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 4
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
MR. JOHN MC KEON APPOINTED DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
On February 6th, 1846, the Court met to appoint a District Attorney and selected John McKeon for that office.
55
INVESTIGATION OF CHARGES AGAINST JUSTICE DRINKER.
On April 20th, 1846, the Court met and the First Judge stated that it was convened pursuant to a resolu- tion of the Board of Supervisors for the purpose of investigating the official conduct of William Waln Drinker, a Special Justice; whereupon, on motion of Alderman Jackson, it was ordered "that the charges be referred to the District Attorney for examination and if sufficient evidence can be procured to sustain the charges, that the District Attorney be directed to pre- pare charges for such purpose and report the same to this Court."
On April 25th, 1846, the District Attorney presented charges to the Court, and on May 4th appeared in behalf of the prosecution and Lorenzo B. Shepard appeared as counsel for Justice Drinker. A motion to strike out the fourth charge was made by him and he addressed the Court in support thereof, which was denied. The Justice then pleaded not guilty to the charges and specifications, and the Court adjourned on the 13th of May, on which day John McKeon, the District Attorney, and Jonas B. Phillips, Assist- ant District Attorney, appeared in behalf of the prosecution; Lorenzo B. Shepard and James R. Whiting appeared as counsel for Justice Drinker; Andrew H. Mickle, Mayor of the City, sitting as Judge.
On the 19th of May the Court met (John B. Scott being Recorder) and evidence was taken upon the charges. The trial was continued to and including the 26th of September, 1846, the Court meeting upon sev-
56
Ertwards Porreport
James GEfencer
Theore me whenthe
Hey Day
-
enteen days between those dates for the examination of witnesses. Charles O'Conor was selected by the Dis- trict Attorney to assist in the prosecution.
On the 26th of September the Court met and resolved " that although this Court do not approve of many of the official acts of Justice Drinker as called in question by the charges and specifications against him, yet we do not find that sufficient has been proved to call for or justify his removal from office." This reso- lution, offered by Alderman Benson and seconded by Alderman Stoneall, was adopted by a vote of eleven to seven, and the charges were dismissed.
INQUIRY INTO THE SANITY OF JOHN B. HASTY.
On Monday, December 21st, 1846, the Court con- vened for the purpose of inquiring into the alleged insanity of John B. Hasty, one of the police clerks of the Special Justices, and into his capacity and compe- tency to exercise the duties of his office. After several adjournments, it was moved that the charges against Mr. Hasty be dismissed, a sufficient time not having elapsed since the alleged insanity to justify his removal from office. This motion was adopted.
TRIAL OF JUSTICE DUFFY.
The Court of Common Pleas as a Court of Impeach- ment was convened on the 12th of November, 1877, with the following Judges present: Charles P. Daly, Charles H. Van Brunt, Hamilton W. Robinson, Richard L. Larremore, Joseph F. Daly, and George M. Van Hoesen, the full number of Judges under the amended Constitution of 1869. The Mayor, Recorder, and
57
Aldermen, having ceased to sit as Judges of the County Court or the Court of Common Pleas since the amended Constitution of 1846, and three additional Judges of the Court having been elected pursuant to the amendment of 1869, Chief Justice Daly presented and filed affida- vits and charges made against Patrick G. Duffy, Police Justice, pursuant to an Act of the Legislature of the State of New York, passed May 17th 1873, entitled, " An Act to secure better administration in the Police Courts in the City of New York." The charges and specifications against Justice Duffy were printed and filed in the Court, together with his answer submitted on January 22d, 1878, by Algernon S. Sullivan and Wheeler H. Peckham, his counsel. On the last named day the Court assembled to receive the said answer and Chief Justice Daly then announced that as the several Judges of the Court were at this time so engaged in the different branches of the Court that it would be neces- sary to postpone the hearing of the testimony until the first Monday of February next, so that all the Judges could attend, and that the Court would adjourn until that day at II o'clock, A.M., which was done.
