COLUMBIA LIBRARIES OFFSITE AVERY FINE ARTS RESTRICTED AR01 392964 ^ i^orp of il^o Court of(IontmonpIaaj&. -C •• 7^ lEx ICtbrtfi SEYMOUR DURST fi?li -t ' 'Tort nteiiuf ^m/it-rda-m- of Je JAcrrJidtans "When you leave, please leave this hook Because it has heen said "Sver'thing comes t' him who waits Except a loaned book." Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library This Edition is printed from type and is limited to Three Hundred Copies* No. HISTORY OF THE Court of Common Pleas OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK WITH FULL REPORTS OF ALL IMPORTANT PROCEEDINGS BY JAMES WILTON BROOKS, LL.D. OF THE NEW YORK BAR NEW YORK Published by Subscription 1896 (57 COPYRIGHT 1896 BY JAMES WILTON BROOKS PRESS OF WERNER, SANFORD & CO., 103 EAST 16TH STREET, NEW YORK. PREFACE. During 1895 the writer contributed a number of articles to the New York press. One of these entitled "End of the Common Pleas," was published in the Sun of May 19th. This book is the sequence of that article. It is not a law treatise. The decisions of no Court have been better reported than those of the Court of Common Pleas of the City and County of New York. It treats of the personal side of the Court, and is in a measure, therefore, supplementary to the Reports. The writer may have erred in dealing so little with the many interesting trials, decisions and questions of law which have arisen and have been adjudicated during the life of this Court. He has been frequently tempted also to include such stories and anecdotes as have come within his knowledge, and they have been many, but has refrained because he wished rather to produce a work which should be dignified and in keeping with the spirit of one of the oldest, if not the oldest, Court our people have known. The "Minutes" are gone into at some length, because the proceedings covered by them are historical, and for the reason that this part of the history of the Court has nowhere else been printed. Sketches of all, and portraits of twenty-one of the twenty-three Judges identified with the later history of the Court, will be found within these covers. There are also portraits of many whose names appear in the text. Without the peculiar experiences incident to the collecting of biographical data, there can be no conception of the amount of labor involved. The simple note in the appendix concerning Judge Inglis gives little or no idea of the amount of time and inquiry devoted to obtaining the material for his sketch, and yet scarce half a century has passed since he sat on the bench. The author wishes to gratefully acknowledge the great assist- ance rendered to him by Chief Justice Joseph F. Daly and by the Associate Judges of the Court. His grateful acknowledgments are due to the former Chief Justice Charles P. Daly, to Judges George C. Barrett, George L. Ingraham, Frederick W. Loew, George M. Van Hoesen, to Mr. Nathaniel Jarvis, Jr. , and to the rela- tives of several of the Judges of the Court. Their aid has enabled him to obtain data not otherwise available, and this is especially true in regard to the biographies of those who are gone. He takes this opportunity also to particularly thank his friend, Mr. James E. Homans, for his help in the arranging of manuscript and reading of proofs, and for many suggestions of value. Most of the portraits have been drawn especially for this volume by Mr. B. F. William- son, and others are reproduced through the courtesy of the publishers of the " National Cyclopaedia of American Biography." The work which the Court has accomplished has now become a matter of history. The future alone will determine whether the action of the people, through their delegates in the Constitutional Convention of 1894, and subsequently at the polls, was wise or unwise. The change has been brought about, so to speak, not from the bottom up, but from the top downward. No popular demand was heard. The necessity of relieving the New York Court of Appeals from its enormous pressure of work was the cause of the consolidation of the superior local Courts with the Supreme Court. The immediate result is the increased nimiber of Judges and the formation of the Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, which not only hold the authority of the former General Terms, but by reason of the finality of their decisions will be possessed of great public significance. James Wilton Brooks. New York, July ist. 1896. CONTENTS. Page The Court of Common Pleas during the Dutch Domination 9 The English Period 16 Later History of the Court , 22 MINUTES OF THE COURT. Impeachment of David M. Cowdrey 36 Trial of John M. Bloodgood 37 Trial of Henry W. Merritt 37 Trial of Justice Miln Parker 40 Trial of Justice William Wiley 41 Trial of Justices Matzel, Parker and Ephraim Stevens . . 43 Complaints against Justices Haskell and Drinker .... 50 Trial of Justice William W. Drinker 53 Trial of Justice Patrick G. Duffy 57 Trial of Justice Patrick Diwer 59 biographical sketches of the judges. John Treat Irving 61 Michael Ulshoeffer 64 Daniel P. Ingraham 68 William Inglis 70 Charles P. Daly 77 Lewis B. Woodruff 83 John R. Brady 87 Henry Hilton 90 Albert Cardozo 94 Hooper C. Van Vorst 95 George C. Barrett 97 Frederick W. Loew 99 Charles H. Van Brunt 103 Joseph F. Daly 105 Hamilton W. Robinson 109 Richard L. Larremore 112 George M. Van Hoesen 116 Miles Beach 119 Henry W. Allen 121 Henry W. Bookstaver 123 Henry Bischoff, Jr 125 Roger A. Pryor 127 Leonard A. Giegerich 130 New Organization of the Court of Common Pleas, 1870 . . 132 Proceedings on the Death of Judge Hamilton W. Robinson, 1879 139 Proceedings on the Retirement of Chief Justice Charles P. Daly, 1885 159 Proceedings on the Presentation of a Memorial Tablet of Judge Hamilton W. Robinson, 1895 180 Proceedings on the Closing of the Existence of the Court of Common Pleas, 1895 185 Appendix 239 THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DURING THE DUTCH DOMINATION. THE Court of Common Pleas, founded in 1686, in the City of New York, extended in 1691 through- out the State, restricted again in 1846 to the City of New York, and finally in accordance with the amended State Constitution of 1894, passing out of existence on the thirty-first of December, 1895, was the oldest judi- cial tribunal in the State of New York. It succeeded " The Worshipful Court of the Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens," which was established in 1653, and ma)'- thus be said to have had a continuous existence of nearly two centuries and a half. It was twice as old as the nation. In its passing away may be seen the severance of one of the last links which bound our present to the old days when the language of our city was Dutch, when its Courts were Dutch, and when its law came straight from Holland. Though the Court of Common Pleas of the City and County of New York was not established till towards the end of the seventeenth century, the prior judicial history of the State of New York is well worth a sum- mary. No provision seems to have been made for several years for the administration of justice in the colony es- tablished by the West India Company in 1623, on Man- hattan Island. Presently, however, in 1626, Peter Minuit, the first Governor, surrounded himself with a council of five, which became invested with all powers, judicial, legislative and executive. An official, well known in Holland as the " Schout," was attached to this body. The Governor, the Schout and the Council were sub- ject to the supervision and appellate jurisdiction of the authorities at Amsterdam. The Council continued to administer justice during the official tenure of Minuit and of his successor, Van Twiller, a period of eleven years. Its records have been lost. Whatever were the duties of the Governor and his Council of Five, there can be little doubt but that almost everything conceivable, except judicial decision, was entrusted to the " Schout Fiscal." He combined in himself the power of a public prosecutor and the ex- ecutive duties of a sheriff. He was far more than either or both these functionaries according to any current understanding. It was his duty, under the orders of the Governor's Council, to arrest and arraign in behalf of the Company all persons accused of crime ; to superin- tend the trial and see to the proper carrying out of the sentence. Such was the unbiased nature of this primitive Court, however, that the Schout must note all evidence for as well as against the prisoner, and see to it that no facts were suppressed on either side. He was also required to keep a strict account of all information taken by him, and of all criminal trials, and regularly transmit reports to the Company's main offices in Holland. And his duties were further framed so as to make him the pro- tector and custodian of all prisoners, whom he was obliged at the earliest opportunity, to bring to trial. Prisoners, whether innocent or guilty, were not to be allowed to languish in jail. His duties further obliged him to act as chief of po- lice, or general constable, in seeing to the execution of all placards, ordinances, resolutions and regulations of the States General, as well in Court as out of it. In some towns of Holland the Schout was the chief officer of the Board of Burgomasters. He convoked all Courts, but took no further part in the proceedings ex- cept to count the votes. Nor had he any voice in the deliberations, unless as public prosecutor, when he was obliged to leave the bench to the senior burgomaster. He was an officer somewhat analogous to the speaker of our legislative assemblies, or the moderator of the "town meeting" in the good old days. In 1630 Patroon Courts were established, local Courts where the Patroon exercised within his territory unlimit- ed civil and criminal jurisdiction. The Patroon had even power of life and death. His decisions, however, within certain limits, were subject to an appeal to the Governor of New Amsterdam. Thus matters went on with more or less variation un- til the impetuous, hot-tempered but forceful Peter Stuy- vesant came as governor in 1647. Immediately on his arrival he established a Court of Justice whose jurisdic- tion was certainly broad enough, for it was empowered to decide "all cases whatsoever," subject only to the mild restriction of practically referring everything of any importance to the governor for his approval. Pop- ular discontent with this tribunal grew apace, and out of the wrangle between the governor and the colonists, which brought about a number of trips to Holland, cov- ered a number of years and abounded in dramatic inci- dents, grew ** The Worshipful Court of the Schout, Burgomaster and Schepens." This tribunal consisted of the Schout, four Burgomasters and nine Schepens. The Burgomasters took turns among themselves, each for a term of three months to attend at the City- Hall for the despatch of public business. Their office, like that of the Schout, was mainly administrative. The duties of the Schepens were entirely judicial, having jurisdiction of both civil and criminal causes. The three orders of officers, however, formed a *' College," and enacted the laws and ordinances for the city somewhat, likely, after the ' ' General Court " of the Colony of Massachusetts, and were known as a body under the title of the " Lords of the Court of the City of New Amsterdam." Such a "College" was pre- sided over by the Schout in the old country, but in New Amsterdam, either a president duly chosen or the senior Burgomaster assumed the dignity. It seems really remarkable that so complicated and imposing an institution should have been deemed essential for the relatively small and insignificant City of New Amsterdam. Nevertheless, this body was really an instrument of peace rather than of strife. If to-day an action is brought before our judiciary, it is fought as it were inch by inch by the opposing coun- sel. The judgment when obtained, is enforced to the uttermost farthing. The cause may go to a referee, but his duties are simply those as it were of an umpire. Nor does our law make any account of the defendant, *U^a/nSL^ Ml/hJouf unless the defendant looks out for himself. It was different in old New Amsterdam; the Court was of so Arcadian a character, so utterly pledged to the eccentric notion that all men are somehow broth- ers, or if not that they ought to be, that it was loath to exercise its judicial authority; to enforce the execution of justice. It was a Court of conciliation, a begetter of harmony, which from its very pomposity and cere- monialism was all the more potent as authority to com- pel the resumption of friendly relations. If a cause were brought before it, each party stated his case to the best of his ability and then the judges rendered their decision on the facts, or appointed arbitrators to bring the oppo- nents together. These arbitrators were appointed to review the matter thoroughly and agree upon some basis of compromise which was usually accepted by both parties. Says Chief Justice Charles P. Daly, in his His- tory of the Judicial Tribunals of New York, from 1623 to 1846 : " It is worthy of remark that though the amount involved was frequently considerable, appeals to the Court from the decision of the arbitrators were exceedingly rare. Indeed, the first appeal to be found upon the records was brought by a stranger." If, however, the opponents differed in their version of facts, they were put under oath to testify, and if the discrepancy still remained, witnesses were called in, affi- davits presented or depositions taken, which were duly presented on the next court day. The defendant was also, like the female sex with the English common law, the especial *' favorite " of the Court. Court was held at least every two weeks, and frequently every week. When the case was first en- 13 tered an officer known as the Court Messenger, at the request of the one aggrieved, verbally summoned the defendant to appear at the next court day. If the de- fendant failed to appear he lost the-right to make any objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, and incurred the cost of the sunimons. Failing to appear on the first court day thereafter, he was again summoned; when, failing to appear, he incurred additional costs, lost the right to apply for adjournments or delays, or to make any ** dilatory exceptions" whatsoever. But the Court was still long-suffering, and like an affectionate parent of a phenominally prodigal child, again summoned, and be- sought him to look after his own personal interests; although in failing for the third time to heed the kindl}'' admonitions, he lost all power of appeal and all right to review the case. Yet if the Court really believed his pres- ence essential to his own well-being, as well as to the good name of justice in the colonj^, a fourth citation might be issued in the nature of an arrest, and he be ** haled" before the august assemblage and compelled to defend himself. It was customary to appear on the first citation. If the matter involved was intricate, or it was difficult to get at the truth, it was the practice to refer the matter to arbitrators, who were always instructed to bring about a reconciliation if they could. These references were frequent upon every court day and, in fact, the chief business of the Tribunal was in acting as a Court of Conciliation. Then the arbitrators went to work, but if no recon- ciliation could be effected, the case was again brought to Court by the dissatisfied party and the final decision 14 was made. When judgment was rendered for a sum of money, time was given for payment, usually fourteen days for the discbarge of one-half, and the remainder to be paid within a month. If at the expiration of the time the debtor had not paid, the Schout, or more often the Court Messenger, went to him, exhibited a copy of the sentence and also his wand of office, which was a bunch of thorns, and summoned him to settle the matter within twenty-four hours. If the debt was not liquidated, a second visit was made, still another twent)'- four hours were allowed, and then at the expiration of the forty-eight hours, the delinquent's movable goods were seized and after an allotted time, six days, were sold at public auction. Greater formalities were required in the sale of real estate. The manner of selling was peculiar. The offi- cer lighted a candle ; the bidding went on while it was burning; he who had offered the most at the extinction of the candle was the purchaser. The Dutch law, though on the whole infinitely supe- rior to the more technical and artificial system intro- duced by their English successors, was a kind of irreg- ular mosaic, and it is not surprising that the Governor and his Burgomaster and his Schout and his Schepens were continually in hot water. 