The twentieth century bench and bar of Pennsylvania, volume II, Part 62

Author:
Publication date: 1903
Publisher: Chicago, H. C. Cooper, jr., bro. & co.
Number of Pages: 1180

USA > Pennsylvania > The twentieth century bench and bar of Pennsylvania, volume II > Part 62

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).

Ephriam Banks was the auditor general of the state in 1851, and an associate judge of the court of common pleas of Mifflin coun- ty. He was a man of great decision of char- aeter and of great dignity and worth. On one occasion, on the bench in the trial of a case, he differed from the president judge in his views, and, carrying his associate with him, he charged the jury over the head of his chief.

Thaddeus Banks was long conspicuous at this bar and, during his very active career, was prominent in the most noteworthy liti- gation. Ile was a man of fine social quali- ties, and of a warm and generous heart. He was the democratic candidate for judge against Dean and Taylor in 1871, but was defeated.

John Williamson lived to be an octoge- narian. Though he lived in Huntingdon, it was his habit for many years to visit this court and participate in the trial of cases- mostly in the quarter sessions. His argu- ments to the jury furnished the most delight- ful entertainment to his hearers. He was a nervous speaker, but as he progressed he was fluent and accurate. Ile abounded in both humor and pathos, and won for himself a popularity that long survived his retirement from our midst.

M. D. Magehan, familiarly known as "Michael Dan," with his contemporary, Michael Hasson, came to us from the Cam- bria bar. The wit and fancy of those well known and excellent Irish gentlemen were the admiration of many indulgent friends in their day, and form the effervescent sparkle of many a story which survives to this hour.

1026

THE BENCH AND BAR OF PENNSYLVANIA

John Adams Blodget was born in Phila- delphia on the 28th of December, 1797. He was a grandson of Samuel Blodget, a distinguished man of New Hampshire, who was born in New Hampshire in 1720 and died in 1807. On the maternal side, he was the grandson of Rev. William Smith, D.D., of Philadelphia, who was one of the most dis- tinguished divines and orators of the Revo- lutionary period. He was the son of Samuel Blodget, an enterprising merchant and busi- ness man, and who was also one of the pro- prietors and founders of Washington, D. C.

The subject of this sketeh was therefore the descendent of good stoek and distin- guished parentage. He received a complete education and with a fine memory and a erit- ical mind, the well applied labors of his youth furnished him with ample educational re- sources throughout his life. After arriving at the proper age, he seleeted the profession of the law, and pursued his studies in the office of James M. Russell, and was admitted to the bar about the year 1822, in Bedford county. He soon stood in the front ranks of his professional brethren, and for, many years was one of the most active and leading lawyers at that bar. Ile represented his county in the state legislature for two or three terms: but having little taste for poli- ties. he returned to the active duties of his profession, which he pursued interruptedly, until within a few years before his death, when the advaneing infirmities of age pre- cluded the regular and continued employ- ment of his earlier professional activity. The last few years of his life were spent in Hol- lidaysburg, during which time and at the time of his death he resided with his son-in- law, Samuel Calvin.

In addition to Mr. Blodget's legal know- ledge and attainments, he was a fine literary seholar. His tastes and familiarity with the English elassies were well known to his friends, and gave evidence of his habits of study and research with the favorite authors

of his day. Ile possessed a fine faney, had a keen appreciation of the witty and humor- ous, and loved descriptive, emotional or sa- tirical poetry with artistic ardor. Many a well-measured verse of facetious couplet of his own showed his own imaginative powers or noted the amusing side of some passing event. His mamier was frank, genial and cordial. He was a man of very easy and courteous bearing. His was a natural-not a cultivated politeness. No one ever knew him to be impolite, and even in his last illness there was not forgotten the good breeding and kind courtesy of his earlier and palmy days. "True politeness springs from the heart," and so he was always a man of warm feelings, and was remarkably free from all prejudice or hatred-never descending be- low the level of a generous and charitable sentiment towards all men.

Mr. Blodget died March 5, 1870.

At a meeting of the bar held at the court house Mareh 7, 1870, in relation to the death of John A. Blodget, late member of the Blair county bar, on a motion Colonel R. A. Me- Murtrie was ealled to the ehair, and A. S. Landis, Esq., was appointed secretary. After appropriate remarks by the chairman and Thaddeus Banks, Esq., in relation to the deceased, the chairman submitted the fol- lowing preamble and resolutions which were adopted :

"Whereas, God, in his inserutible wisdom and mysterious doings, has removed from our midst our late fellow eitizen, John A. Blodget, whose life was extended beyond the period allotted by the Psalmist to man. Therefore, be it

Resolved, that in the death of John A. Blodget, Esq., the bar has lost an able men- ber. a man of much more than ordinary brillianey of genius, and distinguished for his professional courtesy.

