USA > Pennsylvania > The twentieth century bench and bar of Pennsylvania, volume II > Part 19
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 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87
236
THE BENCH AND BAR OF PENNSYLVANIA
ard Burke, January 21, 1867; John C. Mer- rill, January 21, 1867; William H. Deshler, August 20, 1867; J. Winslow Wood, August 26, 1867; William Hackett, Jr., August 26, 1867; F. A. R. Baldwin, August 27, 1867; Henry W. Scott, April 29, 1867 ; H. C. Huns- berger, August 20, 1868; Evan Holben, Janu- ary 18, 1869 ; David Roper, January 29, 1869; William Mutehler, June 23, 1869; Frank Recder, March, 1869; Abraham B. Howell, February 2, 1870; George V. Wallace, May 5, 1871; Franeis H. Lehr, August 29, 1871 ; Rob- ert E. James, November 20, 1872; F. W. Ed- gar, September 12, 1874; C. Albert Sandt, August 31, 1875; Pennel C. Evans, Feb. 16, 1876; H. T. Buckley, February 26, 1876; Simon P. Chase, April 18, 1876; Quintus F. Ehler, September 4, 1876; David W. Nevin, June 14, 1877; William C. Shipman, October 9, 1877; Samuel S. Lesher, October 24, 1877; James W. Wilson, October 17, 1877; George W. Geiser, February 22, 1878; Morris Kirk- patrick, June 16, 1879; Mathew H. Jones, Jr., June 16, 1879; William Fackenthall, August 16, 1879; Luther M. Fine, October 20, 1879 ; T. F. Emmens, - 1880; Willis S. Hetrich, Mareh 15, 1880; Henry S. Cavanaugh, August 23, 1880; Edward J. Fox, Jr., December 13, 1880; George F. P. Young, December 21, 1880; Russel C. Stewart, Janu- ary 3, 1881 ; James S. Downs, April 11, 1881; Henry J. Steel, May 16, 1881; Charles F. Walter, May 2, 1882; Herbert M. Hagerman, October 10, 1882; Aaron Goldsmith, Septem- ber 3, 1883.
Present practicing members of North- ampton bar as Oliver H. Meyers, George W. Stout, William W. Sehuyler, Abraham S. Kneeht, Calvin G. Beitel, William Beidel- man, William E. Doster, William C. Edel- man, William S. Kirkpatrick, Henry W. Seott, Frank Reeder, Abraham B. Howell, George V. Wallace, Francis H. Lehr, Robert E. James, Francis W. Edgar, Pennel C. Ev- ans, Quintus F. Eller, David W. Nevin, Wil- liam C. Shipman, James W. Wilson, George
W. Geiser, George W. Mackey, M. IIale Jones Jr., William Fackenthall, Henry S. Cava- naugh, J. Davis Brodhead, Edward J. Fox, Jr., George F. P. Young, Russell C. Stewart, Henry J. Steele, Aaron Goldsmith, Fred Green, George L. Xander, William C. Loos, James J. Cope, A. Carson Labarre, James T. Woodring, Orrin Serfass, Henry D. Maxwell, John D. Hoffman, Irwin S. Uhler, Henry C. Cope, Elmer C. Reyer, Thomas D. Danner, George R. Booth, Calvin A. Loos, Osear J. Mutchler, James W. Fox, Benjamin F. Me- Atee, Russell N. Koplin, William McKeen, Robert S. Taylor, Clarence Beek, Parke H. Davis, Calvin F. Smith, Joseph H. Stofflet, Howard S. Hess, David M. Bachman, Rob- ert A. Stofflet, Edward C. Clifton, Harry D. Kutz, Robert A. Stotz, Robert A. Hamilton, Herbert Hagerman.