15 THE ENGLISH PERIOD. In 1664 the Colony passed into the hands of the En- glish, and while the gradual development of the legal procedure during the period from 1664 to the date of the Charter, which takes its name from Governor Don- gan and which was granted to the City of New York in 1686, is extremely interesting, the merest statement of facts will suffice. Established in the City of New York in 1686, a Court of Common Pleas was created in each county through- out the State by the Act of 1691. The judges and clerks were in general, appointed by the Governor, and held office during his pleasure or so long as their own be- havior was good. The Court had cognizance in all actions, real, person- al and mixed, where the amount involved exceeded five English pounds. Its errors were corrected in the first instance, by the Supreme Court, to which appeals were allowed for any judgment where the amount involved exceeded the sum of twenty English pounds, or about one hundred dollars of our money. The Court of Common Pleas in the City of New York was known for many years, in fact until 182 1, under its original Dutch name, and was called "The Mayor's Court." Its criminal branch was known as "The Court of Sessions." Until the end of the Dutch domination, and even long afterward, the governors of the colony counted it a right to preside in Court and to order the affairs of justice, and this was a particular embarrassment of the cause, not only because they knew no law, but also because some of them seem to have been fitter subjects for its discriminations than interpreters of its principles. In- deed, most of them were adventurers, pure and simple ; men whose careers had been "unfortunate" on the other side, and who had come to the New World to begin again. In addition to their salary, the governors claimed and received a large income in fees or perquisites for ar- ranging patents or grants in land, and, on account of this malfeasance the Crown was constantly defrauded, while they, its servants, set worthy examples to the ring-politicians of later generations. Yet while their understanding of the law was extremely "liberal," there was always fear of that dreadful bogey the " re- former, " who might some day disturb the peace of the colonists and instigate proceedings in the name of the Crown to void the grants thus fraudulently made. This fear was the real upshot of the almost frantic opposi- tion of the colonists to the establishment of the Court of Chancery, or any court of equity whatsoever, for had some wealthy Knickerbocker been sued to make a test case, it is probable that the majority would speedilly have found themselves sans house, sans land, sa?is patent, satis everything; and there had been fewer vast fortunes to accrue from New York real estate holdings. This then was a bond of sympathy and common cause between the colonists and their often rascally govern- ors, which rendered the former only too thankful to 17 bear any forms of tyranny rather than the dread assizes of the Court of Chancery. None the less, the Court came, remaining during many generations ; and as the colonists had evidently feared, the governors too often filled the office of Chancellor. Some of the colonial governors had the honesty to acknowledge their ignorance of the law and behave ac- cordingly. Thus John Montgoraerie, who became gov- ernor in 1728, positively declined to sit, and when or- dered to do so on the authority of the Crown, acquiesced with all unwillingness, encouraging the learned counsel on either side by informing them that he knew nothing whatever of law, but would be pleased to hear them talk and might " patch up" a decision sooner or later. As a matter of fact, he gave but one decree and issued but three orders, with the help of his counsel; and died in 1 731. He was followed by several persons who either from their great learning or intense ignorance, even of ignorance itself, rushed in where their predecessors had feared to tread and rendered decisions at haphazard, sometimes to the consternation of the worthy counsel- lors and occasionally to the " vindication of the perse- cuted." So matters continued with more or less regularity until Sir Charles Hardy became governor in 1755. Hardy had been a seaman by profession, and having been knighted for some service or other to the mother country, was sent to New York Colony to enjoy his laurels in quiet. He was informad on arriving that it was necessar}' for him as governor to sit in chancery ; and having heretofore overcome many difficulties, was nothing daunted, and sat. But his honest heart was 18 sorely tried by the broadside of demurrers launched at him by four learned counsellors. "Gentlemen," he cried, ** my knowledge relates to the sea; that is my sphere. If you want to know when the wind and tide will suit for going to Sandy Hook, I can tell you; but what can the captain of a ship know about demurrers ? If you dispute about a fact I can look into the deposi- tions and perhaps tell you who has the best of it; but I know nothing of your points of law." Hardy later tried to hear a case of fact only, but failed so signally that he called in the three justices of the Supreme Court to assist him ; and thereafter they discharged the duties of Chancellor for him. One of the governors of New York, Sir Henry Moore Bart, who was appointed executive in 1765, unfortu- nately died in 1769, leaving a number of patents unex- ecuted to the total value in commissions of something like 10,000 pounds. None more thoroughly appre- ciated the opportunity than Cadwallader Colden, who had through several administrations exercised the office of lieutenant-governor and was conversant with the "duties" of the executive office. He at once assumed the duties of governor pro tern. With pertinacious in- dustry he worked literally night and day on the matter and had fina.lly issued the last patent. The succeeding governor, John Murray, further known by the title of Lord Dunmore, straightway he landed in his realm, made formal demand on Colden for "a moiety or one half part " of all fees, perquisites and emoluments that had accrued during his year as acting governor, and was of course refused. Dunmore, however, was a man of ready expedients, 19 and friendly persuasion having failed, proceeded to insti- tute proceedings against his lieutenant after the most approved burlesque fashion. He ordered the attorney general to file a bill against Golden in the Court of Chancery where the governor was sole judge, and directed that it should be in the name of the Crown. Colden, nevertheless, was not at all intimidated by these drastic measures, but deliberately set about em- ploying coimsel to plead his case. He found an attor- ney, by name James Duane, subsequently a judge, who was sufficiently emancipated from the current awe and dread of those in authority, and a good lawyer for that day when good lawyers were apparently few, to argue his case. At the day of the trial Lord Dunmore took his seat in the capacity of Chancellor and despite that Duane showed conclusively in his argument that the suit could not be maintained, would allow nothing, not even legal principles to thwart the '* rights of the Crown." The attorney-general and his colleague. Smith, the historian of the Court, argued so ably on the other side as to impress the worthy Colden most unfa- vorably. He is quoted as saying of Smith, that he dis- played *'an easiness of principles that enabled him to affirm, deny or pervert anything, with a degree of con- fidence that might deceive the unwary." Even Dunmore seemed to have considered that his (the Crown's) case had been argued too well — been over- argued, in fact — and in spite of his inclination to reward the talents of Smith, found himself unexpectedly taced with the unquestioned principles of law and equity. He pretended to consider the case one of such moment as to require some little review and consideration, appoint- ing the following Thursday for the rendering of his de- cision. Thursday came, and the matter was adjourned a fortnight. Meanwhile, he and his advisers busily consulted law and precedent, but in vain. Then doubt- less in confidence of his official prestige the cause was referred to the four judges of the Supreme Court. They presently unanimously decided that Duane's demurrer was well taken and that the suit could not be main- tained. 21 LATER HISTORY OF THE COURT. The Mayor's Court was continued through the Colo- nial Period. The City records leave it in doubt as to whether the Court was or was not held during the War of the Revolution. In the beginning of 1784 James Duane was appointed Mayor, and from that time on, there is no break in the sittings of this Court. Mr. Duane, a lawyer by profes- sion, who as we have seen defended Cadwallader Col- den in the attack made upon him by Lord Dunmore, had acqured a large practice before the Revolution, and during that period had served as a member of the Pro- vincial Congress and as a delegate to the Continental Congress. His high character drew into his Court every lawyer of ability. The leading practitioners were, for instance, Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, Col. Troup, Edward Livingston, Brockholst Livingston (the latter afterwards Judge of the Supreme Court of New York, and from 1806 until 1823 one of the Judiciary of the Uni- ted States Supreme Court), Egbert Benson, Morgan Lewis and Josiah Ogden Hoffman, the father of Ogden Hoffman, who was Attorney General from 1795 to 1802, and Associate Justice of the New York Supreme Court from its creation until his death, men whose first forensic effort was made in the Mayor's Court. Judge Duane presided till the close of 1789 when he was appointed by Washington United States District Court Judge. 6/^^^ i^^<^^ By the Dongan Charter it was provided, among other matters, that the Mayor, the Recorder and Aldermen, or any three of them, of whom either the Mayor or Recorder were required to be one, were authorized to hold the Mayor's Court, or the Court of Common Pleas. It was presided over by the Mayor and Recorder alternately. During the following thirty years and more, 1789 to to 182 1, the list of Mayors and Recorders who sat in this Court included many of the most distinguished lawyers of the State. The Mayors were: Richard Varick, Edward Livingston, De Witt Clinton, Marinus Willet, Jacob Radcliffe and Cadwallader D. Colden ; and the Recorders were : Samuel Jones (father of the late Chief Justice), James Kent, Richard Harrison, John B. Provoost, Maturin Livingston, Pierre C. Van Wyck, Josiah Ogden Hoffman, Peter A. Jay and Richard Riker. While Maturin Livingston was Recorder, Mayor Clinton ceased, perhaps from choice, perhaps from lack of time, to preside in the Mayor's Court, and from that time on the Recorder sat as presiding judge until 182 1, when from the fact that its business had greatly increased, and that the Mayor had ceased to preside in it, it was con- cluded that the name Mayor's Court, no longer in any sense appropriate, should be abandoned. An act was prepared by John Anthon, then the most prominent practitioner at the bar, and was passed by the Legisla- ture, changing the name to the ' ' Court of Common Pleas of the City of New York," and the office of * ' First Judge " was created. The Governor appointed John T. Irving as First Judge. The Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen were still authorized to sit in Court as formerly, but the First Judge was empowered to hold it without them, and it was his special duty to hold it. The leading practition- ers before him were : John Anthon^ Martin S. Wilkins, Elisha W. King, John T. Mulligan, Robert Bogardus, Pierre C. Van Wyck, Thomas Phoenix, Joseph D. Fay, David Graham, Sr., Hugh Maxwell, John Leveridge and Wm. M. Price, thoiigh the members of what was then known as the senior bar. Thos. Addis Emmett, Peter A. Jay, Peter W. Radcliffe, Sam M. Hopkins, David B. Ogden, Wm. Slosson, Wm. Sampson and others appeared frequently in the Court as associate counsel in important cases. In 1834 an Associate Judge was provided. He was vested with all the powers of the First Judge. The Gov- ernor appointed Michael Ulshoeffer. His standing both at the bar and in the community is best shown by the fact that he had already served the people as City At- torifey. Corporation Counsel, and as member of Assem- bly, and that he had been in turn a vestryman of St. Mark's and of Grace churches, two of the most influential congregations m the City of New York. On the death of Judge Irving, in 1838, Judge Ulshoeffer was appointed First Judge, which office he held till his retirement in 1848, and Daniel P. Ingraham (the father of Judge George L. Ingraham, now a Justice of our Supreme Court), was appointed Associate Judge. Meanwhile (1839) the business of the Court increased so rapidly that an additional judge, vested with all the powers of the other judges, was created, and William Inglis was appointed as an Associate Judge — thus making the full bench of The Common Pleas 24 consist of three judges. The number was increased to six in 1870. In 1844 Chas. P. Daly, then only 27 years of age, was appointed in the place of Judge Inglis. The Constitution of 1846 especially excepted from the general Judicial reorganization of the State, the Court of Common Pleas and the Superior Court of the City of New York. A law enacted in 1847 provided, however, that the judges of both Courts should be elected by the people. All the existing judges (Ulshoeffer, Daly and Ingra- ham) of the Common Pleas were elected in June, 1847. The allotment of their judicial terms, for, in accordance with the provisions of the law, each took his chances in drawing by lot, resulted in Judge Ulshoeffer's securing the two-year. Judge Ingraham the four-year and Judge Daly the six-year term. In 1849 Lewis B. Woodruff was elected in place of Judge Ulshoeffer; and in 1850 Judge Ingraham was chosen First Judge. Judge Ingraham was re-elected in 185 1, as was also, in 1853, Judge Daly. Their successors were: John R. Brady (1856-1869), Henry Hilton (1858-1863), Albert Cardozo (1863- 1868); Hooper C. Van Vorst (1867-68); Geo. C. Bar- rett (1868-69); Frederick W. Loew (1869-75); Charles H. Van Brunt (1870-84) ; Hamilton W. Robinson (1870- 79); Richard L. Larremore (1870-90); George M. Van Hoesen (1876-90); Henry Wilder Allen (1884-91), and Joseph F. Daly (1870-96); Miles Beach (1879-96); Henry W. Bookstaver (1885-96); Henry Bischoff (1890-96); Roger A. Pryor (1890-96); Leonard A. 25 Giegerich (1891-96), who constituted the last Bench of the Court of Common Pleas. There have been since 182 1 but twenty- three judges, four of whom served as '' First Judges," and three, Judge Chas. P. Daly, Judge Larremore and Judge Joseph F. Daly, as "Chief Justices." Two have died before the expiration of their term. Judge Robinson in 1879 ^^^ J^^ge Allen in 1891. Judge Allen was stricken in the Court House as he was leaving his Court, and died a few days afterwards in the hospital. The following table will show the succession of Judges together with the dates of their elevation to the Bench: 26 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NEW YORK. SUCCESSION OF JUDGES. I82I Irving. First Judge under the Act of 1821, when the Court was changed from the Mayor's Court to the Court of 1822 1823 Common Pleas. 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 I82Q 1830 I83I 1832 1833 1834 Ulshoeffer Associate Judge, created by Act of 1834. 1835 1836 1837 1838 Ingraham. 1839 Inglis. Additional Associate ; Act of 1839. 1840 I84I 1842 1843 1844 C P. Daly. 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 Woodruff. i8'50 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 Brady. 1857 1858 Hilton. 1859 i860 1861 1862 1863 Cardozo. 1864 :^8S Three Additional Judges 1867 Van Vorst. created by the Constitu- 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 Barrett. Loew. tion of i86q. Van Brunt. Robinson J. F. Daly Larremore 1873 X874 llVe 1877 VanHoesen 1878 '& Beach. 1881 1882 1883 1884 Allen. 1885 Bookstaver 1886 1887 1888 i88g i8go Bischoff. Pryor. iS^i Giegerich. 