The civil, political, professional and ecclesiastical history, and commercial and industrial record of the county of Kings and the city of Brooklyn, N. Y., from 1683 to 1884, Volume II, Part 147

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909, ed
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: New York, W. W. Munsell & Co
Number of Pages: 1345

USA > New York > Kings County > Brooklyn > The civil, political, professional and ecclesiastical history, and commercial and industrial record of the county of Kings and the city of Brooklyn, N. Y., from 1683 to 1884, Volume II > Part 147

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).

This trial took place before the present law regulating practic- ing physicians and surgeons. The preliminary contest in the famous Beecher-Tilton trial, brought on by the application of Mr. Beecher's counsel, Mr. Thomas G. Shearman, for a bill of particu- lars of the facts upon which Mr. Tilton relied to establish his cause of action, is and ever will be regarded as one of the most important incidents in legal history. The motion to compel the plaintiff to deliver to the defendant's attorneys a statement in writing of the particular times and places at which the acts named in the complaint took place, was elaborately argued before Judge Neilson, who denied the motion for a bill of particulars, whereupon Messrs. Shearman & Sterling took an appeal to the General Term of the City Court, which was argued before Justices Reynolds and McCue early in November, 1874. Each of those learned jurists delivered an opinion, the former in favor of affirming Judge Neilson's decision, the latter in favor of reversing it. Both of these opinions are characterized by peculiar learning and acuteness of reasoning. The opinion of Judge McCue, with which we have to deal at present, is one which will always be studed by the legal profes- sion with interest and profit. "The power of the court," says

1235

BENCH AND BAR OF BROOKLYN.

the judge, "under section 168 of the Code, is without limitation. The court may, in all cases, order a bill of particulars of the claim of either party to be furnished. This language is broad enough to cover this case, and the reason for the rule which has obtained in our State in criminal actions and actions for divorce, applies with equal force to an action for crim. con. We are justified in saying that it applies with greater force in the case at bar, for the effect of the verdict against the defendant is practically to stamp another person, not a party to the action, with his crime, and, therefore, unable to make any defense in court."

As the court was divided, Judge Neilson's decision was sus- tained, and the case went by appeal to the Court of Appeals, which reversed Judge Neilson's decision and that of the General Term, sustaining Judge McCue's opinion. Whereupon Judge McQue, on December 7, 1874, upon proper affidavits made by Mr. Beecher and Mr. Shearman, granted an order requiring Mr. Tilton's attorney to show cause before him, at a Special Term of the City Court, then soon to be held, why he should not deliver to the defendant's attorney, at some reasonable time before the trial of the cause, a statement in writing, verified by oath, of the particular times and places at which he intended to prove that any of the charges in the plaintiff's complaint against the defendant took place. The granting of this order brought on another contest before Judge McCue, which took place at the time when the plaintiff was required to show cause why the bill of particulars should not be granted. In this contest Mr. Evarts and Mr. Shearman appeared for the defendant, and Judge Morris for the plaintiff. After long and elaborate arguments, Judge McCue directed the entry of an order that the plaintiff furnish to the defendant's attorneys the bill of particulars required, and that the plaintiff be precluded from giving any evidence at the trial of the action to prove the occurrence of any specific act of wrong committed by the defendant at any other time or place than is set forth in the said statement of particulars. From this order the plaintiff appealed to the General Term of the City Court, and after another lengthy argument by the respective counsel, in which Mr. Beach and General Tracy participated, for and against, the order for a bill of particulars granted by Judge McCue was set aside or reversed. Chief Justice Neilson and Mr. Justice Reynolds both wrote opinions in favor of revers- iag it, and the same was reversed. Thus ended this great contest, in which the most important legal questions were discussed and decided.

In the long judicial career of Judge McCue there are found a large number of interesting opinions, which have added largely to the legal learning of his day.

The term for which he was elected is drawing to a close; there must be much in the memory of it which is gratifying to himself and his friends, and if he were again placed upon the Bench, the long experience he would bring to it would be of the greatest value to all.

GEORGE G. REYNOLDS.

JUDGE REYNOLDS, like his distinguished associate upon the Bench, Hon. Alexander McCue, has so long been a resident of Brooklyn that he has come to be regarded as one of its native citizens.