Resolved, that the varied and extensive literary attainments of our departed friend. his kind, genial and generous nature and his

JOHN ADAMS BLODGET.

1027

BLAIR COUNTY

strong and warm sympathies for suffering humanity, made him many warm friends during a long and eventful life.

Resolved, that we hereby tender to the family of our departed friend our profound sympathy in their bereavement."

On a motion Thaddeus Banks, John Cress- well, Jr., A. S. Landis and S. S. Blair, Esqs., were appointed a committee to convey a copy of the resolutions to the family of the de- ceased.

Not many years after the organization of the county, there came from Bedford, David H. Hofius. His father was a German phy- sieian, and coming to this country as a young man, he married, and David was born and educated here, graduated at Franklin and Marshall College. He was, during his short life, for he died in 1859, concerned in nearly all the important litigation of his time. His erect and well apparelled form gave him an imposing appearance. He was a bachelor. but most loyally recognized the claims of society. which then was conspicuous for its refinement and amenities. He was the idol of the people and it was common to hear him extolled as the "model lawyer." The moment of his passing came early in his ca- reer, and as blindness became from day to day more imminent upon the unhappy man, the writer willingly helped him in his last work till the end came. It was my sad task to pen the sketch which told of his virtues and his frailties, to close his affairs, and place the stone that now marks his resting place.

In closing these reminiscences of the first lawyers, I cannot omit mention of George A. Coffey, though he was not one of the orig- inal members. He came from the ministry to the bar about 1850. Ile was then in the full possession of developed mental power and learning. He was gifted, unique and brilliant. He was a scholar, an orator, a law- ver, though he had not the time to become a great lawyer. He was cultured, social and

admired. His conversational powers were a delight to all who knew him and won him a welcome everywhere. This faculty, and it was the chief of his gifts, never seemed to desert him. Ilis cordial reception of the writer at his bedside, not many days before his death, and his pleasant, cheerful conver- sation though under the sad circumstances of a fatal illness, seemed to show it would abide till the end. He died in Philadelphia, whith- er he went in 1861 to accept the appointment of United States district attorney from Pres- ident Lincoln.

Under the constitution of that date, lay- men were appointed, afterwards elected, as- sociate judges. They sat with the president judge and formed an important adjunct of the court. The first of this class of judges were George R. McFarlane and Daniel McConnell. The latter was a man of strong mind and great practical intelligence and en- joyed the confidence of all who knew him. Judge McFarlane was then, and had been for years, a well-known man. He was the pro- prietor of a foundry and machine works in this town, and evinced great energy and up- rightness in his business. He was engaged in many schemes of social reform and en- joyed a notoriety through all the neighbor- ing counties. He was greatly loved by many. and respected by all who knew him. His untimely death-the result of an accident in his foundry in 1852-was deeply mourned by the entire community, and inflicted upon it a loss felt for many years.

In all the county has had nineteen asso- ciate judges. The constitution of 1873 dis- pensed with them by making this county a single judicial district.

Davis Brooke succeeded Judge McConnell in January, 1848. Judge Brooke was a man of fine personal appearance and great dig- nity. Ilis snow white hair was in pleasing contrast with his florid complexion. The conventional black dress of that day. ad- mirably supplemented those evidences of his

1028

THE BENCH AND BAR OF PENNSYLVANIA

advanced age, and harmoniously accom- panied the striking appearance of his chief, Judge Black.

In the second year of Judge Brooke's term there occurred a most interesting judicial incident. It served to demonstrate the exist- enee then of a cerebral or psyehieal influ- ence as hypnotism is now.

There came to the county seat one day a man of the name of Henry Loomis, and his wife, Submit C. Loomis. They advertised to give lectures on mesmerism, to be illustrated and manifested by exhibitions of its influ- enee upon a susceptible subjeet. This sub- jeet was their daughter, Martha. Whilst these exhibitions were being nightly given with great sueeess, one C. J. Sykes appeared upon the scene and employed Mr. Banks and Mr. Cresswell to take out, upon the allow- ance of Judge Brooke, a writ of habeas eor- pus, to take and restore to him his wife, Martha, who was 21 years of age, and who, by her father and mother, was deprived of her liberty. He further alleged that she was, under the spell of their mesmerie influence, deprived of her free will, her affeetions di- verted from the relator, her husband, her health, physically and mentally, being sapped, and she herself was being sacrificed to the greed of her parents, who could not entertain their audiences without her.