1892 1893 i8q4 1895 LENGTH OF SERVICE OF EACH JUDGE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Charles P. Daly 41 years. ♦Joseph F. Daly 25 " D. P. Ingraham 20 " R. L. Larremore 20 " John T. Irving 17 " M. Ulshoeffer 16 " ♦Miles Beach 16 " ♦♦Charles H. Van Brunt 14 George M. Van Hoesen 14 " John R. Brady 13 " ♦H. W. Bookstaver 11 " H. W. Robinson 9 " Fred. W. Loew 7 " Henry W. Allen 7 " L. B. Woodruff 6 " ♦Henry Bischoff, Jr 6 " ♦Roger A. Pryor 6 " William Inglis 5 " Henry Hilton 5 " Albert Cardozo 5 " ♦L. A. Giegerich 5 " H. C. Van Vorst i " ♦♦* George C. Barrett i " ♦Still on the Bench ; transferred to the Supreme Court by the Constitu- tion of 1894. ♦♦Still on the Bench ; elected to the Supreme Court in 1883. *^+Still on the Bench ; elected to the Supreme Court in 1871. Judge Larremore resig-ned on account of illness with eight years of his term unfilled and Judge Charles P. Daly was retired on account of age at the expiration of his sixth consecutive term of judicial office. The Court has been noted from the fact that its justices have, with rare exceptions, been eminent jurists, and that every noted advocate in the City of New York has appeared at its bar. The original roll of the Court from 182 1 to 1848, during which period every aspirant to the Bar of the City of New York had first to be admitted to practice in the Common Pleas, shows almost every New York name which was prominent at that period, whether in the legal, social or business world. In those days every 28 would-be lawyer had to pass several examinations be- fore he was admitted to full practice. He was first admitted to the Common Pleas as attor- ney at law. After three years of active practice he ap- plied for admittance as counsellor at law to the Supreme Court. He had also to pass a special and supposedly equally thorough examination in the Court of Chancery. This original roll contains the names of those ad- mitted to practice law, the dates of their admittance to practice, and the oaths to which they were com- pelled to subscribe. The first was of course the usual oath to support the Constitution, and uphold the dignity of the Court. And then came an oath indicative of the times, but of interest at any period, the duelling oath, which reads as follows : I, , do Solemnly Swear that I have not been engaged in a Duel by sending or accepting a Chal- lenge to fight a Duel, or by Fighting a Duel, or in any other manner in violation of the act entitled " An Act to Suppress Duelling " since the first day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and six- teen, nor will I be so concerned directly or indirectly in any duel during the continuance of the said Act and while an Inhabitant of this State. The roll includes the names of men who became em- inent as lawyers, judges or statesmen, with the year of their admittance to practice.* Among these occur, in 1823, Thomas L. Wells, Sam- uel Verplanck, Abraham Ogden, Jr., William Betts. *As the original roll of the Court is far too long for publication in this volume, a selected list is here given of such names as have appeared most prominent or familiar. 29 In the year 1824 appear the names of Judge William Kent and Philip Hamilton and D. P. Ingraham, after- wards Judge of the Court of Common Pleas. In 1825 appears the names of William Inglis, after- wards Judge of the Court of Common Pleas ; Francis Griffin and Gen. John A. Dix, afterwards Governor of New York, and F. Brockholst Cutting, and E. C. Ben- edict. In 1826, N. Bowditch Blunt, afterwards District At- tome)^ and Judge Thomas S. Brady, the father of John R. and James T. Brady; Philo T. Ruggles and Charles Edwards. In 1827, D. Graham, Jr., Pierre M. Irving, Charles A. Clinton and Judge T. W. Clerke, and Daniel B. Tal- madge. In 1828, Judge Benjamin W. Bonney, Edward Sand- ford and David Dudley Field. In 1829, A. D. Russell, Judge John A. Lott, John McKeon, afterwards District Attorney, and Benjamin D. Silliman, who is at this writing the oldest graduate of Yale College, and one of the oldest living members of the New York Bar. In 1830, Robert H. Morris, afterwards Mayor, Re- corder and Judge ; Robert R. Lansing, Peter Wilson and Hamilton Fish, afterwards Governor of New York, U. S. Senator and U. S. Secretary of State. In 1 83 1, Edgar S. Van Winkle and Judge Henry E. Davies, the father of Julian T. and William G. Davies, both well-known members of the living bar. In 1832, Alexander Hamilton and Corporation Counsel Robert J. Dillon. In 1833, Albon P. Mann, Judge Henry P. Edwards 30 and John T. Irving, Jr. , and Thomas A. Brady, brother of John R. and James T. Brady, and Henry C. Murphy. In 1834, Judge William Minot Mitchell and Nelson Chase. In 1835, James T. Brady, Theodore Sedgwick, Judge William H. Leonard and Judge Gilbert M. Speir, C. J. DeWitt and Edward DeWitt. In 1836, Judge Joseph S. Bosworth, Judge Claudius L. Monell and Andrew Warner, who was afterwards one of the four clerks of the Court of Common Pleas, and is now, at the age of ninety, the president of the Institute for Savings of Merchant Clerks. In 1837, Horace F. Clark, Luther R. Marsh, Hiram Barney, Augustus Schell and Charles E. Butler. In 1838, John Jay, John W. C. Leveridge, Judge John W. Edwards, William C. Noyes and Benjamin F. Butler, the father of William Allen Butler, the leader of our elder bar, and grandfather of William Allen But- ler, Jr. , the president of the Lawyers' Club of the City of New York. In 1839, Chas. P. Daly, for many years Judge, First Judge and Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and Vice-Chancellor Lewis H. Sandford. In 1840, Recorder James M. Smith, Jr., Judge Charles A. Peabody and William J. Hoppin, for many years secretary of our legation to Great Britain and Edward W. Stoughton. In 1 84 1, John Riker and Henry L. Riker. In 1842, William T. Horn, John R. Brady, afterwards Judge of the Court of Common Pleas and of the Su- preme Court; Nelson J. Waterbury, afterwards Dis- trict Attorney, and Judge Enoch L. Fancher. 31 In 1843, John E. Burrill. In 1844, Judge Charles A. Rapallo, Samuel J. Tilden, afterwards Governor of the State of New York; John E. Devlin and Charles Price. In 1845, William C. Barrett, Judge Abraham B. Tap- pen, Judge Ogden Hoffman, Jr., John J. Townsend and Henry A. Cram. In 1846, Andrew H. Green, Henry Hilton, after- wards Judge of the Court of Common Pleas; Judge Henry P. McGown, James W. Gerard, Jr., and Henry Morrison. As the Court of Common Pleas was the County Court of New York County, it had exclusive jurisdiction in certain actions. It was the Court of Impeachment for municipal and minor judicial officers. Until within a few years it was the only Court having jurisdiction in cases of forfeited recognizances, or in cases where bonds when confis- cated became the property of the City Treasury. Until recently it was the only Court which could give an in- dividual the legal right to change his name. The greater part of lunacy proceedings, mechanic lien litigations and insolvent assignments carne before the Court of Common Pleas. It was also the Court where contested wills were tried before a jury. Its equity powers were co-equal with those of the Supreme Court. In connection with the Supreme and Superior Courts, nearly all of the naturalization of the county was done in it — only a small percentage of certificates being issued by the United States Court. Its appellate powers were more varied than those of any New York Court excepting the Court of Appeals. 32 -^c/^^^^ The Supreme Court heard only appeals from its own and from the Surrogate's Court. The Superior Court was confined to appeals from its own decisions. The Common Pleas, in addition to the appeals from its own decisions, passed in review on appeal, such judg- ments of the City Court and the District Courts of New York as were appealed. There are six judges of the City Court and eleven District Court Judges. Legisla- tion is often inaugurated in the lower courts which keen- ly affect the general public. As the decisions on appeal of the Common Pleas were final it determined the law, so far as these lower courts were concerned, on all mat- ters presenting questions not distinctly adjudicated by the court of last resort. The first suits in the Elevated Railway cases were brought in this Court. The foreclosure of the little spur built by the first believers in the elevated system, which ran along 9th avenue, through that part of the city known as Chelsea, near the Episcopal Theological Sem- inary, was brought in the Common Pleas. Until near the end of its existence the Common Pleas was the only Court where one might apply for an "order" or permission to change one's name. Its reports show no end of queer wishes in this re- spect. One gentleman goes at great length to state his objection to his own and, in fact, to all names, and wishes to be allowed to change his name to the letter "A." That the matter was not to be laughed at is shown by a long opinion by the Chief Justice denying the application. From 182 1 to 1854 the Clerk of New York County acted as Clerk of both the Supreme Court and of the 33 Court of Common Pleas. In 1854 an act was passed creating a clerk of the Court of Common Pleas to be ap- pointed by the Judges of the Court. The Judges selected Andrew Warner, who served one year. He was suc- ceeded by Benjamin H. Jarvis, who served one year, and from then to 1896, when the Court passed out of existence, there were only three clerks, Nathaniel Jarvis, Jr. , Samuel Jones and Alfred Wag- staff, and all were members of the New York Bar. Mr. Warner is to-day the President of the Institution for the Savings of Merchants* Clerks. Mr. Jarvis, after serving for over a third of a century, resigned in 1889. Judge Jones, coming of a family of lawyers, several of w^hom were on the Bench, retired in 1892. Senator Wagstaff, who served as Clerk from 1892 to 1896, is now the Clerk for the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial District of New York. On the walls of what was the General Term room in the Court House, may yet be seen the portraits of Judge Ulshoeffer, Robinson, Brady, Daniel P. Ingraham* and Charles P. Daly. The adjoining room contains an alto relievo of Judge Irving and a bust of Thomas Addis Emmett. The inscription on the latter tells that Mr. Emmett died ''among these benches, within these official walls." A bust of Alexander Hamilton adorns the furthermost corner. The decisions of the Common Pleas since 1850 have been reported in twenty-three volumes, four of which have been edited by E. Delafield Smith, two by Judge * The portraits of Judges Brady and Ingraham have, since Jan. ist, 1896, been removed to the rooms of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. 34 Hilton and sixteen by Chief Justice Charles P. Daly. In addition to these, known respectively as E. D. Smith's Reports, Hilton's Reports, and Daly's Reports, other decisions are to be found in the voluminous Abbott's Reports (both series and new cases), Howard's Practice Reports, The New York State Reporter, The New York Supplement, The Miscellaneous Reports, The Civil Procedure Reports, The Weekly Digest, The Law Bulletin, and The New York Transcript, The Daily Law Register and The New York Law Journal, the last three being successively the daily official papers of the county. 3'i A RESUME OF THE MINUTES OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK SITTING AS A COUNTY COURT FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES. THE book of minutes of proceedings by the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, outside of their ordinary judicial functions, commences with an entry of June 2d, 1832, recording their appointment of a District Attorney according to the power then vested in them. The Court at that time consisted of John T. Irving, First Judge; Walter Bowne, Mayor; Richard Riker, Recorder; and the Aldermen of the city, and they re-appointed Ogden Hoffman, the then incumbent of the office. IMPEACHMENT OF DAVID M. COWDREY. The Court convened again on January 26th, 1833, ^^ try David M. Cowdrey, Clerk to one of the Assistant Jus- tices of the city, for official misconduct. On the second day appointed for the hearing of the charges there were present John T. Irving, First Judge; and Aldermen Cebra, Sharpe, Ferris, Rhinelander, Meigs, John Palmer, James Palmer, Mandeville, Woodruff and Mur- ray. A quorum being present the Court proceeded with the trial. Justice Eber Wheaton, the prosecutor, was represented by Charles O'Conor as counsel, and the accused, David M. Cowdrey, by Francis B. Cut- 36 'T'Tfee^^SS:;;^^^ ting. The trial occupied seven days. Witnesses were examined and the Court, having advised in the mat- ter, after due deliberation, removed Cowdrey from his office. APPOINTMENTS FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY. The Court was next convened on May 226., 1835, to appoint a District Attorney. The First Judge, the Re- corder and ten Aldermen were present(Labagh, Taylor, Benson, Lamb, Delamater, Purdy, Fickett, Varian, Lovett and Nixon), and Thomas Phoenix w^as appointed. The next appointment of District Attorney was made June 4th, 1838, Daniel P. Ingraham being Associate Judge, Aaron Clarke, Mayor, Robert H. Morris, Re- corder and Benson, Thomas, Lynch and Thomas G. Talmadge, Aldermen. James R. Whiting was appointed. TRIAL OF JUSTICE JOHN M. BLOODGOOD. On February 19th, 1839, the Court was convened to try John M. Bloodgood, one of the Special Justices of the city, upon charges. Michael Ulshoeffer was then First Judge, Daniel P. Ingraham, Associate. The Re- corder, the Mayor and fourteen Aldermen were pres- ent. George F. Talman appeared as counsel for the prosecution, while Charles O 'Conor, Francis B. Cutting and John A. Morrill appeared for the accused. The charges were dismissed for want of verification by oath, and as deficient in specifications sufficient to author- ize the Court to proceed thereon. TRIAL OF JUSTICE HENRY W. MERRITT. The next official tried before the Court was Henry W. Merritt, a Special Justice, and the Court convened 37 for the purpose on April ist, 1840, with Judges Ulshoef- fer, Ingraham and Inglis, the Mayor, the Recorder and twelve Aldermen present. The District Attorney, James R. Whiting, appeared for the prosecution and Francis B. Cutting and Charles O'Conor for the accused, Mr. Cutting objected to the charges as not in due form. The Court adjourned to consider the question and sub- sequently decided that the charges were sufficiently au- thenticated to put the accused upon his defense. The vote upon this decision was as follows : In favor of sus- taining the charges, the Recorder, Judge Inglis and seven Aldermen. Against the sufficiency of the charges, Judges Ulshoeffer and Ingraham and three Aldermen. The trial was ordered to proceed on April 7th, but upon that day Mr. O'Conor filed a plea to the jurisdic- tion of the Court and the matter was adjourned to April 8th, when the plea was overruled. The accused then filed a challenge to the competency of the Mayor and of the Aldermen of the city to proceed or act as judges of the Court in the hearing of the matter. The challenge was overruled. Whereupon the accused filed a demur- rer to the charges. The demurrer was argued at length by Mr. Cutting, the District Attorney, Mr. Whi- ting and Mr. O'Conor, and the demurrer was sustained by the Court with leave to the District Attorney to re- new the charges amended and verified, and for that purpose the Court resolved to assemble on the nth of April. On that date charges and specifications were again presented by the District Attorney against Jus- tice Merritt and he was required to answer. He was represented by the same counsel, who renewed their motion to set aside the pleadings for irregularity, their 38 plea to the jurisdiction and their challenge to the com- petency of the Mayor and Aldermen to act as judges, all being overruled. The accused then filed exceptions to the first and second charges and pleaded not guilty to the third charge. Judgment was given in his favor to his demurrer to the first charge. Argument was then heard upon the demurrer to the second charge and this consumed three days, ending in the demurrer being overruled, one Judge and four Aldermen voting to sus- tain the demurrer and one Judge and six Aldermen to overrule it. Judge Ingraham not having heard the argu- ments on the demurrer to the second charge did not vote. The trial of the issue upon the third charge, to which the accused had pleaded not guilty, was then proceeded with and consumed eleven days, eighty-one witnesses being sworn and examined. The cause was then summed up, Mr. O' Conor occupying seven and one-half hours in his address, Mr Cutting four and one-half hours, and the District Attorney three and one-half hours of one day and the whole of the next. The Court was ad- journed on account of the illness of the Recorder, and from time to time until June 9th, 1840, when judgment was rendered acquitting the accused on the second charge, the Recorder and two Aldermen being in favor of a verdict of guilty, and the three Judges and two Al- dermen voting for not guilty. As to the third charge, of which there were three specifications, the Court was divided on the first and second specifications, the Re- corder and three Aldermen voting for guilty and the three Judges and one Alderman voting not guilty. As to the third specification, there was one vote for guilty by Alderman Nash, and seven votes for not gnilty by 39 the three Judges, the Recorder and three Aldermen, and the decision was that the Court being thus