On February 4th, 1878, the Court met pursuant to adjournment, all the Judges except Judge Van Brunt being present. B. H. Phelps, District Attorney, appeared for the prosecution, and Messrs. Sullivan and Peckham for the defence. Witnesses were examined on that and the two following days, when the case was closed on both sides. By the direction of the Court it was decided that the Court proceed to a vote upon the charges and that each charge be heard by the Court and the question be taken guilty or not guilty. The
58
clerk then read charge first, and upon calling each Judge all the Judges voted not guilty. The clerk then read charge second, and upon calling each Judge, all the Judges voted not guilty. Chief Justice Daly then assigned his reasons for his vote, in which all the Judges concurred, and the Court adjourned.
TRIAL OF JUSTICE DIVVER.
On November 23d, 1894, the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas were convened to consider written alle- gations filed by William H. Hale, an attorney, in behalf of six residents and tax-payers of the city, charging Patrick Divver, a Police Justice, with various offences.
There were present Hon. Joseph F. Daly, Chief Jus- tice, and Judges Henry W. Bookstaver, Henry Bis- choff, Jr., Roger A. Pryor and Leonard A. Giegerich.
William H. Hale appeared for the residents and tax- payers; and Daniel G. Rollins and Abraham Levy for the defendant. District Attorney Col. John R. Fellows subsequently appeared for the people.
Adjournments were taken to the 17th, to the 19th, and 2 Ist insts., and on Friday, December 28th, 1894, the Court of Common Pleas sat for the last time as a Court of Impeachment. All the Judges excepting Judge Beach were present.
After listening to the examination of witnesses and the argument of counsel, the Judges, in accordance with the statute, voted publicly upon the charges.
The charges against Justice Divver were in sub- stance :
59
First: That he was habitually careless, negligent and inefficient in the discharge of the duties of his office.
Second: That on or about October 17th, 1894, he had made a violent assault upon one Morris Tekulsky.
Third: That on or about November 3d, 1893, he had instigated persons by the offer of valuable rewards and the promise of positions, to vote the Democratic ticket.
Fourth: That during the year of 1886, he was accus- tomed to divide with one Edward Parmely Jones, the proceeds of a system of swindling commonly called the " Green-goods Game."
Fifth (supplemental) : That he had at various times and places "systematically and habitually conducted and abetted false and fraudulent registration, illegal voting, and frauds in election returns."
The fourth charge had been dismissed upon demur- rer, the majority of the Court holding that it alleged misconduct not occurring during the defendant's incumbency of office, and therefore afforded no ground for removal; and, upon the polling by the clerk, each of the five Judges in turn voted either "not proven " or "not guilty " to the first, second, third and fifth charges.
After the polling of the Judges, on motion of the counsel for Justice Divver, the proceedings were dis- missed.
60
JOHN TREAT IRVING.
THE HONORABLE JOHN TREAT IRVING.
John Treat Irving, first Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born in New York City, May 26th, 1778, in the quaint, gabled house his father had erected on Van- dewater Street.
His father, William Irving, was a native of Kirkwall, the capital of the Orkney Islands, and of good lineage. He followed the calling of a navigator, and for many years sailed on vessels engaged in trade between the ports of New York and Falmouth, England. In Fal- mouth, he met and married Sarah Sanders, a woman of rare beauty and charm of character, and two years later, in 1763, finally settled in New York City, where he established himself in trade on William Street, mid- way between Fulton and John Streets.
He was a man of great decision, of a stern type of piety and sense of duty almost puritanic, and exerted a strong disciplinary influence over his sons. During the Revolution his fervid 'patriotism exposed him to numerous dangers and difficulties, and at one time he was compelled to take refuge in New Jersey.
His son John, like his other brothers, was sent to pri- vate schools in the neighborhood of his home-for the city was small then and thinly settled-and was admitted to Columbia College.
Being graduated in 1798, he immediately took up the study of law, in which his marked natural ability and
61
devoted hard work soon gained him a conspicuous posi- tion. He was also active in public affairs and during 1816-17 was a member of the State Assembly.
Appointed in 1821 a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, he served as First Judge, both in title and in chronological order, till his death in 1838, in all seven- teen years.
He was possessed of literary ability, and in his earlier years contributed extensively to the columns of the Chronicle, edited by his brother, Washington Irving, gaining considerable reputation by his poetical attacks on political opponents. The claims of his profession, however, occupied his time and attention in later years.
From 1818 until his death he was a trustee of Colum- bia. He was a regular attendant, and for many years a vestryman, of Trinity Church, New York.
In his personal character he was of unflinching integ- rity and great refinement. He enjoyed the respect of the community and was a recognized leader in public affairs.