To this the respondents replied that Martha was married to Sykes in New York, but im- mediately thereafter he began to abuse her and treated her with great eruelty, so that she fled to her parents for protection, and desired to remain with them.

The relator denied the allegations, alleging imercenary motives on the part of the Loom- ises and praying to be allowed the eom- panionship of his wife. Mr. Calvin and M. Hofius represented the parents, and during two or three days' evidence was taken be- fore Jndge Brooke. Great interest was man- ifested by the public, not only whether there was such a thing as mesmerism, but as to

what would be done with Martha. The court- house was packed with people, and public opinion and sympathy were sharply divided. Nearly a day was consumed in the argument of counsel, and during the entire progress of the case not a word had been uttered by the judge, and speculation was rife as to when he would be prepared to decide the case. As soon as the last word was spoken by counsel, the judge immediately rose to his feet, and, bowing with great dignity and greater brevity, said, "Let Martha be dis- charged." The house instantly rang with cheers, and amid the wildest excitement Martha and her parents were fairly carried from the court room, while the wifeless Sykes was left to pursue his solitary way. It is remarkable that the record shows no final disposition of this ease, and the writer recalls it only from memory.

The business of the court grew slowly, though thirty-four suits were brought to the first term. The first suit brought was that of Joseph and Daniel HToller vs. Thomas Crissman. "Debt." No. 11, July Term, 1846; but there is no record of any judgment.

The first record of a case tried was that of Matthew Miller vs. Henry Burt, assumpsit, with a verdiet October 20, 1846, for plaintiff of $139.45.

The first record of an action of ejeetment was that of James Stevens vs. J. Helfmitter. in which there was on the 20th of October, 1846, a verdict for plaintiff.

During that same week tive cases were tried, and one non-suit entered after the jury was sworn. Names of counsel are not given.

The first divorce suit was brought by Mary Armstrong against her erring and delinquent husband, JJohn. Mr. Coffey conducted the case and obtained for Mary the coveted decree.

The first execution was issued by James Murty vs. John Dougherty to obtain $23.75 and costs. The sheriff does not seem to have ever returned his writ.

A. S. LANDIS.

1029

BLAIR COUNTY

The first case in which was made a motion for a new trial was in Bride & McKeehan vs. Zechariah G. Brown. No. 23, August term, 1843, brought from Huntingdon county. The verdict was for plaintiffs for $663.53, and Mr. Brown's dissatisfaction is expressed by his motion for a new trial. JJudge Black was possibly no more favorable to re-trials than modern judges, and the motion was refused. Mr. Brown was in his day a well-known citi- zen and litigant.

The first auditor appointed was Titian .J. Coffey, on the 2d of January, 1847. This method of adjudicating many questions arising in the settlement of estates and dis- tribution of moneys has grown in favor and is employed with frequency and with con- venience to the court and bar to this time.

In the criminal department of the court there have been interesting cases, which, at the time of their disposition, elicited great professional as well as public attention. I recall some of them.

In June, 1855, a negro slave ran away from his master in Virginia, Mr. James Parsons. He reached this town on his way to Canada, but was closely followed by Parsons. As the negro entered a car early one morning to cross the mountain on the Old Portage railroad, he was discovered by Mr. Parsons, who entered the car at the other end at the same time. The negro instantly fled, pur- sued by Mr. Parsons, who eaught him in Gaysport and brought him down to a point near the present Kellerman house. The occurrence produced great excitement. The entire colored population was aroused, and those stanch Democrats, General George W. Potts, Major J. R. Crawford and Colonel John Piper, with other prominent white citi- zens, at once came to the aid of the slave, and under the guidance of Snyder Carr, a colored barber, and others of his race, the refugee was taken in charge and spirited away, so that he was seen no more. Parsons, however, was arrested upon the charges of

kidnaping, assault and battery and breach of the peace and bound over to appear at the July sessions. Bills were found by the grand jury, but the trials were continued to the October sessions. At the appointed time Parsons appeared with his counsel, Charles J. Faulkner and J. Randolph Tucker, ap- pointed by the governor of Virginia. After the commonwealth had progressed in the trial, Mr. Hammond, the district attorney, by leave of court took non-suits and the pris- oner was released.