divided in opinion the charges be dismissed. JAMES R. WHITING APPOINTED DISTRICT ATTORNEY. The Court convened on May 17th, 1841, to appoint a District Attorney, their choice falling upon James R. Whiting, he receiving on the first ballot thirteen votes, and on division being called for, nineteen votes out of twenty-four. A PROTEST. A protest against the right of Associate Justices of the General Sessions to sit in the Court, signed by eleven of the Aldermen, was presented, and a motion was made to enter it upon the minutes, which was lost. TRIAL OF JUSTICE MILN PARKER. On August 7th, 1 84 1, the Court was convened to try Miln Parker, a Special Justice, upon charges and specifi- cations. The charges presented by Isaac J. Wood, through Abraham D. Russell, as counsel, were ordered to be served on the accused and delivered to the Dis- trict Attorney, and the Clerk w^as directed to notify the Judges of the County Court to attend on the 7 th of Sep- tember. On the last named day the Court met, the Al- dermen sitting as members. George M. Van Cott ap- peared as counsel for Justice Parker and was granted until the iithinst. to plead to the charges. The Dis- trict x\ttorney, on motion of counsel for the prosecutor, was requested to assist in conducting the prosecution. On the adjourned day the Court assembled, the District 40 Attorney appearing- with the attorney for the prosecu- tion, and Horace Holden, James T. Brady and D. M. Van Cott appearing as counsel on behalf of the accused. The trial occupied nine days and twenty witnesses were examined. Edward Sanford appeared on the third day as associate counsel for the prosecution. The sum- ming up occupied two days. Written opinions were delivered by Judge Ingraham and the Recorder in favor of the acquittal of the accused and the Court, consisting of the three Judges of the Common Pleas, the Recorder and fourteen Aldermen, unanimously dismissed the charges, all the members voting in the affirmative. TRIAL OF JUSTICE WILLIAM WILEY. On January loth, 1842, the County Court met to consider a communication received from the Mayor enclosing a certificate of the Clerk of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, showing that William Wiley, one of the Assistant Justices of the city, had been con- victed of receiving stolen goods with knowledge. The Court requested the District Attorney to make charges against the Justice *' in order to his removal from office, unless the necessity of such removal is dispensed with by the resignation of said Justice being accepted by the Common Council." On the adjourned day, January 14th, 1842, the District Attorney appeared and Alder- man Campbell made a motion that inasmuch as Justice Wiley had tendered his resignation to the Common Council and it was in the power of that body to accept it, the Court should adjourn in order that that body might act on the same. The motion was lost. The District At- torney then made the charges against the Justice which 41 were ordered on file. A copy was directed to be served on him with notice to appear on the 3d of February fol- lowing, when it having been communicated to the Court that the Common Council had accepted the resig- nation of the Justice and had appointed a successor, it was ordered that further proceedings be discontinued. QUESTION OF INCLUDING NAMES OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES. On July 26th, 1842, the Court (as the County Court of New York) convened to consider the question whether the names of the Associate Judges of the General Sessions should be entered on the minutes of the Court as Judges thereof. The Mayor objected. The Recorder moved that Judge Lynch be heard in support of the motion. Judge Lynch made an argu- ment in favor of the motion and was followed by the Mayor in opposition. Judge Inglis moved that the resolution lie on the table to enable the members of the Court to examine the subject, and the Court adjourned to the first Monday in Septen>ber. The Mayor re- quested the mover to withdraw his motion, which being complied with, he asked for what precise purpose an order had been made in the Common Pleas conven- ing the Court. Judge Inglis replied that the order had been made pursuant to written requests signed by three of the Judges in behalf of the thirteen judges of the Court without stating the object. An adjournment was taken to July 27th, and on that day Alderman Davies read an opinion in favor of sustaining the claims of the Associate Justices of the General Sessions to sit as Judges of the County Court. Judge Ingraham deliv- ered an adverse opinion in which Judge Inglis con- 42 curred. The Recorder gave an opinion sustaining the right of the Associate Justices, and the First Judge (Ulshoeffer) delivered a written opinion adverse to the claims of the said Judges to sit as Judges of the County- Court generally, but in favor of the call of the names of said Judges whenever matters relating to the appoint- ment of a District Attorney was agitated. A vote was taken on the question before the Court, which resulted in a tie. The matter was then laid on the table and the Court adjourned sine die. TRIAL OF JUSTICES GEORGE W. MATZEL, MILN PARKER AND EPHRAIM STEVENS. On September 8th, 1842, the Court met to consider a presentment of the grand jury sent by the General Sessions to the First Judge of the Common Pleas in relation to the conduct of certain Special Justices. The Court, on motion, adopted an order proposed by Judge Ingraham referring the presentment of the grand jury to counsel (Matthew C. Paterson) for the purpose of examining into the charges therein preferred against the Special Justices and if sufficient evidence could be secured to sustain such charges before the Court that he be directed to prepare charges for such purpose and report the same to the Court. On September 23d, 1842, the Court having assembled, Mr. Paterson presented a report prepared pursuant to the foregoing order, ac- companied with charges and specifications against George W. Matzel, Miln Parker and Ephraim Stevens, Special Justices, and an order was made requiring the accused to answer on the 4th day of October and copies of the charges and specifications were directed to be 43 served upon them. On the return day Matthew C. Paterson appeared in support of the charges, and Messrs. Brady, Lord and Price appeared for the Justices. Mr. Paterson read ah affidavit of Floyd Smith as to the truth of the charges, which was filed. An affidavit of the service of the charges and a copy of the rule to answer upon the Justices was filed. Mr. Paterson called upon the accused Justices to answer or plead to the charges. Mr. Brady, on behalf of the Jus- tices, objected to answer or plead to the charges in their present form, charging the Justices jointly for separate and specific acts done by them, and suggested that the prosecutor amend them instanter and they would then be ready to answer and proceed to trial at once. Mr. Paterson contended that the charges were properly prepared and that the Justices should plead to them in their present form. To this Mr. Lord ob- jected and stated that unless they were amended a motion must be made to quash them. After hearing further argument, the Court, through the Recorder and the three Judges of the Common Pleas, considered the charges defective for the reasons suggested by the counsel for the Justices, and an order was made per- mitting the prosecutor to change the accusations so as to charge the several Justices separately, and that the charges so amended be printed and served four days before the meeting of the Court. On the i8th of October the Court convened and Mr. Paterson ten- dered to the accused the charges against them as amended. Their counsel objected on the ground that they were entitled to four days' service of the same, which objection the Court sustained. An adjournment 44 y^OAi/rucjWdidt ^. Uc£^(n^ was had until the 25th inst. Messrs. Paterson and O'Conor then appeared for the prosecution, and Messrs. Brady, Lord, Price and Holden for the Jus- tices. An objection was made on their behalf that the charges were not substantially the same as those directed by the Court to be amended, and that the new charges, if entertained, were not sufficiently verified. This motion was argued, and on a subsequent day the Court rendered its decision denying the motion to quash but amending the charges so as to strike out the names of certain Aldermen contained therein, and all reference to said Aldermen, and adding the words ^ ' divers other persons, " names of the confederates as charged, and directing the defendants to answer. Pleas of not guilty were put in by the Justices and filed on the next day, and the Court took an adjournment to November 2d, when the trial commenced. Two wit- nesses duly subpoenaed were attached for non-appear- ance. The charges against each Justice were separately heard. The trial of Miln Parker occupied fourteen days and the charges were finally dismissed; all the Judges and thirteen Aldermen voting for acquittal and three Aldermen voting for conviction, and it was then recommended by the Court to the counsel acting on behalf of the prosecution that all further proceedings against the other Justices, Matzel and Stevens, be dis- continued unless some new evidence which might adduce a conviction exist in those cases, and Mr. Paterson having stated that he had no new evidence to offer against the last named Justices, it was ordered that the charges against them be also dismissed. 45 TRIAL OF DR. C. H. JACKSON. On March 2d, 1843, the Court assembled to try a charge preferred by the New York County Medical Society against Dr. Charles H. Jackson. The full bench was present, together with fourteen Aldermen. The charge was sustained. RESIGNATION OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY JAMES R. WHITING. On the 29th of May, 1843, the Court assembled to receive the resignation of James R. Whiting as District Attorney. On motion the letter was engrossed at length on the minutes of the Court. It was as follows : New York, May nth, 1843. Dear Sir: I hereby resign the office of District Attorney for the City and County of New York. I respectfully ask you to communicate it to the Honorable Court over which you preside at your earliest convenience. As no fit occasion has presented itself since my appointment of tendering my thanks to the Court for their partiality in selecting me to fill so important an office, I have deemed it now not unfit to return to them my warm acknowledgments for the high honor conferred upon me. I accepted the trust with thankfulness, and have to the best of my ability performed its functions. I part with it without regret, but with a lively sense of gratitude to the appointing power, cheered by the consciousness which I think I may, without pre- sumption, entertain, that I restore the trust unsul- lied by any act of mine. I will continue to perform the duties of the office until it shall please the Court to sup- ply the vacancy, and in the meantime have the honor to be, with great respect, Your obedient and humble servant, J. R. Whiting. Hon. Michael Ulshoeffer, First Judge of the County Court, City of New York. 46 On June iQth following the Court assembled to con- sider the resignation. An adjournment was had to June 28th, 1843, when the Court resolved that it deemed it inexpedient to accept the resignation of James R. Whiting as District Attorney. COMPLAINTS PREFERRED. At the same meeting the Mayor stated that a com- plaint had been preferred against Justice Gilbert by Henry Smith, John C. Jackson and James Gerry, and that he v/as requested to present the same to the Court. On motion, it was resolved that the same be referred to a committee of three Judges of the Court to examine and report thereon. The following Judges w^ere appointed as the said committee: Aldermen Woodhull, Tillon and Brevoort. On February 28th the Mayor handed in the charges exhibited against Justice Gilbert by Andrew McGown. These charges were referred to the same committee. At the next meeting of the Court, March 4th, 1844, the First Judge of the Common Pleas stated that he had convened the Court to present a petition of James Moncrief preferring a complaint against James B. Greenman, Clerk to the Assistant Justice of the Fifth District Court. This petition was referred to the same committee. On March 12th, 1844, the Court con- vened. Alderman Woodhull, of the committee to whom the complaint against James B. Greenman was referred, presented a written report recommending that further proceedings in the case be discontinued. The report was accepted. 47 The First Judge presented a complaint of Josiah M. Foote against Ebenezer Stevens, a Special Justice, which was read and referred to Alderman Woodhull's committee. ^ On March 26th, 1844, the Court met, and Alderman Woodhull reported in favor of dismissing the complaint of Josiah M. Foote against Justice Stevens. The report was adopted. The same committee reported on the complaint of Andrew McGown against Justice Gilbert. On motion, it was ordered that charges be preferred against Justice Gilbert. The vote upon the motion was eleven in the affirmative, including Judges Ingraham and Inglis and nine Aldermen; and eight in the negative, including Judge Ulshoeffer and seven Aldermen. It was ordered that the District Attorney prepare the charges to be founded upon the complaint presented to the Court. On May 6th, 1844, the Court met to proceed with the hearing of the charges. On this occasion Judge Charles P. Daly sat for the first time in the Court. The District Attorney, Mr. Whiting, appeared for the prosecution, and David Graham, Jr. for the defendant, who, being called upon to plead to the charges, pleaded not guilty. The evidence upon the charges was taken before the Court on several days, down to and including May nth, 1844, and eleven witnesses were examined. The case was summed up and submitted, and, the Court having re-convened, Alderman Scoles and the First Judge read written opinions. On motion, the Court proceeded to consider each specification separately. It was decided that ' ' the first specification of the first charge is proved except as to the quo aninio therein charged." The vote 48 'c^ ^L_^_^^ '/C^ stood eleven to nine, Judge Daly, Recorder Talmadge and ten Aldermen voting in the affirmative, and Judges Ulshoeffer, Ingraham and seven Aldermen in the nega- tive. It was decided that ** the second specification of the first charge except as to the quo animo is proved " by a vote of fourteen to seven. A similar decision was made as to the third specification of the first charge by a vote of twelve to nine. A similar disposition was made as to the fourth specification of the first charge by a vote of eighteen to three, all the Judges, the Recorder and fourteen Aldermen voting in the affirma- tive and three Aldermen in the negative. It was decided ** that the fifth specification of the first charge and that the sixth specification of the first charge was not proved." On vote being taken on the first charge. Justice Gilbert was declared not guilty, by a vote of eight to thirteen, all the Judges and the Recorder voting in the negative. The vote on the second charge was taken generally, and he was declared not guilty by a vote of two to nineteen, and the following resolutions submitted by the First Judge were adopted : First. Resolved^ That although the evidence in the case of the articles of impeachment against Justice Gilbert does not justify the arrest, detention and com- mitment of Mr. McGown as a disorderly person, nor the fine hastily and summarily and without an ad- journment imposed upon Mr. Lewis by said Justice, and although the conduct of the Justice does not meet with the approbation of this Court, still it appears by the evidence that the errors committed by the Justice may have been errors of judgment and were not the re- sult of malice, corruption or oppression. Second. Resolved^ therefore, That the charges against 49 Justice Gilbert are not substantiated in such a manner as to justify his removal from office, and that con- sequently he stands discharged therefrom. These resolutions were adopted by a vote of twelve to nine, all the Judges and the Recorder, with eight Aldermen, voting in favor of, and nine Aldermen against them. MR. MATTHEW C. PATERSON APPOINTED DISTRICT ATTORNEY. On June loth, 1844, the Court met to appoint a Dis- trict Attorney in place of Mr. Whiting, from whom the First Judge read a letter calling attention to the fact that his term of office expired on the 4th inst. Matthew C. Paterson was appointed to succeed him, the vote standing thirteen in his favor, three for William Inglis (ex- Judge of the Court of Common Pleas), and two scattering. COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUSTICES JOSEPH HASKELL AND