Judge Irving's wife was Abby Furman, daughter of Gabriel and Sarah (Wall) Furman, whom he married April 28th, 1806.
Judge Irving died at his home, 37 Chambers Street, New York, March, 15th, 1838. Upon his death a marble tablet with his bust, in relievo, and a suitable inscription was placed in the Court room.
His son, John Treat Irving, his grandson, the son of John Treat Irving, Cortlandt Irving, are to-day prac- ticing members of the bar. Another son, Mr. George Irving, acted as one of the secretaries on the occasion
62
of the final proceedings of the Court on December 30th, 1895.
In his introduction to the first of E. D. Smith's Reports, Chief Justice Charles P. Daly says of Judge Irving: " As a Judge, he was in many respects a model for imitation. To the strictest integrity and a strong love of justice he united the most exact and methodical habits of business. Attentive, careful, and painstaking, few Judges in this State ever have been more accurate, or perhaps more generally correct in their decisions.
"While presiding at nisi prius, he was not what would be termed a quick-minded man; but when questions were argued before him in banc, he bestowed so much care and considered each case so attentively that his judgments were rarely reversed, and were uniformly treated by the Courts of Revision with the greatest respect."
63
THE HONORABLE MICHAEL ULSHOEFFER.
Michael Ulshoeffer, second Judge of the Court of Com- mon Pleas, was born in New York City, March 30, 1793.
His father, George Ulshoeffer, born in 1748, at Creglingen, in the dominion of the Margrave of Ans- pach and Bayreuth, was forced into the British service and sent to America in 1777. Many of these Hessians became in the end citizens of the Republic.
George Ulshoeffer remained in America after the war, and in 1785 came to New York, where he resided, a teacher of music, until his death in 1836.
He married Margareth Miller, of Pennsylvania, who survived him many years and died in this city at the age of ninety-eight.
Their son, Michael Ulshoeffer, studied law in the office of T. W. Smith, at No. 3 Cedar Street, and after- wards became his partner.
In 1813 he was admitted as an attorney in the Mayor's Court or Court of Common Pleas, and in the same year in the Supreme Court of the State .*
He was appointed in 1814 a Notary Public, and in in 1815 a Master in Chancery, and served from 1815 to 1825 as Notary of the City Bank. In 1816 he was admitted as a counsellor-at-law in the Mayor's Court
* The various dates of admittance to practice in the different Courts have been inserted in the sketch of Judge Ulshoeffer as illustrative of the prac- tice of another day and generation.
64
MICHAEL ULSHOEFFER.
and in the Supreme Court, and in 1817 to the United States Circuit and District Courts. In 1817 he was elected to the State Assembly, and was re-elected in 1818, 1819, 1820, and 1821.
Hammond, who was opposed politically to Judge Ulshoeffer, in his "History of Political Parties in the State of New York," several times refers to his career in the Legislature. He says that " The principal and most zealous of the members of the New York delegation (opponents of DeWitt Clinton) in 1818 were: Ogden Edwards, Peter Sharpe, and Michael Ulshoeffer," and again, that " In 1820, the most powerful and efficient men in opposition to endorsing the action of the Comp- troller in auditing the accounts of Daniel D. Tompkins, late Governor, were Root, Sharpe, Romain, Ulshoeffer, J. T. Irving, and Seymour, and that for skill in argu- ment, pungency of wit, and clear, sound, logical powers of mind, few men of that age would, he imagined, have excelled Oakley, Williams, Root, Spencer, Ulshoeffer, Romain, and McKown."
In General Wilson's "History of the City of New York," it is written that " When in 1820, a bill providing for a convention to revise the Constitution of the State was disapproved by the Council of Revision-Chancellor Kent writing the opinion with all the conservatism of a trained lawyer-the report of Michael Ulshoeffer, chair- man of the select committee of the Assembly, com- bated the logic of the veto with great vigor, and the report was regarded as the abler State paper of the two.
In 1819, Mr. Ulshoeffer was admitted as solicitor and counsellor in chancery. Mr. Ulshoeffer was in partner- ship with William W. Boyd from 1823 until 1829, when.