District attorneys elceted under act of May, 1850: 1850, Henry M. Mutchler; 1853, Peter Baldy ; 1856, Oliver H. Meyers; 1859, William W. Sehuyler; 1862, William W. Sehuyler; 1865, Calvin G. Beitel; 1868, James M. Porter, Jr .; 1871, William Beidelman; 1874, John C. Merrill: 1877, Robert E. James; 1880, Cassius M. Anstett; 1883, George W. Geiser; 1886, Russel C. Stewart; 1889, J. Davis Brodhead; 1892, A. C. Labar- re; 1895, James W. Fox; 1898, James Wood- ring; 1901, J. Parke Davis.
List of judges that occupied the bench : Jacob Rush, from 1790 to 1806; John Spayd, 1806 to 1809; Robert Porter, 1809 to 1831; Garrick Mallery, 1831 to 1836; John Banks, 1836 to 1847; J. Pringley Jones, 1847 to 1852; Washington McCartney, 1852 to 1856; Henry D. Maxwell, 1856 to 1858; John L. Findley, 1858 to 1862; Henry D. Maxwell, 1862 to 1863; John W. Maynard, 1863 to 1868; J. Pringle Jones, 1868 to 1869; A. Brown Longacker, 1869 to 1874; W. S. Kirk- patrick, 1874 to 1875; O. H. Myers, 1875 to 1885; W. W. Schuyler, 1885 to present time; Howard J. Reeder, ad. law judge; Henry W. Scott, ad. law judge, took his seat 1895.
DAUPHIN COUNTY
737
DAUPHIN COUNTY
BY WILLIAM M. HARGEST
FORMATION OF THE COUNTY.
Dauphin county was originally a part of Lancaster county. The first discussion looking to a division of Lancaster county began about the commencement of the Revolution, but no active measures to ef- fect the division were taken until the year 1782. In the session of the legislature of that year petitions, praying for the forma- tion of a new county, were presented, and at the next session a remonstrance against it, prepared by Jasper Yeates, afterwards a judge of the Supreme Court, was presented.
Middletown, then a town of some impor- tance, was strongly urged by its inhabitants as the place for the county seat; and the fight for the county seat became so acri- monious as to threaten the defeat of the project. The new county was formed, how- ever, by the act of March 4, 1785, which fixed the county seat at Harris' Ferry, then a village of about one hundred houses. The selection of Harris' Ferry as the county seat was perhaps accomplished by John Harris, now known as the founder of Har- risburg, and after whom it is named. IIe gave a bond to the state in the sum of £5,000, conditioned that he lay out two hundred lots of a quarter of an acre each; to deed such land as the commission to be appointed under the act should lay out, in streets and alleys to the public, and also one acre for a jail and courthouse. This bond is recorded in Philadelphia, in Com- mission Book No. 1, page 166. The bound- aries of the new county included a large part of what is now Lebanon county.
As soon as the new county was erected there arose violent opposition to Harris' Ferry as the county seat, because it was on the edge instead of in the center of the county. Numerous remonstrances from townships of what is now Lebanon county were sent to the legislature, and the oppo- sition became so great that the county com- missioners for a time refused to levy a tax for the purpose of erecting a courthouse and prison. The location of the state capitol at Harrisburg seemed, however, to stifle the opposition.
The enthusiasm growing out of the aid given by France to the colonies prompted the name "Dauphin" for the new county, after the oldest son of the King of France, and the same enthusiasm almost brought about the naming of the county seat Louis- burg, after the King of France. Whether it should be called Louisburg or Harrisburg led to much discussion. The executive coun- cil styled it "Louisburgh" in the commis- sion of the justices of the town. There ap- pears to have been some hostility between Chief Justice Thomas Mckean and John Harris, and the chief justice strongly urged the French name. The first precept for holding the court here directed the court to be held at "Louisburgh."
The court held August 3, 1786, made this minute: "The name of this county town or seat of the courts is altered from Harris- burg to Louisburgh, in consequence of Su- preme Executive Council of the common- wealth so styling it in the commissions of the justices of said town." But John Har- ris was obstinate; he would exeeute no
47
738
THE BENCH AND BAR OF PENNSYLVANIA
deeds in any other name than Harrisburg. Finally he prevailed, and the matter was settled by the town being erected into the borough of Harrisburg.