WILLIAM WALN DRINKER. On Tuesday, January 21st, 1845, the Court convened at the request of the Mayor for the purpose of receiv- ing certain complaints against the official conduct of Joseph Haskell and William Wain Drinker, Special Justices. The Court convened again on February nth, 1845, when Alderman Schieffelin made a motion that the District Attorney be authorized to associate with him- self additional counsel to aid in conducting the proceed- ings. The motion was opposed by Judge Ingraham on the ground that it was a matter discretionary with the 50 District Attorney and contrary to the practice of the Court; but, the question being taken on the motion, it was adopted, and the District Attorney then stated that he had associated Ogden Hoffman as counsel, who appeared and took his seat. The District Attorney filed the charges and specifications against Justices Haskell and Drinker and called upon Justice Haskell to plead. George Wood and James T. Brady appeared as counsel for Justice Haskell, and Mr. Brady before he proposed to plead to the charges made a motion to strike out the fifth charge and addressed the Court in support of the motion. Messrs. Hoffmann and Pater- son, respectively, addressed the Court in opposition, and were followed by Mr. Wood in support of the motion. A question being taken upon striking out, it was decided adversely. The answer of Justice Haskell, pleading not guilty, was then filed, and evidence was produced. The Court adjourned to the 13th of Feb- ruary, when further evidence was taken. Mr. Brady called upon the District Attorney to exhaust the testi- mony on the part of the prosecution of each witness upon all the charges before he proceeded to their cross- examination. The District Attorney objected to this, and stated that he proposed to examine all the wit- nesses upon each charge and thus dispose of each charge separately instead of dieting all the facts within the knowledge of each witness at once in relation to the various charges. The counsel for the respective parties being heard in support and opposition of the proposed course and a vote being taken thereon, the course of the District Attorney was sustained by a vote of ten to eight. Mr. Brady then declined to cross-ex- 51 amine the witness produced on the part of the prosecu- tion until the direct examination was concluded on all charges. This course was assented to by the District Attorney. Evidence was taken upon that and nine subsequent days, until March 2 2d, 1845, when the cause was summed up. At the final meeting there were present the three Judges, Ulshoeffer, Ingraham and Daly, of the Court of Common Pleas; James Harper, Mayor; Frederick A. Talmadge, Recorder, and the following Alderman: William S. Miller, William Gale, William B. Cousins, Lucius G. Drake, William Tucker, Horatio Mott, Jeremiah J. Dickinson, David S. Jackson, Thomas Winship, Stephen Hasbrouck, Richard L. Schieifelin, William C. Seaman and Charles Devoe. Judges Ulshoeffer, Ingraham and Daly, and Aldermen Miller, Dickinson, Schieffelin and Devoe read written opinions of the case; the Mayor and Aldermen Has- brouck and Gale delivered oral opinions. Alderman Schieffelin offered a resolution that Justice Haskell be removed from the office of Special Justice for the following causes: I St. Because he has been guilty of arbitrary, oppress- ive and illegal conduct in the exercises of the duties thereof. 2nd. Because he has been guilty of wilful and malicious conduct in the exercise of his office. 3rd. Because he has been guilty of wilful and gross violations of the duty of a magistrate in conduct tending to defeat the ends of public justice. 4th. Because he has exhibited a violent, ungovern- able and oppressive temper, rendering him unfit for the 52 C^, /c^^-t^'^X^ty^tr-Ux^ '^\ (, X>. l^xVK/{cA-',^-<4^ proper, fair and impartial discharge of the duties of his said office. Alderman Gale stated that although he was in favor of the removal of Justice Haskell, yet he could not vote for the resolution offered if it contained all the causes assigned for such removal; whereupon Alderman Miller moved that it be amended by striking out the words ''wilful and" in the third clause, which was agreed to by a vote of eight to six. The resolution was then adopted by a vote of eleven to seven; the Mayor and ten Aldermen in the affirmative, the three Judges, the Recorder and three Aldermen in the negative. He was, however, acquitted of the first two causes by a vote of eight to ten, and convicted of the last two by a vote of eleven to seven. The considera- tion of the charges against Justice Drinker was set down for the 9th of April. On April 9th an adjournment was taken to April 24th. TRIAL OF JUSTICE DRINKER. On the 24th of April the Court proceeded to the hearing of the charges against Justice Drinker. Mr. David Graham, Jr., on behalf of Justice Drinker, filed a written answer pleading not guilty to the first and second charges and demurring to the third. A motion being made to strike out the words * * has from time to time discharged persons accused of felonies and misdemeanors wilihout examination or bail," in the specification to the third charge, the same were ordered to be stricken out. The demurrer being overruled, the Justice pleaded not guilty to the third charge. Wit- 53 nesses were called and examined on that and five fol- lowing days, when the cause was submitted upon the address of counsel and the First Judge and Alderman Schieffelin read written opinions, the Mayor, the Recorder, Judge Daly and Aldermen Miller, Cousins, Drake, Dickinson and Hasbrouck delivering oral opinions. Alderman Schieffelin offered a resolution that Whereas, The charges against the Justice have in the opinion of the Court been sustained, that he be removed from office for the following causes. I St. That the said William W. Drinker since his appointment has been guilty of wilful, corrupt and illegal conduct in the exercise of his official duties. 2d. That he corruptly took moneys found in the possession of a prisoner which had been stolen, and appropriated same to his own private purposes. 3d. That he has exhibited want of capacity, either through ignorance or incapacity, to discharge the duties of his said office. A motion was made that the resolution be amended by striking out the second cause assigned, which was agreed to without a division. Motion was made that the words ''wilful, corrupt and " in the first cause be stricken out, which was also agreed to without a divi- sion. The question was then put on adopting the reso- lution as amended and it was decided in the negative by a vote of six to eight, Aldermen Williams and Bunting declined voting, not having heard the whole of the tes- timony or the argument of counsel. Judge Ulshoeffer then offered the following resolu- tions: I St. Resolved, That although this Court strongly 54 disapprove of the conduct of Mr. Drinker in the respects stated in the charges against him they do not think that he should be dismissed from his office or has been proved to be guilty of corrupt or malicious proceedings in his official duties. 2d. Resolved therefore, That the charges against Justice Drinker be and the same are hereby dismissed. Debate being had thereon, the resolutions were lost by a vote of four to ten. Alderman Miller then moved that the rejection of the resolutions offered by Alderman Schieffelin be reconsidered, which was done by nine affirmative votes. Alderman Miller then moved the adoption of the resolutions of Alderman Schieffelin, which was lost by a tie vote. Alderman Schieffelin then offered the following reso- lutions: Resolved^ That although this Court disapprove of the conduct of Mr. Drinker in the respects stated in the charges against him they do not think that he should be dismissed from his office or has been proved to be guilty of corrupt or malicious proceedings in his official duties although meriting the strongest censure of the Court. Resolved^ therefore, That the charges against Justice Drinker be and the same are hereby dismissed. These resolutions were adopted by a vote of nine to five. 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 Wain 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 ta 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 (j)cCu>cvAtU duyuu^rn/V^ '^1^ Of .> ^^■" L. ' S^-^t^^c^ J^^^Z^UV't^ i?^)^^ 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 tlie 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 2 2d, 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 11 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 2istinsts., andonFriday, December28th, 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 Moms 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 IRVINC: 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 1 8 16-17 was a member of the State Assembly. Appointed in 182 1 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 18 18 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. Jiidge 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 nisiprius, he was not what would be termed a quick-minded man ; but when questions were argued before him i7t 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 mto 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, wha 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 181 3 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 18 14 a Notary Public, and in in 18 1 5 a Master in Chancery, and served from 1815 ta 1825 as Notary of the City Bank. In 181 6 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 181 7 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 181 8 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 182 1 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 181 7 and was elected Sachem in 181 8. 66 The only public office he held after leaving the bench was as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in 1859 and i860 under the Act of 1857. The Act of i860 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 2 2d, 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 181 7. 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 1 843 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 185 1. 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 DANIEL P. INGRAHAM. dignity until January i, 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,- 000 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 ofhce 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 prills — 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 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. But notwithstanding this omission and the complaints made about it, he was a Judge that everybody liked. Mr. O'Conor then one of the great leaders of the bar, had a high opinion of his merit as a Judge, and so had all the lawyers, and particularly those who had the largest practice in the Court, and were the best able to judge. He was always affable and ready to chat with any member of the profession as the opportunity offered ; and in this easy familiarity made little or no distinc- tion between the highest and the humblest member of the bar. He was fond of what is called gossip, and had a large amount of local information respecting promi- nent New York families, could tell with whom they had intermarried, and had a remarkable memory for the smallest details which would scarcely be expected from a bachelor who rarely went into society or was seen at any social gathering or party. He seemed to take pleasure in this kind of information and retained in his memory many details which would escape from the minds of others. As his term was about to expire (the appointment was then for but five years), there was a very general desire on the part of the bar for his reappointment, but the Democratic party having been then for some years out of power, there was a determination to make full use of the newly acquired patronage for political pur- 73 poses and to make no distinction even in respect to the bench. Two lawyers who were active politicians, became candidates: Thomas W. Waterman, author of a work on " Injunctions, " long since superseded, and Thomas Jeiferson Smith, afterwards a Judge of the Marine Court ; both of them inferior to Judge Inglis in legal knowledge and ability. As it was a local appoint- ment, the jurisdiction of the Court being confined to the city of New York, it was the custom of the Gov- ernor to appoint the person agreed upon by the repre- sentatives of the city of New York, of his own party, in the Legislature. It so happened however, that Waterman and Smith who were very influential politi- cians, divided the New York delegation so that they were equally balanced both in the Senate and Assem- bly, and as neither party would give way to the other, no agreement could be arrived at. In this state of things, it was hoped that Judge Inglis might be reap- pointed, especially as the Democratic lawyers of New York had strongly urged his reappointment. But Gov- ernor Bouck was unwilling to make any exception and would appoint no one who was not a Democrat. He sought the advice of Governor Marcy, a very distin- guished man of large political experience, afterwards Secretary of State under President Polk, and he re- commended the appointment of Charles P. Daly, a young man then twenty-seven years of age, to the dele- gation for the appointment. Judge Daly had been a member of the Legislature the previous year, and as many of the delegation had been members with him, they accepted this compromise and agreed upon him. Judge Daly declined the appointment when offered, 74 being a friend of Judge Inglis whose appointment he had warmly advocated, but afterwards accepted it at that Judge's personal request, Judge Inglis being satisfied that his own reappointment could not be obtained. On leaving the bench Judge Inglis took an office in John Street, which he kept thereafter for many years, doing, however, comparatively little or no business ex- cept an occasional reference, but passed a large part of his time in the Society Library, in which he became a trustee in 1837, and continued until 1855, and held for many years the office of Secretary of the Board of Trustees, the distinguished New York scholar Gulian C. Ver Planck being its chairman. The Society Library having no president, the chairman of the board was its highest officer. Judge Inglis was an omnivorous reader and pre- ferred being among his books than anywhere else. He was rarely thereafter seen about the Courts, seldom if ever went into society or mingled much with men. He had an intimate young friend, a lawyer, and when tak- ing exercise in the Park upon the Battery, his favorite resort, they were almost invariably together. It might be supposed that so accomplished a man with such a widely extended and varied amount of information would have devoted his time at least in part, to some literary work or to the production of a law book that was wanted and could be useful ; but he appears to have ,had no inclination for anything of the kind. While he was on the bench he was invited by Columbia College to deliver a literary address upon some particular occasion which he accepted, and a friend of his who heard it said regretfully that it was a 75 failure ; that it manifested learning enough but wanted constructiveness, and that the general impression of those present seemed to be that of disappointment. It may be therefore said that with all his requirements he lacked naturally the art, or had never taken the trouble to acquire it, of making use of his knowledge in pro- ducing something even for his own gratification, or which might be useful or prove agreeable or entertain- ing to others. His life would probably have been a pleasanter and happier one if he had ; for after he left the bench, and especially as he advanced in years, he became moody, and it is said in his latter years, to have been under the infatuation that he would eventually come to want, a condition not to be apprehended in a man of his prudence and economical habits. A few years before his death he went to New Jersey and took up his residence at Hoboken, and is said to have died in 1863. 