At this time, in view of the fugitive slave law, public feeling ran very high, and run- away slaves all over the north were aided by the whites in their attempted escapes. Be- sides, the appearance of such eminent coun- sel sent by the great commonwealth of Vir- ginia gave the occurrence a significance and an eclat entirely exeeptional in the history of the bar.

Sinee the organization of this county there have been found by the grand jury forty- one indietments for murder. Of these four were found guilty of murder in the first degree. The others were either acquitted or convicted of manslaughter or murder in the second degree. The four who were convicted of murder in the first degree were: Alex Hutchinson, killing a negro; James Shirley, killing his wife; David S. MeKim, killing his young traveling companion, Samuel Nor- cross; and Dr. Lewis U. Beach, killing his wife.

Hutchinson's case had a most unusual eon- clusion. He was convicted at the December sessions, 1850, near the close of Governor W. F. Johnston's official term. For some reason not explained, the warrant for the prisoner's execution was not issued by the governor before his term expired. Governor William Bigler sueeeeded him, and when his attention was called to the ease, either for supposed legal reasons or from scruples of conscience. he declined to issue his warrant of death. Hutchinson remained a long time about the

1030

THE BENCH AND BAR OF PENNSYLVANIA

prison, helping in the daily work and going freely about the town, refusing to leave. One day, however, he went quietly away, no man pursuing, and he died some years later in an eastern county.

Shirley was hanged in 1853, and his was the first capital execution. George A. Coffey was the prosecuting attorney, having been deputized by Joseph Kemp, who was the distriet attorney.

MeKim's case attraeted a good deal of attention. Ile had traveled to Altoona with young Noreross, a stranger there, won his confidenee, beguiled him into leaving the train and going a short distance west of town, to obtain the little money he learned from him he possessed, he eruelly murdered him. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. Hammond and William A. Stoke, then an eminent and able lawyer, employed by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

The defendant relied upon Mr. Hofius. MeKim was a large, fine-looking man, and seemed ineapable of committing such a crime. The jury, on the 7th of May, 1857, convieted him, and he was executed on the 21st of Angust, following.

The most eelebrated, however, of the homi- eide eases of the county was the indietment and eonviction of Dr. Beach. "He was a prae- tieing physician in Altoona, where he lived with his wife, but had no children. One morning at an early hour in the winter of 1884 he ealled at the house of Levi Knott, the brother of his wife, and informed him that he had killed his wife, but protested that he had done the deed without present knowledge of the act. He was arrested and tried during that year and was eonvieted. Mr. Spang, Mr. Stevens and the writer de- fended him-the latter two by direction of the eourt. Hon. J. D. Hieks was then dis- triet attorney.

The defense was insanity, and the proof showed that twelve of his blood relatives were either idiotie or insane, furnishing the

argument that there was a hereditary taint, or predisposition. Counsel for defense asked the court to rule that if the jury had a doubt as to his sanity, it should operate to reduce the grade of the offense to murder in the second degree. Judge Dean refused the point. Counsel endeavored to have the case reviewed by the supreme court, but the pre- liminary requisites could not be complied with, and the judginent of the court was car- ried into effeet on the 12th of February, 1885.

We might add that there has been a fifth conviction of murder in the first degree in the case of Commonwealth vs. Frank Wilson. As the ease is still pending, we forbear to note it further.

Many other criminal proseeutions have been tried, which at the time engaged able counsel and elieited more than ordinary at- tention, but we do not find it necessary to particularize.

In 1874 we had the railroad riots at Altoo- na and along the line of the railroad to Pitts- burgh. This gave rise to numerous prosecu- tions and the convietion of many persons engaged in those lawless and turbulent acts. These proseeutions were tried at the first eourt held in the present courthouse, which had just been completed and dedieated with the formal ceremonies reported and filed among the records of the court.