After commencing his practice in Brooklyn, he began to lay the solid foundation for an elevated professional reputation, and hs rapidly advanced to the front rank of the Brooklyn Bar, a position which he held until called to the Bench. On leaving the Bar, he left an extensive and honorable practice. It was his ability and learning as a lawyer that placed him upon the Bench.

On October 21st, 1872, he was nominated by the Democrats and the Liberal Republicans for the judicial office he now holds, having, we believe, once before held the office of City Judge. Immediately after his nomination, the Brooklyn Eagle, comment-

ing upon the event, said: "Judge Reynolds has been so long and favorably known, his career as a lawyer has been so con- spicuous and successful, and his reputation as a man so pure and unsullied, that no commendation of ours is necessary to aid in securing his election. That he will be elected is a certainty, and that he will honor and adorn the Bench after his election is also certain."

This language of the Eagle has proven in every sense true. At the election, which took place in November, 1872, he was elected a judge of the city of Brooklyn for the term of four- teen years. He entered upon the discharge of his duties Jan- uary 1st, 1873. These duties have been arduous, the business of the City Court having continued to increase from the time he commenced his judicial career down to the present. Though it is in its nature a municipal tribunal, it ranks in dignity and importance with the Supreme Court, and in many respects its jurisdiction is equal to that court.

At the Nisi prius or Trial Terms, at its Special and General Terms, Judge Reynolds has for twelve years labored assidu- ously-and we make no mistake in saying-to the satisfaction of the Bar and public. We have already alluded to the part he took as a judge in the great preliminary contest of the Tilton-Beecher case, in the motion to compel the plaintiff, Mr. Tilton, to furnish the defendant with a bill of the particular circumstances on which the plaintiff relied to make out his case against Mr. Beecher.

After the argument of the appeal in the General Term of the City Court, taken from Judge Neilson's decision denying a bill of particulars, Judge Reynolds wrote an opinion sustain- ing Judge Neilson, in which he carefully reviews the cases in which bills of particulars have been allowed in actions for divorce on grounds of adultery, and he says: "Bills of par- ticulars may be ordered in certain cases, and have sometimes been allowed in actions of tort or wrong," and cites two cases in which such have been allowed, one of which was Humphry v. Cottleyou (4th Cowan, 54), which was an action of trover for the conversion of a quantity of timber. The Court said that "the date of the item should be given with as much particularity as possible; if the day could not be stated, then the month or year should be; that, however, was a case where the claim was susceptible of being resolved into particulars, or itemized, with approximate dates, as much so as an ac- count for goods sold." The other case was an action for dower, Vischer v. Conant (4th Cowan, 396). The count or charge was in the then general form, without stating any land in which the widow claimed dower. The Court said that "the proper course was the same as in ejectment, where the de- claration was equally general, that is, to ascertain, by a bill of particulars, for what particular land the plaintiff was pro- ceeding."

The judge refers to another case, Early v. Smith, cited from the Appendix to 12th Irish Com. Law R. This was an action for slander, where the Court said: "We do not compel the plaintiff to state the specific times at which she charges the words to have been spoken, and binding by them, or the names of the parties to whom the words were spoken, but the occasions on which the words were spoken. But the Court refused to bind the plaintiff to specifio times. There is a vast difference," continues the judge, "between the nature of that action and this. It was the essence of slander that the words had been spoken in the presence and hearing of other people, and the plaintiff might well be presumed to have the means easily accessible of fixing the occasion and, with some certainty, the time of the wrong. No such presumption naturally arises here; indeed, the contrary to some extent appears."

After referring to certain confessions made by a person promi- nent in the trial, the judge says: "If we should make the order for a bill of particulars now asked for, the defendant might, in the first place, with great plausibility object to all

1236

HISTORY OF KINGS COUNTY.

proof which does not point to some specific time, and, in the next, demand a verdict of acquittal, even if the jury should believe the evidence against him, because he had not been shown to have committed the offense at the particular times to which the plaintiff had been confined by the order and the bill of particulars. If this result would not follow upon such a state of facts, I see no object in asking for the order; and if such results should follow, it seems to me it would be a re- proach upon the administration of justice. I think the parties can have a perfectly fair trial of the issues in the ordinary way. I am therefore in favor of affirming the order denying the bill of particulars made at Special Term, but without costs."