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF EARLY COURTS.
During the early history of the province, the territory now comprising Dauphin county was under the jurisdiction of Ches- ter county courts. In 1729 Lancaster county, including the present territory of Dauphin, was erccted and jurisdiction over it was transferred to the courts of the new county. With the formation of Dauphin county in 1785, new courts of Quarter Scs- sions and Common Pleas were erected.
In 1790 the state was divided into five districts or circuits, and the counties of Dauphin, Lancaster and York composed the Second circuit. This Circuit Court consist- ed of a president judge and not less than three or more than five associate judges. In 1806 ten circuits were created, and Dau- phin, Lancaster and York counties consti- tuted the Second circuit. The Circuit Courts continued until 1834, when they werc abolished by a general and compre- hensive act relative to the organization of all courts, and the cases then pending were restored to the courts of the counties from which they were removed.
Dauphin county once had a District Court for the trial of civil causes where the amount involved was more than three hundred dollars. By an act of assembly of 1822 it was attached to the Lancaster dis- trict, where such court had been created in 1820. This court expired by limitation in the act creating it; March 27, 1828, and on April 14, 1829, a law was passed reciting that the citizens of Dauphin county were not desirous of continuing a District Court and confirming its discontinuance. All causes were removed to the Common Pleas,
but any party to a suit involving more than $500 might remove it to the Circuit Court.
From 1834 to 1895 Dauphin and Lebanon counties were one district, the Twelfth, and . in 1895 Dauphin and Lebanon were each created separate judicial districts, Dauphin remaining the Twelfth district.
THE EARLY COUNTY COURTS.
The first court of Common Pleas for the county was held on the third Tuesday of May (17th), 1785, and was composed of Timothy Green as president, and Samuel Jones and Jonathan McClure, justices. These men were justices of the peace, an:l were not learned in the law.
Alexander Graydon was the first prothon- otary. Stephen Chambers, from Lancaster county, was admitted on his own motion, and having taken the oath he moved the ad- mission of ten others, all of whom were non-residents of Dauphin county. There were two other admissions, making a bar of thirteen members on the first day of organ- ization of the court of Dauphin county.
The court of Quarter Sessions was organ- ized the same day of the organization of the Common Pleas. The sheriff of Lancaster county, who for the time being acted as sheriff of the new county, returned the pre- cept for the empanclling of the jury.
THE EARLY BUSINESS OF THE COURT.
The first entry in the Common Pleas, No. 1, May term, 1785, was John Bickle vs. Nicolas 'Gebhart, in which Peter Hoofnagle appeared for the defendant and confessed judgment against him, upon which a fieri facias was issued the same day. There was one other entry on the opening day.
Fourteen entries in the appearance docket, all being confessions of judgments, in all of which executions were issued, and in two capiases ad satisfaciendum, constituted the business of the first term of the Common Pleas.
739
DAUPHIN COUNTY
Curiosity as to the nature of the first case tried and when it was tried, can not be grat- ificd, because the record can not be found. In the first appearance dockets the record ends with "Rule for Trial," and the balance of the record was kept in a trial docket and in the court minutes the first books of which, after diligent search, were not found.
The first case which appears to have been decided by the Supreme Court from Dau- phin county was Bradley vs. Bradley, an ejectment, decided at January term, 1792, reported in 4th Dallas, 112.
In the Quarter Sessions, the record is not quite so meager. James Cowden was made foreman of the first Grand Jury of twenty members. The first case docketed is that against George Foulke, "Larceny in Stcal- ing a Roan Mare." The defendant did not appear, and his bail was forfeited.