76 THE HONORABLE CHARLES P. DALY, LL.D. Charles P. Daly, fifth Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born in the City of New York, Oct. 31st, 1 81 6. His parents had emigrated from the North of Ire- land in 1 8 14 and settled in this city^ where the father was a master carpenter. His ancestors were the O'Dalys of County Galway, a family notable in Irish history for its many scholars, bards and legislators. He began his education at a private school, where he had for classmates among others the late Cardinal John McCloskey and the late James T. Brady. The death of his father, however, interrupted his studies; and, high-minded even as a boy, he was unwill- ing to depend upon a widowed stepmother. He went to Savannah, Georgia, where he obtained employment as a clerk, but chafing under ill-treatment, he shipped as a sailor before the mast and for the next three years fol- lowed the sea. His naturally active mind was, in the meantime, busy collecting knowledge and his original observations on the geographical and historical features of the many places visited in the course of his voyages, laid the foundation for the interest in those subjects in after life. On his return to New York he apprenticed himself to learn the trade — which was before the days of steel pens and envelopes — of preparing quills for writing and mak- ing sealing wax and wafers, and in his leisure hours 77 continued his studies. He joined a literary society, and soon developed remarkable aptitude of mind and great readiness as a debater. Hi^ exceptional abilities attracted the attention of William Soule, a member of the bar, who earnestly urged him to study law, even offering to defray the cost of his going through a colle- giate course preparatory to beginning his legal studies. He was, however, too proud to put himself under such an obligation, but upon the expiration of his term of indenture became a clerk in Mr. Soule's office and devoted himself with characteristic assiduity to his pro- fessional studies. The student of law was at that time required to devote seven years to his preparation for the bar, but so rapid was Mr. Daly's progress that upon the motion of Mr. Rowley, senior member of the firm, the rule was relaxed in his case by Chief Justice Nelson, and he was admitted to the bar at the end of three and one-half years of study. He at once formed a partnership with Thomas McElrath, afterward the founder, with Horace Greeley, of the New York ''Tribune." He rapidly attained prominence at the bar, and became noted for the lucidity and compactness of his legal documents and his ability in the trial of causes. His notable eloquence seems also to have been a natural qualification, which at once brought him prominence and renown. He was elected to the Legislature in 1843, and after serving his term there was offered a nomination for Congress, in a district where his election was certain, which he declined. In 1844 expired the term of Judge Inglis, of the Court of Common Pleas, and, although strongly urged to re-appoint him, Gov. Bouck offered 78 the vacant seat to Mr. Daly, then but twenty-eight years of age. He at first declined the honor on the ground of his youth and inexperience, at the same time strongly urging the prior claims of Inglis. But upon being urged by the Governor, who would not re-appoint Judge Inglis, and by Judge Inglis himself who pre- ferred Mr. Daly to any other possible successor, he accepted the honorable office which he continued to hold for forty-one years. When by the Constitution of 1 846 the office was made elective. Judge Daly was promptly chosen by popular vote for a term of six years ; and was three times there- after re-elected for similar terms. In 187 1 the public appreciation of his ability, fidelity and integrity was shown in an unprecedented fashion. His last appear- ance before the popular vote was well befitting his career. After the exposure of Tweed and his satellites Judge Daly was nominated to succeed himself by all factions in the Democracy and by the Republicans. Every vote cast in the City of New York in the election of 187 1 bore the name of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. Judge Daly became '* First Judge" of the Court of Common Pleas upon the resignation of Judge Daniel Ingraham in 1857, and was re-chosen to the post in 187 1, with title of " Chief Justice. " He would undoubt- edly have long continued in office had not the State Constitution of 1867 prescribed the resignation of a Judge when seventy years of age. His judicial career exceeded by ten years that of Judge Story of Massa- chusetts, and by an equal term that of Lord Mansfield in England. Few jurists have had the good fortune to 79 be so honored as Judge Charles P. Daly. " The illus- trious career of Judge Samuel Nelson reached to within a few months of a full half century of service, but embraced his term in the Supreme Court of the United States as well as that in the Supreme Court of the State of New York." These words are quoted from an address made by Mr. William Allen Butler, at a meeting of the bar held in the Court on Dec. 30th, 1885, the last day of Judge Daly's official life. The call to this meeting was signed not only by Mr. Butler, but by David Dudley Field, Clarence A. Seward, F. R. Cou- dert, James C. Carter, Joseph H. Choate, Elihu Root, John L. Cadwallader, John W. Sterling, Charles C. Beaman, and many others of equal prominence. Ex- President Chester A. Arthur presided. The meeting was thronged. Addresses were made by Mr. Butler, Mr. Field, the late Judge O 'Gorman, and others. An extended account of this meeting appears elsewhere in this volume. In the evening a banquet was given at Delmonico's to the retiring Chief Justice. It was unparalleled in the sense that it was given by the Judges of the Supreme and Superior Courts, the Court of Common Pleas, the Court of General Sessions and the Recorder and the Surrogate. The guests, with two exceptions, were all Judges. Twenty-eight sat at the table. The excep- tions were the clerks of the Common Pleas and of the Superior Courts, Messrs. Nathaniel Jarvis, Jr., and Thomas Boese. Judge Daly has been noted for the suavity of his man- ner, the lucidity of his style, the integrity of his life, his activity, industry and thorough knowledge of the law. 80 He has written much, has been connected with many organizations, varying in their range from the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick to the American Geographical Society, over both of which bodies he has presided as president, and is to-day a member of the Union, the Century, and other clubs, and is as active as many of those who are much his junior in years. The degree of LL. D. was conferred on him by Colum- bia College in i860. His published works are: The Ancient Feudal and the Modern Banking System Compared; The Judicial Tribunals of New York from 1693 to 1848; The Settle- ment of the Jews in North America ; History of the Surrogate's Court of New York; Naturalization, its past History and its Present State ; Biographical Sketch of Gulian C. Verplanck; Barratry, Its Origin, History and Meaning in the Maritime Law ; Origin of Corpora- tions for the Promotion of the Useful Arts; The Jews of New York; Sketch of Henry Peters Gray, the Artist; When was the Drama Introduced in America; Early History of Cartography or What we Know of Maps and Map-making before the time of Mercator; Biographical Sketch of Charles O'Conor; Are the Southern Priva- teersmen Pirates; History of Physical Geography; Have we a Portrait of Columbus; Is the Monroe Doctrine Involved in the Controversy Between Venezuela and Great Britain; Wants of a Botanical Garden in New York, and many speeches and lectures with cases argued and determined in the New York Court of Common Pleas, in 16 Vols., the labor of which under his supervision has been mainly performed by Ephraim A. Jacob, now a Justice of the Court of Special Sessions of 81 the City of New York. A portrait of Judge Daly, painted by Daniel Huntington, hangs in what was the Court room of the General Term 6f the Court of Com- mon Pleas. 82 LEWIS B. WOODRUFF, LL.D. THE HONORABLE LEWIS B.WOODRUFF, LL.D. Lewis B. Woodruff, sixth Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born in Litchfield, Conn., June 19th, 1809. He was educated in the Morris Academy at Litchfield, and entered Yale College, where he was graduated with high honors in the class of 1830. Dur- ing his course he displayed great proficiency in mathe- matics, which was in after life his favorite pastime. At the famous Law School in Litchfield, under the instruction of Judge Gould, he laid the foundation of the scholarly learning which so distinguished his judicial career, and on completing his studies in 1832 he was admitted to the Bar of Connecticut. He soon after came to New York City, and formed a partnership with Hon. Willis Hall, which continued until 1836. He afterwards became associated with Mr. George Wood, then at the head of the bar, and Mr. Richard Goodman, under the style of " Woodruff & Goodman." In 1849 he was elected Judge of the Court of Com- mon Pleas, to succeed Hon. Michael Ulshoeffer, and held that office for six years, 1850-185 5. Among his associates were Daniel P. Ingraham, Charles P. Daly and John R. Brady, and during his term he gave notable construction to the Code and Mechanic's Lien law, then both new. At the close of his term of office in the Court of Com- mon Pleas he was elected Judge of the Superior Court, 83 where he had for associates Judges Oakley, Duer, Bos- worth, Hoffman, Slosson and Pierrepont. This office he also filled for six years, 1856-1^61. At the close of this judicial term he resumed the practice of his profession, and the reputation he had at that time acquired attracted to him a large and profit- able business. As counsel in the trial of causes, he was engaged in some of the most important cases of the day. He remained at the bar, associated as counsel with Hon. Charles F. Sanford, and his son, Charles H. Woodruff, practicing under the firm name of ''Sanford & Woodruff," for six years, 1862-1867. In January, 1868, he was appointed a Judge of the Court of Appeals to fill a vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Hon. John K. Porter, and held the office until the close of the following year. In December, 1869, he was nominated by President Grant and confirmed by the Senate, to the office, then newly created, of Judge of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Second Judicial Circuit, embrac- ing the States of New York, Connecticut and Vermont. This appointment, urged with singular unanimity, spontaneity and earnestness by the bar and leading men of the day, was greeted with high enconiums by the press. This office he held until his death, Septem- ber loth, 1875. His great learning, remarkable power of analysis, deep discernment and excellent judgment made him invaluable as a counsellor, while these qualities of his mind, reinforced by habits of study and industry and sterling integrity, insured his high reputation on the bench during his whole judicial career. So close was 84 liis application that lie never allowed himself needed rest, his study being habitually prolonged until late into the night. " He went to the very bottom of every subject with which he undertook to deal. He cared not for a multiplicity of details ; they never clogged his perception of a general bearing, and never one of them was deprived of the exact degree of weight to which it was relatively entitled. Law was to him what music or art is to some natures ; it engrossed him, and was a province in which he moved a king and a master." In the expression of his legal conclusions he was clear and precise, and his written opinions are models of demon- stration. To his mathematical genius were added mechanical skill and ingenuity of such high order, that it was said of him that "a good mechanic was lost when he studied law." This talent was developed at an early age, and his boyhood home contained many labor-saving devices, evidences of his inventive skill. In after life this fitted him to deal with the cases of admiralty and particularly of patent law, which formed so large a part of his duties as Circuit Judge. Dignified in his bearing, and exacting the respect which was his due, he was in the family circle tender and affectionate, everywhere generous, kind and help- ful. An appearance of austerity on the bench but masked the kindness and gentleness of his heart. Him- self laborious, painstaking and exhaustive, he had little patience with indifference and negligence in the per- formance of duty in others. Devoted to his home and home joys, genial and cor- dial, he was the delight of the social circle, and his 85 loving welcome, hospitable board and ever open door kept warm hearts constantly about him. In the summer of 1875, broken in health, his vigor- ous mind and untiring energy having overtaxed a strong body, he went to his summer home in Litchfield, and there slowly but surely failed in strength, until on the loth day of September he passed away, esteemed, revered and beloved, as few men are, by all who knew him. His honors were chiefly professional and judicial, though in i860 he received the honorary degree of Doc- tor of Laws from Columbia College. He began political life as a National Republican, continued with that party under the name of Free Soil Whig, and on the formation of the present Republican party became and always continued its firm friend and supporter. Educated a Congregationalist, he first became a mem- ber of its communion. On removal to New York, he became connected with the Presbyterian Church, and later transferred his church membership to the Collegi- ate Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, of which ^, he was an elder and one of the most valued and trusted advisors of its councils. 86 THE HONORABLE JOHN R. BRADY. Thomas S. Brady, born in Ireland, was admitted to the New York Ear in 1826, was a Justice of the Peace, became an Alderman for the City of New York when the office meant something more than it does to-day, was a remarkable linguist, was at one period a teacher, teaching among others the late Cardinal McCloskey, and died in the city of his adoption. His three sons became lawyers and were all remarkable men. The eldest, Thomas Brady, before he attained distinction at the bar, was appointed into the United States Marine Corps and lived and died an officer of the navy. The second son, James T. Brady, one of the most brilliant of all the members of the New York Bar, became Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, and in i860 was the candidate for Governor of the State on the Hard-shell or Pro-slavery Democratic ticket. It is said of Mr. James T. Brady that he never lost a cause in which he was before a jury for more than a week — for in that time everything was seen through his eyes. John Riker Brady, seventh Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born in the City of New York in 1821, was admitted to the bar in 1842, and immediately went into partnership with Mr. Maurice and with his brother, James T. Brady, the firm being Brady, Maurice & Brady. Mr. Maurice afterwards withdrew, 87 •and the two brothers continued in business alone, until the younger one was called to the bench. Elected in 1855 to the Court of Common Pleas, Judge John R. Brady was re-elected in 1869, and before his second term had expired he was elected to the Supreme Bench. At his second election to the Common Pleas Bench, he received the endorsement of the Republicans and of all factions of the Democratic party, was unopposed, and consequently elected by an immense vote. At the expiration of his first term on the Supreme Court Bench in 1877, he again received the unanimous nomination of all parties, and had he lived but a few months longer would have retired, having reached the constitutional age of seventy. His career on the bench covered a period of over thirty-five years. In 1863, he married Katherine Lydig, daughter of Philip M. Lydig, and sister of the ^wif e of Judge Charles P. Daly, who sat on the bench of the Common Pleas for over forty years. Judge Brady was one of the best trial Judges known in the history of the New York Bar ; many of his opin- ions attracted widespread attention, and were founded on common sense and natural justice rather than on fine technical points, though he never allowed anything to interfere with his sense of duty. Judge Brady was a member of many social organiza- tions, was one of the founders of the Manhattan Club, one of the presidents of the Lambs' Club, and served several terms as president of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick. He died after an illness of less than twenty-four hours, being afiiicted with an abscess on the brain, in the Hanover apartment house, in the City of New York, on March i6th (1891). A portrait of Judge Brady for a period adorned the Court room of the General Term of the Common Pleas, but on the abolition of the Court was removed to the rooms of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. 