Thereby Judge Neilson's order denying a bill of particulars" was affirmed. On the appeal taken from this decision to the Court of Appeals, the opinion of Neilson and Reynolds was reversed. Immediately on the announcement of this decision in the Court of Appeals, the indefatigable counsel for Mr. Beecher made a second application for a bill of particulars before Judge McCue, who granted the order at the Special Term, from which there was an appeal to the General Term of the City Court, which was argued before Judges Neilson and Reynolds. After argument, Judges Neilson and Reynolds delivered opinions reversing the decision made by Judge McCue; the opinion of Judge Neilson is somewhat lengthy, that of Reynolds brief, pointed and learned. He tersely reiterates the grounds he took in the opinion to which we have alluded. We might allude to many other important cases in which Judge Reynolds has ren- dered opinions, with interest and advantage to this work, but space will not permit.

As a lawyer he was successful ; the result of his extensive legal knowledge was always at his command; making no preten- sions to show and brilliancy, he relies more on the strength and soundness of his positions and arguments than on attempts at rapid originality and sparkling reasons. If these qualities are useful in a lawyer they are inestimable in a judge.

Suffice it to say, his career thus far has been highly honor- able to himself and valuable to the profession and the public.

NATHANIEL H. CLEMENT.

JUDGE CLEMENT was born at Tilton, N. H., in March, 1844. He graduated at Portsmouth High School in 1859, and the same year entered Dartmouth College, from whence he was graduated, and entered upon the study of law. He was admitted to the Bar in 1866, and immediately became a resident of Brooklyn, where he perfected an arrangement with the law firm of Crooke, Bergen & Pratt, by which he became its managing clerk. He occupied this position till January 1st, 1870, when Pratt was elected a Justice of the Supreme Court, and of course dissolved his con- nection with the firm. Mr. Clement became a member of a new firm, under the name of Crooke, Bergen & Clement. In 1873 General Crooke was elected to Congress, and the firm was dis- solved. Mr. Clement immediately opened an office and began practice for himself. He had then been at the Bar seven years, during which time he had had large experience in almost every variety of practice which his association with his distinguished partners brought him. So that he commenced business for him- self under the most advantageous circumstances, and he entered at once on a lucrative practice, taking a high professional, po- litical and social position.

He gave the Democratic party his allegiance, and became a member of the Young Men's Democratic Club; a member of the Brooklyn Club, the Carlton Club, and Treasurer of the Brooklyn Dispensary. In the meantime he was counsel in several import- ant cases, the trials of which he conducted with distinguished success. Among the cases in which he was counsel, was that of the Property-owners v. The East River Bridge and Coney Island Transit Company, obtaining a decision of the General Term of the Supreme Court holding that no railroad can be constructed

on the streets of Brooklyn or any other city without due com- pensation to the owners of the property through which it passes.

In the summer of 1882, Hon. Joseph Neilson retired from the Bench of the City Court, and it became necessary at the en- Buing fall election to elect a judge in his place. Although Mr. Clement was then but thirty-eight years of age, his accomplish- ments as a lawyer and his high position as a citizen placed him prominently before the public as the successor of Chief Justice Neilson. In the autumn of that year he received the nomination, which he accepted, and he was elected in the fol- lowing November. He began his judicial duties on the first of January, 1883. Of course, he has his judicial reputation to make, but he has now occupied the Bench considerably over a year; judging from the very able manner in which he has discharged his duties during this time, his future judicial career will com- pare favorably with that of his distinguished associates and predecessors on the Bench. It was once said by Chief Justice Bronson that experience was more beneficial to a judge than to any other public official; and the remark was true. And yet there are men who possess natural judicial minds and methods, and who come to the labors and responsibilities of the Bench with intuitive ease. From the high esteem in which Judge Clement is held by the Bar and the public, we risk nothing in saying that he belongs to this class. He has now twelve years of judicial service before him; how much each passing year will add to his judicial usefulness and accomplishments, remains to be seen.

