt suggested to the Governor that all he could do was to give English names alike to the Court and its officers, and also what those names should be. As the Court was permanently fixed in the City of New York it would naturally occur that, as in this respect it was more like the Court of Common Pleas, which was permanently fixed in London, than any other English Court, and as a large part of the business it transacted was of the same kind, questions or controversies between individuals, an appropriate name for it would be the Court of Common Pleas. But it had also what the English Court of Common Pleas had not, a criminal jurisdiction in respect to offences occurring in the city; and as in this respect it was like the Mayor's Court of London, a proper English name for it also would be the Mayor's Court, and that this could be further carried out by changing the name of Burgomaster to that of Mayor, Schepen to that of Alderman, and of Schout to Sheriff, making the Mayor, and not the Sheriff, as the Schout had been in the Dutch Court, the chief presiding officer, all of which was done; and for many years thereafter it was known by either name as combining the function of both of the two London Courts, the Mayor's Court and the Court of Common Pleas.
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.