89 THE HONORABLE HENRY HILTON. Henry Hilton, eighth Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born in October, 1824, at Newburgh, in Orange County, N. Y. His father was Scotch-Irish; his mother, Janet Graham, a woman of singular intelli- gence and force of character, was Scotch. When Henry was a small child his father removed to New York, and was engaged in business here until his death, living in Wooster Street. Henry Hilton was the youngest of four sons, all of whom were bred to professional life. The eldest son, James, was for many years a Judge in Iowa, and is still living, at an advanced age, at Hilton, Monroe County, Iowa. The second son, Joseph Hilton, became a physician, and was at one time coroner of New York. The third son, Archibald, became prominent as a lawyer in this city early in life , and some of the older lawyers at the bar still speak of him as the best prac- titioner they ever knew. He died when a comparatively young man. Henry Hilton was admitted to the bar in 1846, and for some years acted as Master in Chancery. He soon acquired an extensive and lucrative practice, being en- gaged in many important litigations, notably that in which it was sought to condemn the property known as "Jones' Wood " for the purposes of a public park. He 90 HENRY HILTON, successfully resisted the attempt on behalf of the prop- erty-owners. In the early fifties he married Miss Ellen Banker, a daughter of Edward Banker, of Banker & Schermer- horn, and a sister of James H. Banker, who afterwards became prominent as a financier and capitalivSt, being president of the Bank of New York, and a director in the New York Central Railroad Company and in many other financial institutions. He was elected a Judge of the Common Pleas in 1857 by a majority of about 17,000 over William M. Allen. He edited the two volumes of " Hilton's Reports," cov- ering the period from 1855 to i860, and the head-notes in those volumes are still regarded as models of concise and accurate statement. At the end of his term, he resumed the practice of the law, taking into partnership Douglas Campbell, the son of Judge William W. Campbell who in the Judge's youth had been his senior partner, and Joseph Bell, who had been Assistant United States District Attorney for the Southern Dis- trict of New York, and was later appointed by Presi- dent Arthur Judge of the Supreme Court for New Mexico, where he died. Douglas Campbell will be best known to posterity as the author of ' ' The Puritan in Holland, England and America," a work wholly written while he was struggling against the fatal illness to which he finally succumbed. Judge Hilton is, perhaps, most widely known from his relations to Alexander T. Stewart. Mrs. Hilton was the cousin of Mrs. Stewart, and through that rela- tionship the Judge was early brought into social intimacy with Mr. Stewart, and became his legal adviser before 91 he was elected a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas. After his retirement from the bench, in addition to his office in the firm of Hilton, Campbell & Bell, he also had an office in the mercantile house of Mr. Stewart, and continued in most intimate professional and per- sonal relations until his death. Mr. Stewart, who died in April, 1876, left him a large legacy in his Will, and Mrs. Stewart, shortly after her husband's death, at the request of her husband, as she stated, transferred to Judge Hilton all interest in the mercantile business. Thereupon Judge Hilton wholly abandoned his profes- sion and devoted himself to mercantile pursuits. He is one of the very few who, after being trained to and passing many years in a profession, have been success- ful men of business. He continued in mercantile busi- ness until about 1883 when he was succeeded by his sons, and his son-in-law, who have since continued the business under the firm names of — Sylvester, Hilton & Co., and Hilton, Hughes & Co. His son, Col. Albert B. Hilton, is now the head of the firm. Judge Hilton has a splendid country seat at Sara- toga, known as Woodlawn Park. It consists of about a thousand acres, and has something like fifteen miles of wooded drives which are thrown open to the public, greatly adding to the attractions of that famous resort. Judge Hilton was always noted for his self-reliance, mental and physical energy, and great rapidity of thought and action. While somewhat active in politics he has never been an aspirant for political honors nor a seeker for popularity. He belongs to the Cen- tury, the Press and New York Clubs; and his re- 92 ligious affiliations are with the Protestant Episcopal Church. He has three sons living, Edward B., Henry G., and Albert B. Hilton; and two daughters, Cornelia, the wife of John M. Hughes, and Josephine H., the wife of Judge Horace Russell. 93 THE HONORABLE ALBERT CARDOZO, LL.D. Albert Cardozo, LL.D., ninth Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born in Philadelphia, December 2ist, 1828. While yet a child he was brought to the City of New York. His parents being poor, he was obliged to leave school at an early age, and to depend on his own exer- tions. Determining upon the law as a profession, he was admitted to the bar soon after attaining his majority in 1849. He was successful in his practice, and in the Autumn of 1863, when less than thirty-five years of age, was elected to the Bench of the Common Pleas. He re- signed from the Court of Common Pleas in 1867, to take the nomination for the Supreme Court, to which he was elected, and took his seat on the first of January, 1868. When a Judge of the Supreme Court, Judge Cardozo was accused of complicity with the Tweed ring, but the widely agitated investigation was dropped upon his resignation. Instead of leaving New York, as it was generally understood that he would do, he presently became active again, both at the bar and in politics. In 1874 he formed a partnership with Richard S. Newcomb, and in 1878 was made a member of the General Committee of Tammany Hall, and shortly afterward was elected Sachem of Tammany Society. Judge Cardozo died in the City of New York on November 8th, 1885. 94 HOOPER C. VAX VORST, LL.D. THE HONORABLE HOOPER C. VAN VORST, LL.D. Hooper C. Van Vorst, LL. D. , tenth Judge of the Court of Common Pleas was born in Schenectady, in the State of New York, on December 3d, 181 7. He was graduated at Union College in 1839, and immediately after graduation began the study of law in his native town. In 1841 he removed to Albany, was admitted to the bar and shortly afterwards appointed by the municipal board attorney and counsel to the city, which office he held for several years. Coming to the City of New York in 1853, he soon acquired a large practice. In 1868 he was appointed by Gov. Fenton Justice of the Court of Common Pleas and served on that bench for one year. In 187 1 he was elected for a full term of fourteen years to the Bench of the Superior Court of the City of New York. During a large part of his connection with the latter Court, however, acting under the appointment of the Governor of the State, Judge Van Vorst sat in the Supreme Court. A strict Presbyterian, Judge Van Vorst, soon after he came to New York, united with the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, then under the pastorate of Dr. James W. Alexander, but now for many years under the charge of Rev. Dr. John Hall. Besides being identified v/ith the local church, he was 95 a Commissioner for the Presbytery of New York to the General Assembly in May, 1883, at Saratoga, and was for many years a member of the Board of Foreign Mis- sions and a Trustee of the Children's Aid Society of the Presbyterian Church. He was also one of the founders of the Holland Society and was its president for several years. Judge Van Vorst was noted for his sincerity, for his simplicity of manners, for his warm and constant friend- ships, and for his active sympathy with charitable and religious concerns. His judicial course was character- ized by learning, impartiality and inflexible adherence to the law. The degree of LL.D., was conferred upon Judge Van Vorst by Union College. He was twice married and left surviving him a widow and several children. His son Frederick B. Van Vorst is now engaged in the practice of law in New York City. Judge Van Vorst died in New York City on October 26th, 1889. 96 GEORGE C. BARRETT. THE HONORABLE GEORGE C. BARRETT. Though yet in the prime of life, considerably under sixty years of age, Judge Barrett has already passed nearly thirty years of his active life upon the bench. Elected Civil Justice at the age of twenty-five, identi- fied for nearly two years with the Court of Common Pleas, he is now (1896) serving the eleventh year of his second term as Justice of the Supreme Court. George Carter Barrett, eleventh Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was bom in Ireland, July 28, 1838., His father was the Rev. Gilbert Carter Barrett, a clergyman of the Church of England who, soon after the birth of his son became a missionary to the Indian tribes of Canada. His grandfather, Lieut. John Carter Barrett, was an officer in the English army during the Napoleonic wars and was awarded a medal for bravery on the field of Waterloo. Judge Barrett began his education in London, West Canada, afterwards attending the Columbia Grammar School in New York City from whence he entered Columbia College. He left college at the end of fresh- man year and began the study of law. At this period he in large part supported himself by engaging in various literary ventures, writing serials, short stories, and novels and contributing to newspapers articles on topics of current interest. After his admission to the bar he practiced for sev- 97 eral years with success, but in 1863 was elected Justice of the Sixth Judicial District and from that year, excepting for a short intermission, 1871-72, has been continuously identified with our judiciary. During this period, 1871-72, Judge Barrett became strongly identified with state and national politics. He was president of the Young Men's Municipal Reform Association in its memorable contest against the Tweed ring. He was a member of the Committee of Seventy of that time, and in association with Messrs. A. R. Lawrence, Francis C. Barlow, and Wheeler H. Peck- ham, acted as its counsel. He was also counsel for John Foley in his celebrated injunction suit against the ring. Judge Barrett was married on November 30, 1865, to Miss Gertrude Fairfield, a daughter of Sumner Lincoln Fairfield, the poet and literateur. Elected Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in 1869, after a service of nearly two years, more accurately, one year and nine months, he resigned with the inten- tion of resuming the active practice of the profession. In 187 1, however, he was elected Judge of the Supreme Court for the term of fourteen years, and was again in 1885, re-elected for another full term of fourteen years. Identified for nearly a quarter of a century with the Supreme Court, although at all times possessed of unusual political power yet unsullied in reputation either as man, lawyer, or judge, it is not an unfitting tribute that Judge Barrett should be one of the original seven members of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the First Judicial District of the State of New York. 98 FREDERICK W. LOEW. THE HONORABLE FREDERICK W. LOEW. Frederick William Loew, twelfth Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born in Alsace, December 20, 1834, and when about three years of age was brought by his parents to the United States. His ancestry on both sides sprang from old Alsatian stock residing in Strasburg in Alsace. Many of them occupied high social and political positions in their ancestral city and other parts of France. When about sixteen years old he lost his father, Frederick J. Loew, and was left with his mother and four younger brothers. He was educated in English, French, and German schools of New York City. Having artistic tastes of a high order he determined to adopt engraving as a profession, and accordingly studied under one of the most talented engravers in the city. He applied himself so industriously to his art and attained such proficiency, that before he was twenty years old he received two silver medals and a handsome edition of Webster's dictionary for works of his exhibited at the American Institute and other expo- sitions. The dies for medallions, etc., exhibited at the American Institute, was announced as having been cut and exposed by him expressly for the competition and he carried off the highest prize for the same as against the works of some of the most celebrated engravers of the country. 99 His close application however, and the habit of con- stantly stooping over his artistic work, had seriously impaired his health, and by advice' of his physician he undertook a journey South. Being a passenger on board the ill-fated steamer ' ' Cres- cent City," he was shipwrecked on the Bahama banks on December 7, 1855, and after two nights and days of privation was finally taken from the wreck by a wreck- ing schooner to the island of Nassau. He sailed from thence to Havana, and later to New Orleans, where for some time he was seriously ill. The excitement and hardship, however, had called out all the latent energy of his system, and thus what was at first supposed would prove fatal tended to his recovery. Returning home, he was obliged to choose a more active profession than art and entered upon the law. After holding a position as a law clerk in the sheriff's office for a time, devoting his leisure to professional study, he was admitted to the bar in i860. From the start his practice was attended with success; his specialty was the examination of titles to real estate and conveyancing. In the fall of 1863, he was elected by a large majority for a term of six years, Justice of the Fifth Judicial District Court of New York City, comprising the Sev- enth, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Wards. Under his able and faithful management the business of the Court increased steadily from year to year, as is shown by the official records. In the spring of 1867 he was chosen by the electors of the Twelfth Assembly District as a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1867-68, in the work of 100 which body he took an active part. In November, 1869, he was appointed by Governor Hoffman Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, to fill the unexpired term of Hon. George C. Barrett, resigned, and at the gen- eral election in the same month was chosen by a large popular vote for a full term of six years, commencing January i, 1870. As Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, Judge Loew made good his highly creditable record in former offices, and tried many notable and difficult cases with marked ability and impartiality. His decisions were very seldom reversed by the Court of Appeals. In October, 1875, he was appointed by Governor Tildento hold a special term for the trial of jury causes in the Supreme Court. In 1875, he was renominated by the Democracy for Justice of the Court of Common Pleas for the term of fourteen years, but owing to the sweeping victory of the combination of Republicans and Independent Democrats which had been made, he was unsuccessful, although he led the entire ticket by several thousand votes, and he therefore returned to active practice at the bar. In 1877, after repeated refusals, he was finally per- suaded to accept the Democratic nomination for Regis- ter of New York City and County, and notwithstanding a similar combination to that of 1875 had been entered into between the Republicans and Independent Demo- crats, he was, after a very excited and closely contested canvass, elected by several thousand majority, serving through the years 1878-79-80. Some time after the expiration of his term of office lOI his health, never robust, at last gave way and he was obliged to discontinue active practice and seek relief in travel. He has since resided mostly in Paris, making occasional visits to New York or traveling throughout Europe and the Orient. Judge Loew was careful and conscientious. His motto, ' ' Whatever is worth doing at all is worth doing well," found ample expression in his judicial life. The unqualified, painstaking, and intense devotion to details which won him distinction in his first calling, charac- terized the whole of his public life. He was married in New York City, December 19, 1867, to Julia Augusta, daughter of the late Jacob Van- derpoel, formerly Dock Commissioner, and a descend- ant of an old Holland Dutch family which settled in New Amsterdam in the earliest days of the colony. 