SAMUEL D. MORRIS .*

SAMUEL D. MORRIS was born in Monmouth County, New Jer- sey. His father, Robert P. Morris, was a farmer, actively en- gaged in the pursuit of agriculture at the time of his son's birth. The early years of young Morris were spent upon his father's farm in tilling the soil. Not richly endowed with wealth, the father and his sons were compelled to work winter and summer, early and late. Hence it was that young Samnel was unable to receive instruction in anything but the cultivation of the ground. However, arriving at the age of twenty-one, he acted upon a re- solve long previously formed. He entered upon a regular course of schooling, at Leedsville, in his native State, with the same intense energy which has marked his subsequent career. After a few months spent at this place, he connected himself with the academy at Homdel, where he remained for six months, when the principal of the institution removing to Johnstown, N. Y., Morris followed him, and remained under his charge until thoroughly prepared for a collegiate course. . Selecting Rutgers College as the institution at which to complete his educa- tion, he was admitted to the sophomore class. Having finished his course of studies, he went to the Law School at Ballston Spa, then in high repute as a training school for young lawyers, and under the able charge of Prof. J. W. Fowler. This was in 1849. His prominence in the debates, which were a feature of the training at this school, gave him the highest prize within the gift of the school. Among his associates at Rutgers and the Ballston school, were Judge Bedle, now Governor of New Jersey, and Judge Larremore, of New York. A year later, July 3, 1850, Mr. Morris was admitted to the practice of the law at Plattsburg, N. Y .; and in the spring of 1851, he came to Brooklyn to enter upon his profession.

About the time of his settling in Brooklyn, Pierce had been nominated for the Presidency, and our young lawyer, an ardent Democrat, entered most enthusiastically into the campaign. Upon the hustings nightly, in that vigorous canvass, his voice was heard urging the principles of the Democratic doctrine.

* The author is indebted to a friend of Judge Morris for this admirable biographical sketch.

二

1237

BENCH AND BAR OF BROOKLYN.

His abilities and rare qualities as a speaker were thus made kaown to his fellow-citizens. His speeches, and the pronounced quality of his political doctrines, brought him into favorable notice.

In the following fall of 1853, he received the Democratic nomination for Assembly, and, in the face of a strong and bitter opposition, was elected by an overwhelming majority. Three members then represented the interests of Kings County in the State Assembly. The session in which he took part was exciting. Horatio Seymour was Governor. The " Maine Law" excitement was at its height, and the temperance interests were active and aggressive. In the discussions which ensued, Mr. Morris took BD active part, and was appointed to the committee to which was referred the bill which had been introduced favoring the prohihitory law. That committee consisted of nine members, eight of whom reported in favor of the passage of the bill. Mr. Morris, however, offered a minority report to the contrary. The hill, however, was passed; but Governor Seymour promptly re- turned it with his veto, and in his message followed very closely the line of argument employed by Mr. Morris in his minority report.

After the adjournment of the Legislature, Mr. Morris was ap- poiated Corporation Attorney to the city of Brooklyn. In the spring of 1855, the Legislature having re-passed the Maine Law Bill, which was promptly signed by Governor Myron H. Clark, who had been elected as a temperance candidate, Mr. Morris was called upon, in the discharge of his duties, to enforce it. Believing it to be an unjust and despotic law, and that he could not remain in office and properly perform its duties without en- forcing it, he resigned his office in May, 1855. He now set shout the work of testing the constitutionality of the law, and he carried the celebrated " Toynbee Case "* to the Court of Appeals, which eminent and learned body declared the law to be uncon- stitutional. Thus was Mr. Morris' course and judgment, both in the Legislature and the office of Attorney, vindicated.

The great personal triumph of this opinion lifted him higher than ever in public esteem, and in the fall of 1855 he was elected Judge of the County Court, and upon this bench he sat for the full term of four years. It was within his power to have ac- cepted a renomination, but he declined it, and became a candi- date for the District Attorneyship, a position much more to the liking of his active and energetic disposition. His failure to re- ceive the nomination his friends attributed to political trickery, and he ran upon an independent ticket. Disaster overtook the Democratic party in this campaign, and John Winslow, a Re- publicsn, was elected. At the expiration of the term of Mr. Winslow, during which Mr. Morris had sedulously devoted himself to a large and growing practice, our subject was elected District Attorney. This was in 1862; he was re-elected in 1865, and again in 1868, having served in this most important office three terms, or nine years.

The fact that Judge Morris was elected three times is sufficient to show the confidence reposed in him by the voters of Brooklyn, and we might, with justice, point to that fact alone as a record of honor. But Judge Morris' course as District Attorney was marked by the greatest energy, the most rigid enforcement of the laws, and the most relentless pursuit of criminals.