65
Mr. Boyd retired on account of ill-health. In 1821 he was appointed Corporation Attorney of the City of New York. In 1823, it was resolved by the Common Coun- cil that he should perform the duties of counsel to the Board during their pleasure. In 1825 he was formally appointed counsel to the Corporation, and the same year the offices of attorney and counsel to the Corporation were separated. He served until 1829.
In 1828 he was admitted an attorney and counsellor in the Superior Court of the City of New York. In 1834 he was appointed by the Governor, with the con- sent of the Senate, Associate Judge of the Court of Common Pleas and was re-appointed in 1843. In 1846 he was elected Judge of the Court of Common Pleas under the new Constitution and drew the shortest term, two years. He was chosen First Judge by his associ- ates in 1838, and held the office continuously until the expiration of his service on the bench, December 31, 1849. His portrait was painted by Elliott at the request of members of the bar, and hangs in what was the Court room of the General Term of the Common Pleas.
As there were no regular reports of the Court of Common Pleas in his time, a few of his opinions appear in the first of E. D. Smith's Reports and in the Code Reporter and City Hall Reporter.
Judge Ulshoeffer never afterwards practiced law, but served on many boards and commissions and as a referee and arbitrator. He was one of the commissioners to appraise the lands taken for Central Park. He was one of the founders of the Law Institute of New York City. He joined the Tammany Society in 1817 and was elected Sachem in 1818.
66
The only public office he held after leaving the bench was as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in 1859 and 1860 under the Act of 1857. The Act of 1860 legislated the Board out of office.
He was a vestryman of St. Mark's Church for years, then warden. Afterwards a vestryman of Grace Church, until forced by age to retire. He served fre- quently as a delegate to the Diocesan Convention, where he was on the Committee for the Incorporation of Churches.
In politics he always claimed to be a Democrat, but insisted that often the party had deserted its principles. He voted for those he considered the best men without much regard to party. He was a War Democrat.
During his last years he spent much of his time in reading over and destroying his papers and correspond- ence, and left nothing concerning himself or others. Although he lent his books freely, he always refused to allow any of his private papers to go out of his hands, believing that much unnecessary trouble is caused by raking over men's lives, and that there is much to be forgiven and more to be forgotten.
He married Mary Ann Gracie in 1823 and had several children, some of whom survive.
He died in New York City, Sept. 6, 1881, at the age of eighty-eight years.
67
THE HONORABLE DANIEL P. INGRAHAM.
Daniel Phoenix Ingraham, third Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born in New York City April 22d, 1800. He was educated at a private school in Mor- ristown, New Jersey, entered Columbia College at the age of thirteen, and was graduated in the class of 1817. During the next four years he studied law in the office of Hon. Richard Riker, Recorder of the City of New York. When of age, Mr. Ingraham was admitted to practice in the Court of Common Pleas, and later in the other Courts of the city.
He was elected Assistant Alderman from the Twelfth Ward in 1835, and the two following years represented the same ward in the Board of Aldermen. In 1838 Gov. Marcy appointed him Judge of the Court of Com- mon Pleas in New York City to fill a vacancy. In 1843 he was re-appointed to hold office until 1846, when by the provisions of the new Constitution, the office became elective. The esteem in which he was generally held is shown by the fact that he was returned to the office by a large vote and re-elected in 1851. He was chosen First Judge of the Court two years later, and held the office until 1858, and was elected a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State in 1857 and re-elected in 1865. In 1870 Gov. Hoffman appointed him Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court of the First District in New York, a position which he filled with honor and
68
-
-
WITAMSON.
DANIEL P. INGRAHAM.
dignity until January 1, 1874, when, being over seventy years of age and not eligible to re-election, he retired to private life.
Judge Ingraham had many cases of the greatest importance tried before him; among others, that of Schuyler, who was accused by the New York & New Haven Railroad Company of issuing and selling $3, 000, - ooo worth of fraudulent stocks; of Cole for the murder of Hiscock; and of Stokes for the murder of Fiske. Judge Ingraham's decisions have been acknowledged to be among the soundest and most impartial in the judicial history of the State. His integrity was incor- ruptible, and, although he had many political opponents, he invariably compelled their respect and their acknowl- edgment of the honesty and purity of his public and private life, and his fidelity to the best interests of the community he served.