A great many eivil cases have been tried. and some of them conspicuously memorable. The case of Summerville vs. Jackson, tried in 1849, was perhaps the first of that elass. It was an action of ejeetment to reeover the possession of about 160 acres of land near Gaysport. The ease turned mainly upon the question of fraud in defendant's aequisition of his title. And the jury found with the plaintiff. The judgment was affirmed in the supreme eourt in 1850. Mr. Miles represent- ed the defendant, and Mr. Blair and Mr. Thaddeus Stevens the plaintiffs. It is said Mr. Blair's triumph in this case seeured him his subsequent professional sueeess and em-

1031

BLAIR COUNTY

inence as a lawyer. Though Mr. Stevens has acquired his greatest renown since that date, he was then distinguished for great profes- sional ability. The writer, then a boy, re- members the peroration of his argument in the case. As he stood before the jury he was tall and imposing in his appearance, and his face, though white with impassioned feeling, impressed the possession of great intellect. Hle spoke in low and solemn tones, and he depicted so darkly what he denominated as the fraud in the case that he seemed to bring the jury under the spell of an unnatural power and left them terrified and bound.

The case of Rauch vs. Lloyd & Ilill was long a familiar case. Little Charley Rauch, a boy of five years of age, crawled under defendant's ear at the crossing, going for shavings for his mother. While just under the cars, defendant's servants moved the train and his legs were cut off. Mr. Blair and Mr. Banks were their respective counsel. There was long-protracted litigation, both in this and the supreme court, but the case was finally settled.

Farrell vs. Lloyd was also long a famous case. It arose upon the question whether there was a resulting trust in the purchase of land, and knowledge by the vender. In the name of Farrell vs. Lloyd and Lloyd vs. Lynch, it was tried several times in the court below, and was four times in the supreme court. Messrs. Hall and Neff appeared for Farrell and Lynch : and for Lloyd, Mr. Blair. With the latter gentleman, later, other eoun- sel was associated.

Another ease was Louden et al. vs. Blair Iron & Coal Co. It was tried three times below, and argued twice in the supreme court -the judgment for plaintiff being there first reversed, and finally affirmed. It was an aetion of trespass for removing ore from plaintiff's land. The verdiet was for about $14,000.

The case involving the largest amount of

money was the suit brought by James Gard- nee for nse vs. John Lloyd. The defendant was one of a large number of persons, who had entered into a written guaranty that William M. Lloyd, a suspended banker, would comply with the terms of a settlement by extension of time and pay the creditors certain sums periodically as therein stipu- lated. The aggregate of these guaranties was $425,000, and the suit against Mr. Lloyd was a test suit. The defense was, true it was the signers of the paper had offered to guarantee the faithful performance of the terms of extension entered into by W. M. Lloyd, but there had been no formal accept- ance of the offer by the creditors, and lack- ing that element of completeness to give it binding efficacy, there could be no recovery.

About two weeks were consumed in the trial. The preparation of the case was one of unparalleled extent. There were over twelve hundred creditors of Lloyd, and the notices, exhibits and other papers in the case, many of which were printed, numbered over a thousand: and all this prodigious labor was performed mainly by the late George M. Reade. of Ebensburg. It seemed to suit his indefatigable nature. Mr. Blair, Mr. Neff and Mr. Baldrige represented the defendant and with Mr. Reade for the plaintiff, were associated the late Mr. Speer, of Hunting- don, Judge Bell and myself. It only remains to be said that Judge Dean affirmed the prin- ciple invoked by the defendant, and so in- structed the jury. We carried the case to the supreme court, but that tribunal affirmed the judgment.

There have been other very important suits, among which were actions affeeting the in- terests of the Pennsylvania Railroad eom- pany, the Wopsononock Railroad company. and the City of Altoona. Among the latter was the case of The City vs. Bowman, involy- ing the legality of the passage of an ordi- nance, It was finally decided against the

1032

THE BENCH AND BAR OF PENNSYLVANIA

city, causing a municipal loss of over $200,- 000. But we will not pursue this branch of our review further.

The legal business of the county has grown with the increase of population. Especially has this been the case during the period elapsing since Judge Dean's historical ad- dress in 1877. Beginning with JJanuary of that year and ending with the January term of the current year (1896), there have been entered suits and judgments 48,514. Of these the largest number was in 1894-3,816. The present practice of monthly return days with the requirements of the new procedure act has greatly facilitated the dispatch of busi- ness.

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 twentieth century bench and bar of Pennsylvania, volume II, Part 62

Author: Publication date: 1903 Publisher: Chicago, H. C. Cooper, jr., bro. & co. Number of Pages: 1180

Author:
Publication date: 1903
Publisher: Chicago, H. C. Cooper, jr., bro. & co.
Number of Pages: 1180