Before his assumption of the duties of the office, the "Diamond Murder" had occurred. Sigismund Fellner, who had come to this country in 1861, because of domestic difficulties at home in Germany, brought with him a large amount of diamonds. Arriving in New York, he made the acquaintance of a country- man named Ratzky. A strong intimacy growing up between them, they came to Brooklyn to reside together. Not long after this, the body of Fellner was found floating off the New Jersey shore near Keyport. Ratzky was at once arrested upon sus- picion, but had not been brought to trial when Judge Morris

became District Attorney. The new incumbent at once took up this work. A month was spent in the preparation of the case. The difficulty of this task will be appreciated when it is known that two years had elapsed since the commission of the crime, and much of the evidence had been scattered. Edwin James, the distinguished English advocate, had then but lately come to this country, and was in the full bloom of his deserved reputa- tion as an able lawyer; he, with the late ex-Judge Stuart, were engaged for the defense. But notwithstanding their brilliant efforts for their client, so complete was the chain of evidence produced by the prosecution, that Ratzky was convicted of murder in the first degree. So searching had been the examina- tion into the case, so complete and minute, that even the clothes of Fellner were found after an expiration of two years, and brought into court.

In the case of Yates, who had been arrested for the murder of Curran, the policeman, this quality of sleuth-hound persistency and tireless energy was even more manifest. This case was taken to the Court of Appeals, where a new trial was ordered. Upon the second trial, Yates was convicted of murder in the second degree.

Probably no case in which Judge Morris acted as prosecutor, up to the time of the Tilton-Beecher case, ever excited greater attention than the " Otero Murder Case." And this because of the mystery which nt first surrounded the deed. Otero was a wealthy Cuban, who had come to this country upon business. During his stay in New York, he was enticed by two Spaniards, Gonzales and Salvador, whose acquaintance he had made, to Brooklyn, and was murdered by them in the City Park. The two men were convicted. The General Term of the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, but Judge Morris, carrying the case to the Court of Appeals, obtained a reversal of the decision of the Supreme Court, and the murderers were executed. (See "Important Trials.")

Of other cases which will be well remembered, was the Skid- more Murder, or "Air-Gun Murder," as it was better known. Skidmore, pending the trial, cheated the gallows by committing suicide in his cell.

On the 31st day of December, 1872, Mr. Morris yielded up the District Attorneyship, which he had held for nearly nine years, and has since devoted himself exclusively to his large practice, both criminal and civil. Among the more recent cases in which Judge Morris has won much credit may be mentioned the defense of Fanny Hyde, and the prosecution of a large number of the claims of those who suffered from the disaster to the Staten Island ferry-boat Westfield.

There is something remarkable in his fidelity to his clients; no circumstance that tends to their advantage is ever over- looked, and he perfectly understands when and how to seize the vantage ground of the contest. Few lawyers go to the bar with their cases better prepared for trial than Judge Morris; and he seldom speaks in court without being listened to with profound attention. Some of his arguments and addresses to courts and juries which have been published, will always be read by the legal student and by lay readers with pleasure and profit.

Socially, Judge Morris is one who surrounds himself with friends. Somewhat reserved and reticent in his intercourse with strangers, his friendships are of slow growth, but when grown, strong, healthy and wholesome, lasting with life, and not over- thrown by every summer breeze that blows from the west. His friendship once gained, his confidence once won, and there is revealed a warm heart, beating with generous impulses, and & spirit accommodating, agreeable, and sacrificing.

Twice married, he has made for himself a happy home, and it is at his own fireside, perhaps, after all, that he is seen at the best advantage. The further fame and reputation he has won by his participation in the great Tilton-Beecher case will be best determined when the passions and prejudices it has engendered have had time to cool.

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.

The civil, political, professional and ecclesiastical history, and commercial and industrial record of the county of Kings and the city of Brooklyn, N. Y., from 1683 to 1884, Volume II, Part 147

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909, ed Publication date: 1884 Publisher: New York, W. W. Munsell & Co Number of Pages: 1345

Author: Stiles, Henry Reed, 1832-1909, ed
Publication date: 1884
Publisher: New York, W. W. Munsell & Co
Number of Pages: 1345