The first trial in the Quarter Sessions was Respublica vs. William Courtney, Jessie Rowland aud Janes Lackey, in the August term, 1785 (August 18th), for the larceny of a blanket. Courtney and Lackey pleaded guilty, and Rowland was tried and acquit- ted. The sentence upon Courtney and Lack- ey was "that they be whipped this 18th day of August instant, between the hours of four and six in the afternoon with fifteen lashes cach, that each of them pay a finc of fifteen shillings, make restitution of the goods stolen, pay the costs of prosecution and stand committed until this judgment be complied with." The sentence quoted shows with what particularity and exactness the first prothonotary and clerk of the Quarter Sessions kept his record.
The first charge and trial for murder was of one Susannah Spces, in March term, 1798, which resulted in an acquittal. There was a trial and conviction of "blasphemy" ou the 11th of September, 1799, and at the June sessions, 1794, George Fisher, Esquire, a member of the bar was charged with, pleaded guilty to, and was sentenced to a
fine of three pounds and costs for assault and battery. So far as the records show the members of the bar have kept the peace ever since.
At the first Quarter Sessions Court a jury was appointed to view a road from Harris- burg to Middletown.
One of the curious things in the early Quarter Sessions was the "Tippling House" cases. Bills of indictment for keeping a "tippling house" were almost as numerous down to 1795 as assault and battery cases, and the docket of November sessions, 1794, shows five cases of "tippling house" out of twelve cases on the docket; but there seems never to have been a conviction. In all the cases the bills were either returned "Igno- ramus" or the attorney general entered a nolle prosequi.
WHERE THE EARLY COURTS WERE HELD.
.
The first courts were held in a log house near what is now known as Paxton street, in the lower part of the city of Harrisburg; and this house stood until about the year 1840.
Pursuant to the agreement expressed in his bond given to the Commonwealth, John Harris dceded, July 6, 1785, to the persons authorized by the act of Assembly to hold the title, the ground upon which the pres- ent courthouse and jail stand. There was an old log jail on the site of the present structure, in which the courts were once held. Early courts were also held in an old log house, which formerly stood on the lot now occupied by the Central Hotel, No. 311 Market street.
For about seven years, from 1792 to 1799, the first courthouse was in process of eree- tion. The first jail was crected about 1790 and had a stone wall around it, though not of the same size as the present wall.
When the capitol was moved from Lan- caster to Harrisburg the courthouse was
.
₡40
THE BENCHI AND BAR OF PENNSYLVANIA
used as a place of meeting for the legisla- ture and continued in that use until the eon- pletion of the eapitol in 1822.
During the first period, when the legis- lature used the courthouse, the courts were held in the building on the site where the Hotel Royal now stands, No. 217 Market street, opposite the present courthouse, and in the latter part of the period the courts were held in briek buildings erected by the county commissioners at the northwest eor- ner of Walnut street and Court avenue, on the site of the present building of the Penn- sylvania Telephone company.
The old courthouse, a picture of which is printed in Egle's History of Dauphin County, was demolished to make room for the present structure, which was erected in 1860. The eupola which adorned the old house is still standing in a good state of preservation in the Catholic grounds, along the hillside of Derry street.
A rather uncomplimentary squib was written by "a lawyer who could not attend the Dauphin County Court," to his friend, a lawyer at Harrisburg, which was first published in the Freeman's Journal for Mareh 4, 1789, and sinee republished in other places, as follows :
At Dauphin Court, tho' fond of sport, The prospect is so barren, I can't attend, my dearest friend,
Where there's more crow than earrion.
There's Wilkes and Andre, John and Joe, And Peter, too, so pliant ; If you but flinch, and stir an ineh, They're sure to nab your client.
There's Father Smith, and Brother Yeates, And little Tom and Stephen,
When one sits down, the other prates, And so they both are even.
With hooks and crooks and musty books, Whilst candles wate in sockets,
The court perplex and juries vex, And piek their clients' poekets.
When court is out, away they scout, Sworn enemies to quiet,
Drink wine at Crabs, kiss dirty drabs, And spend the night in riot.
LEADING CASES.