As a student, Judge Ingraham devoted much of his spare time to historical and geographical research, and was a member of the New York Historical Society and of the American Geographical Society. He was for many years one of the Elders of the Collegiate Dutch Church in the City of New York. On January 25, 1838, he married Miss Mary Hart Landon, of Connecticut, by whom he had three sons, all now living, and one of whom, Judge George L. Ingraham, was elected a Justice of the Superior Court in 1882, and of the Supreme Court in 1891, and is now one of the seven original members of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial District of New York.
Judge Daniel P. Ingraham died December 12, 1881. His portrait now hangs on the walls of the Supreme Court room, Appellate Division.
69
THE HONORABLE WILLIAM INGLIS.
William Inglis, fourth Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was, it is believed, born in the city of New York. His father appears to have been John Inglis a native of Scotland, who was a merchant doing business in the lower part of the city as early as 1812, and for years thereafter; or this may have been the Judge's grandfather-for there was a John Inglis in New York in 1785, the only one of the name then living there. Judge Inglis was prepared for and entered Columbia College, being graduated with the class of 1821. His career as a student was distinguished, but he never fully realized the great expectations formed of his future, not so much from want of intellectual ability, as from a certain inertness that indisposed him to exertion where it could be dispensed with; and as he had a modest patrimony, and was careful and economi- cal in his habits, he was able in that respect to do as he wished. His application in college, however, must have been close; and on his graduation he was a good classical scholar, and with other requirements had a knowledge of modern languages, speaking French fluently.
He was admitted to the bar in 1826, took an office in Pine Street, and during the thirteen years that followed until his appointment to the bench, held what might be called a highly respectable position at the bar, with-
70
out being especially distinguished either as a lawyer or an advocate. When a heated political controversy arose about the policy of General Jackson towards the United States Bank, and the Whig party was formed, he took a somewhat prominent part in the formation and proceedings of that party; and it was probably due to that circumstance that he was selected as a proper person to fill the new judgeship in the Court of Com- mon Pleas, then just created by an act of the Legisla- ture, and to which he was appointed in 1839.
The appointment proved highly satisfactory, and he became a favorite Judge for the trial of causes. The leading and the more learned members of the bar especially liked to try causes before him, because they were sure that every point made by them, however learned or acute, would be fully comprehended and duly considered; and he was popular also with the jurors, for in his charge he made everything clear to them-in fact, he was what might be called a model Judge at nisi prius-intelligent, discriminating, patient, rarely interrupting and giving close attention to the evidence upon which the facts depended, and to the discussion of the questions of law that were raised, which it is for the Judge alone on the trial to decide. He was also very kind to young men, always willing to aid and to afford them every assistance, and invariably courteous.
He was not so satisfactory in other branches of his judicial duty. Except in settling a case or bill of exceptions for review, which could not be dispensed with, he did everything orally, as far as he could. Where cases were argued in banc, that is, before the-
71
three Judges together, to set aside a verdict or grant a new trial for some error of law at the trial, or errors of any kind that entitled the defeated party to a new trial, if he could have had his way, he would have rendered decision immediately upon the close of the argument, even when his colleagues thought that the points involved required a more deliberate examination, a careful perusal of the case as settled, looking into the authorities cited, and other things essential to a care- fully matured judgment, which requires time and due deliberation. Judges in banc take the case, as it is said, and afterwards announce the result in a written opin- ion, showing upon what grounds they place their con- clusion and judgment; but simply to endorse on the papers " reversed " or " affirmed," is not very satisfac- tory to the one who is defeated, nor even to the one who succeeds, as the case may be carried up to a higher Court. Yet this was all that he ever did, for it is said that he never gave a written opinion upon these final judgments and assigned as a reason for it that it was unnecessary, as no reports of the Court were then published, and it was merely writing an opinion to be filed among the papers. He overlooked the fact that a large part of the common law was made up in this way by the Judges having their conclusion, and the reasons for it, briefly stated in writing upon the record, long before any such thing as law reports were known, which began with the Year Books, and that it was from recorded memoranda of this kind, put in writing by order of the Judges, upon record, that Bracton, one of the earliest and the ablest of the early writers on the English law, was enabled to produce his celebrated trea-
72
1
WILLIAM INGLIS.
tise to show what the common law was. This omission on his part was the more marked because his associates never suffered a case that had been taken for further consideration to be decided without a written opinion by one of them, and sometimes two.
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.