By reason of the exclusive jurisdiction mentioned the Dauphin County Court has been exceptional in its influenee upon the judicial history of the state, and has de- cided many leading cases.
The ease of Chambers vs. Turry, 1 Yeates, 167, was deeided here, which first settled the question that the right to the soil of a highway continues in the owner subject only to the right of way in the publie.
The case of the Commonwealth vs. The Erie Railway Company, known as one of the "tonnage" tax cases, 1 Pearson, 345, was taken to the Supreme Court; but the then attorney general, W. M. Meredith, declined to argue it, considering that it was rightly decided. The same question was subse- quently raised in the ease of Commonwealth vs. Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co., which was deeided in the same way by the Dau- phin County Court, and reversed by, the Su- preme Court of the state, but the ease was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, which reversed the State Supreme Court and affirmed the Dauphin County Court. (15 Wallace, 232.)
The famous Credit Mobilier ease, which had its inception in legislation enaeted in Congress and in which intricate finaneial questions were involved, began in Dauphin county.
The "Riot Bribery" cases, which were fa- mous, both because of the standing and eminence of counsel engaged and the public character of the offences, and which re- sulted in senteneing some prominent men to jail until pardoned, were tried here. Reel
741
DAUPHIN COUNTY
vs. Elder, 62 Pa., 308, deeiding that where a husband leaves the domieile of himself and wife and goes to another state antl is di- voreed, the wife does not lose her dower in- terest in his after-aequired property, is one of the leading eases arising here.
These are a few of the many leading eases which have given prominenee to the learn- ing and ability of the court of Common Pleas of Dauphin eounty.
THE BENCH.
The bench of Dauphin eounty has been for many years famous. It has had, eom- paratively speaking, few judges, and those few were able jurists, learned in the law. From 1791 to the adoption of the constitu- tion of 1873 the court consisted of two associate judges, not learned in the law, who sat with a president who was a lawyer. Of the associate judges it is not the purpose of this sketeh to treat. There have been but two president judges sinee 1849.
A peculiar feature of the judicial history of this eounty is that, notwithstanding the many great lawyers at the bar, lawyers who possessed every attainment that goes to make good jurists, lawyers well and favor- ably known throughout the state, and even beyond its borders, yet until the appoint- ment of the late President Judge Simon- ton the beneh of Dauphin county was not oeeupied by any of the members of its own bar.
The beneh of this eounty became famous, not only because of the learning of its mem- bers, but beeause the eases brought before it were important and far reaching. This was so because Harrisburg, being the capital the Dauphin County Court was given ex- elusive jurisdiction in many elasses of eases in which the commonwealth was a party. So that many important questions of taxa- tion of corporations, of the user and mis- user of corporate franchises, of the acts and powers of publie officials were first deeided
by this court, and these various decisions involved the constitutionality of many acts of assembly.
Later this court was given exclusive ju- risdietion of all questions arising upon the certificates of papers filed nominating ean- didates for state offieers, which were re- quired to be filed in the office of the secre- tary of state; and many important ques- tions were decided in these eases. It is a great tribute to the fairness and ability of the court that these decisions have most gen -. erally been acquiesced in and approved by publie opinion.
All of these matters brought before the Dauphin County Court eminent counsel from all parts of the state.
DAUPHIN COUNTY JUDICIARY.
In this sketeh only judges learned in the law, with the exeeption of the first one, are mentioned.
JUDGES.
Timothy Green, commissioned April 2, 1785.
William Augustus Atlee, commissioned August 17, 1795.
John Joseph Henry, commissioned Deeem- ber 16, 1793.
Walter Franklin, commissioned January 18, 1811.
Amos Ellmaker, commissioned July 3, 1815.
David Seott, commissioned December 21, 1816.
Samuel D. Franks, commissioned July 29, 1818.
Calvin Blythe, commissioned February 1, 1830.
James M. Porter, commissioned July 14, 1839.
Anson V. Parsons, commissioned July 16, 1840.
Nathaniel B. Eldred, commissioned Mareh 30, 1843.
/42
THE BENCH AND BAR OF PENNSYLVANIA
John J. Pearson, commissioned April 7, 1849.
Robert M. Henderson, commissioned De- cember 3, 1874.
John W. Simonton, commissioned Decem- ber 8, 1881.
John B. McPherson, commissioned Feb- ruary 8, 1882.
John H. Weiss, commissioned Deecmber 9, 1899.
Michael W. Jacobs, commissioned March 11, 1903.
Timothy Green was born about 1733 in Hanover township, then Lancaster, now Dauphin county, Pennsylvania. He died February 12, 1812. The mention of Judge Green here is made because he was the first judge, being the oldest justice of the peace in commission. When Dauphin county or- ganized he presided at its first courts, and continued in that office until after the adop- tion of the constitution of 1790, which re- quired the presiding judge to be "learned in the law." Of Judge Green's official acts there is not much of note to mention, nor is there any evidence that he was unsatis- factory. He was of military bearing and training, having been in the French and Indian wars, the Bouquet expedition, where he was captain, and the Rebellion, where he was colonel. When he retired from the bench he returned to his farm at the mouth of the Stony creek, ncar Dauphin, where he had erceted a mill, and lived there until his death.
William Augustus Atlee, the first judge learned in the law in the county, was born at Philadelphia, Pa., July 1, 1735, and moved to Lancaster at an early age. He read law with Edward Shippen, Esq., and was ad- mitted to the bar August 3, 1758. His rise was rapid, and he soon acquired a large practice and a leading position at the bar. He was chief burgess of Laneaster from April 15, 1770, to 1774. He was an associate judge of the Supreme Court with
Chief Justice Thomas Mckean from August 16, 1777, and was reappointed August 9, 1784. On August 17, 1791, he was appoint- ed president judge of the district, and filled the position until his death, September 9, 1793. Judge Atlee was a lawyer of ability, a good judge, whose service in this district was satisfactory and his term too short. As a man he was imbued with stanch integrity and a high sense of right. His sketch at large will appear in the Lancaster county contribution.
John Joseph Henry, the second judge of legal training in this county, was born No- vember 4, 1758, at Lancaster, Pa. He was in early years apprenticed to a gunsmith, but eagerly sought after military glory. In 1775 he enlisted in the eampaign against Quebec, and he suffered all the hardships of war, including disease; though he re-en- tered the army, he was compelled, by trouble with his leg, to leave military service for- ever, and he was for two years a sufferer with it, and always thereafter lame. He beeame a clerk in the office of the prothono- tary of Lancaster county, where he rc- mained for four years; and during that time, by devotion to duty by day and ap- plication to study by night, he acquired an education which had heretofore. been much neglected. At the end of his clerkship he began the study of law in the office of Stephen Chambers, at Lancaster, afterwards the first member of the Dauphin county bar. He was admitted to the bar of this county on the day of organization of the court in 1785, and began immediately to acquire a large practice, to which he devoted himself until December 16, 1793, when he was ap- pointed judge of the district. Soon after his promotion to the bench he was attacked by gout, to which he gave little attention until the disease got beyond his control.
Though possessed of an active mind and a buoyant spirit and a good knowledge of the law, yet disease rapidly advanced and
743
DAUPHIN COUNTY
incapacitated him from the performance of his duties. The business of the court conse- quently was neglected, and petitions were presented to the legislature from several counties asking for his removal. Nothing was alleged against him but absence and failure to attend to his official duties, and the legislature acquitted him. He contin- ued to hold office for two years thereafter, and, illness and debility increasing, he re- signed about at the close of the year 1810.
He was a man of integrity. His decisions were always fair and his ability recognized, but his inability to perform his duties dur- ing his sickness brought him many enemies. He died in about four months after he left the bench, April 15, 1810, at Lancaster, Pa.
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.