102 THE HONORABLE CHARLES H. VAN BRUNT. Charles H. Van Brunt, thirteenth Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born in 1836, at Bay Ridge, now a part of Brooklyn, in a house erected by one of his ancestors and which was until recently in Judge Van Brunt's possession. Prepared for college in Brooklyn he was graduated at the University of the City of New York in the class of 1856. After studying law with the firm of Leonard & Hoffman, the head of which was formerly Commis- sioner of Appeals and a Judge of the Supreme Court ; the other partner being Hon. John T. Hoffman, after- wards Governor of New York, he was admitted to the bar in i860. Judge Van Brunt continued in the office of Leonard & Hoffman for some years as confidential clerk and eventually became a partner in the firm, remaining in the practice of his profession until 1869, when he w^as appointed Judge of the Common Pleas to fill a vacancy caused by the election of Judge Brady to the Supreme Court. While at the bar he had an active practice, serving at one time as counsel to the City Chamberlain. Judge Van Brunt, in 1870, was elected for the full term of fourteen years and served on the bench of the Com- mon Pleas until 1883, when he was elected to the Supreme Court. Judge Van Brunt, despite the dis- crepancy in their years, was an intimate friend of the 103 elder Judge Ingraham, and has served on the bench with both of the Judges Ingraham — father and son. He has been twice married, has several children, and is now one of the original seven members of the Appel- late Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judi- cial District of New York. He is also one of the coun- cil of the University of the City of New York. He is a member of the Manhattan and Lotus Clubs, New York Yacht Club, and of the St. Nicholas Society. His only son, Arthur H. Van Brunt, is a practicing lawyer. Judge Van Brunt has been conspicuous for promptitude, energy, industry, and extraordinary facility in dispatch- ing business with rapidity. 104 JOSEPH F. DALY, LL.D. THE HONORABLE JOSEPH F. DALY, LL.D. Joseph F. Daly, fourteenth Judge and last Chief Jus- tice of the Court of Common Pleas, was born December 3, 1840, at Plymouth, North Carolina. His father was Captain Denis Daly, of Limerick, Ireland, who having been in early life appointed purser's clerk in the British navy, resigned to engage in the merchant service, built and sailed his own vessels, and finally settled in Plymouth as wharfinger, shipowner and merchant, and died in 1 84 1. His maternal grandfather was Lieut. John Duffey of the loist Regiment, stationed in Montego Bay, Jamaica, W. L, where the Judge's mother was bom. The family removed to New York in 1849, and he com- menced as law clerk with S. W. & R. B. Roosevelt in 1855, and studied law with them until 1862, when he was admitted to the bar. On the retirement of the firm from business in 1865 he succeeded to their prac- tice. In 1867, he formed a co-partnership with George F. Noyes, and after the latter's death established the well-known firm of Daly, Henry & Olin. He was counsel for the Citizen's Association, an organization for municipal reform, from 1864 to 1870, and was attorney for the Chemical Bank and other prominent clients. He became prominent as a legal adviser and an advocate of important measures of municipal reform. Among his prominent cases were the prosecutions of 105 public officials before the Governor in 1865 (reported in 19 Abbott's Practice Reps., 376); injunctions against waste by municipal officers, he having instituted the first action of the kind, with John Hecker as plaintiff, in 1865 (18 Abbott's Practice Reps., 369). His pri- vate practice included important questions, among them the constitutionality of legislative appropriation of private wharf property for the canal district ^\dthout compensation to owners (Roosevelt^. Goddard, 52 Bar- bour's Reps., 534). His practice from 1862 to 1870 covered all branches of the law. The State Constitu- tion of 1869 increased the number of Judges of the Court of Common Pleas from three to six, and one of the nominations of the Democratic party was tendered to and accepted by Mr. Daly. His associates on the ticket were Hamilton W. Robinson and Richard L. Larremore, who were all elected on May 17, 1870, together with Charles H. Van Brunt, who was chosen to fill a vacancy. Thus, at the age of twenty-nine he began a judicial career, which at the present writing (1896) has exceeded a quarter of a century. At the expiration of his term in 1884, Judge Daly was again elected and by a highly complimentary vote, inasmuch as he and Judge Larremore, his associate on the bench, were the only successful candidates on the ticket on which they ran. In 1890, he was chosen by his associates Chief Judge of the Court. Judge Daly is a man of force, industry, integrity, and learning, noted for his love of literature, and his interest in the drama, with which his brother, Augustin Daly, is connected; for his exquisite tastes, and especially for his collection of rare prints, 106 books and pictures. As a Judge he is noted for his amiable temper — and has ever preserved an un- varying dignity of demeanor, alwa3^s mingled with great courtesy and consideration, especially toward the younger members of the bar. He is a lucid reasoner, and one of the most thoroughly equipped lawyers on the New York bench. Judge Daly's idea of the duties of both bench and bar. was laconically expressed by himself on the closing of the Court over which he presided in what must here- after be accepted as a legal aphorism — " A courageous bar makes an incorruptible judiciary." It is very remarkable that while Judge Charles P. Daly sat on the Common Pleas Bench for over forty years, Judge Joseph F. Daly has held the next longest term of the twenty- three Judges identified with the later history of the Court. He received the degree of LL.D. from St. John's College at Fordham in 1883; was one of the founders and incorporators of the Play- ers' Club, with Edwin Booth and others; is the Presi- dent of the Catholic Club; a member of the Geographi. cal Society, the Southern Club, the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick; a member of the New York Law Institute; honorary member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York; manager of the Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum ; member of the Advisory Board of St. Vincent's Hospital; member of the Democratic Club, and other social and literary organizations. By the Constitution of 1894, Judge Daly was transferred to the Supreme Court, and, together with Judge McAdam, late of the Superior Court, and Judge Bischoff, of the 107 Common Pleas, forms the Appellate Term, which reviews the decisions of the lower Courts. Judge Daly has been twice mahried: first in 1873 to Miss Emma Robinson Barker, a stepdaughter of Judge Hamilton W. Robinson. She died in 1886, leaving three children. Second, in 1890, to Miss Mary Louise Smith, daughter of Edgar M. Smith, of New York. 108 HAMILTON W. ROBINSON. THE HONORABLE HAMILTON W. ROBINSON. Hamilton W. Robinson, fifteenth Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born in Albany, N. Y., Novem- ber 25, 1 8 14, son of James W. Robinson, a prominent and well-known business man of that city. He was educated at the Albany Academy and Union College, being graduated A.B. in the class of 1832. Among his classmates were Alexander W. Bradford, afterwards Surrogate of New York County; Gilbert M. Speir, late Judge of the Superior Court, and Lieuten- ant-Governor David R. Floyd- Jones. After gradua- tion he began the study of law in the office of McCown & Van Buren, in Albany, and upon his admission to the bar, became a partner of Mr. Van Buren, who, having been made Attorney- General, appointed him his deputy. The firm continued prominent at the bar of Albany until their removal in 1848 to New York City, where for the next ten years they were most active and successful. Judge Robinson's experience as deputy and assistant to the Attorney-General gave him a practical knowledge of the law of corporations and municipalities which thereafter became his specialty in practice. Among their first clients in New York was Edwin Forrest, whom they represented as attorneys in his famous twenty-year divorce suit. After the termination of their partnership, Judge 109 Robinson carried on his practice alone for several years. In that time he acted as referee in numerous important cases and achieved a well-deserved popu- larity in that capacity. George Law and John Kerr, the railroad magnates, were his clients, and in connec- tion with Charles O'Conor, he played an important part in the famous railroad cases which resulted in the notable decision in People v. Kerr, by which the Sev- enth Avenue, Broadway, and Dry Dock Railroads were enabled to construct their lines. He was counsel for these companies and others, and continued as referee in a vast number of important cases, which were referred to him by consent of parties, until his elevation to the bench. In 1863, Mr. Robinson formed a co-partnership with Mr. John M. Scribner under the style of Robinson & Scribner, which was continued for seven years. Mr. Robinson declined the Democratic nomination to the Judgeship of the Court of Appeals in 1870 in favor of his friend, Charles A. Rapallo, who was consequently elected ; but, in the following May, accepted the nomi- nation to the bench of the Court of Common Pleas, to which he was elected for a term of fourteen years and six months, beginning July i, 1870. As a practitioner. Judge Robinson was noted for his painstaking application to the details of a case, never going to trial with any cause until he had mastered every intricacy and provided against all contingencies and difficulties. He also made a thorough study of his clients' interests, and was thus enabled to advise them and provide for their particular needs and wishes as would a family physician for a patient. In his judicial no capacity he showed deep legal scholarship, and the fairness and accuracy of his decisions were unques- tioned so exhaustive and studied were they in every particular. He was particularly noted for his patience and urbanity and courtesy to all who approached him. On the occasion of his death the bench and bar com- bined in sincere expression of their loss and in tributes to his memoiy at a special meeting called for that pur- pose on April 24, 1879. (See proceedings reported in 7 Daly Reports.) A commemorative tablet in his honor has been recently erected in the General Term room of the Court of Common Pleas, in the County Court House, New York, of which special mention will be found in another place. His portrait has hung on the walls in the same room since shortly after his death. Judge Robinson was twice married, first to Emma Whitney, of Albany, N. Y., who died in 1865 at his country seat in Worcester, Otsego Co. , N. Y. ; and sec- ond to Mrs. Catherine D. Barker, of Albany, who sur- vived him. Judge Robinson died in New York City, April 7, 1879, leaving two sons and two daughters. One of his sons, Mr. Henry A. Robinson, is a practicing lawyer, and is the attorney for the Metropolitan Traction Company. THE HONORABLE RICHARD LUDLOW LARREMORE, LL.D.* Richard Ludlow Larremore, sixteenth Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born near Astoria, L. I., on September 6, 1830, and died in this city on Septem- ber 13, 1893. His descent in the maternal line was from the early Dutch settlers of New Netherland. On the paternal side his ancestry was English, but long resident on Long Island. He was graduated from Rutgers College in 1850. He studied law with the firm of Betts & Robinson, and on his admission to the bar became a partner of Scoles and Cooper, who were leading members of the admiralty bar at that time. The law of real property was the branch to which young Larremore especially devoted his attention, and he soon became the counsel of the Dry Dock Savings Institution, and of other clients who made loans on real estate security. It may truthfully be said'that he never lost a client, and that every client became his friend for life. The estimation in v/hich he was held may be learned from the fact that he was frequently solicited to act as guardian and executor, positions that he firmly refused to accept. * This memorial was prepared after Judge Larremore's death by his asso- ciate, Judge George M. Van Hoesen, and was read bj' Judge Van Hoesen at a meeting of The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, held on March 13, 1894. 112 RICHARD L. LARREMORE, LL.D. A memorial of Chief Justice Larremore would be incomplete without a reference to his long- and faithful service to the cause of public education. For many years he was an active member of the Board of Educa- tion, and for three years was president of the board. His firmness prevented that body from falling under the control of the Tweed Ring, and eiffectually stopped a bold attempt to apply to the purchase of school sup- plies the methods that obtained in the building of the County Court House. In 1867 he was elected to the Constitutional Conven- tion by a very flattering vote, and he took a prominent part in the debates, being especially well qualified to speak on all questions affecting our system of popular education. In 1870, when the judicial force of the Court of Com- mon Pleas was increased, he was elected to the bench of that Court in company with Hamilton W. Robinson and Joseph F. Daly. Charles H. Van Brunt, who had previously been appointed to fill a vacancy, was elected a Judge of the Common Pleas on the same ticket. Judge Larremore left a large practice, which, though consisting largely of conveyancing, had been sufficiently varied to equip him for the duties on which he entered. His native quickness of apprehension and his ready command of resources soon gave him a recognized position as a nisi prius Judge; but in equity causes, for which his experience gave him special training, his judicial work was from the first of a high order. He always had a well-defined sense of what the law ought to be when a novel question was suddenly raised. He had a good memory, not for the titles, but for the 113 essential principles of important cases, and it was his habit to familiarize himself with the latest adjudications. Though he was very fortunate in handling cases where no opportunity for an examination of the authorities was given to him, he welcomed the labor of research, and shrank from no toil that a conscientious desire to reach the very truth in the law involved. His opin- ions were almost always brief, and though reversals fall to the lot of every Judge he was exceptionally fortu- nate in the Appellate Court. A good illustration of his judicial methods may be found in his opinion in Dupre vs. Rein, 7 Abb. N. C, 256. That case involved an examination of the status of a tripartite agreement between husband and wife with the intervention of a trustee, entered into after the separation of the wedded pair. Citing many authori- ties he stated the existing rules regulating the recipro- cal duties and liabilities of the parties and the methods of enforcing them, with great conciseness, but with the keenest discrimination. That case has frequently been cited and followed and has received the honor of special mention by the Court of Appeals, an honor seldom fall- ing to a decision at vSpecial Term. Though Chief Justice Larremore never trimmed his sails to catch the breeze of popular favor he was always a very popular man. The courtesy and kind- ness that endeared hirn to the younger members of the bar were the offspring of a genial nature that ever manifested itself in his intercourse with the world, and which won for him golden opinions from all. He sat in the Supreme Court by the order of the Governor, and grew in reputation whilst an incumbent of that 114 bencli. His associates, on the retirement of Chief Jus- tice Charles P. Daly, chose him as the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. In 1869, the degree of LL. D. was conferred upon Judge Larremore by the University of the City of New York. "5 THE HONORABLE GEORGE M. VAN HOESEN. Sprung from one of the oldest of our Dutch families, with a distinguished record as a soldier, no greater compliment could have been paid to the legal abilities of Judge George M. Van Hoesen, the seventeenth Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, than the general regret which was expressed by the prominent New York jour- nals of all shades of political opinions, on his retire- ment from the bench in 1890. Born in New York, he was graduated at the Uni- versity of the City of New York. Prominent in many of the under-graduate organizations, he has since graduation served as president of the Alumni Associa- tion. He studied law in the State and National Law School, then located at Poughkeepsie, and for a time was an instructor there on the subjects of pleadings and evi- dence. Going to Davenport, Iowa, shortly after, he began the practice of the law there, and so continued until the breaking out of the war in 1861 when, forming a company of which he was made captain, he was attached to the 13th Iowa Infantry. Serving under General Grant in Missouri, and ascending the Tennes- see River with him in 1862, he was promoted to the rank of major for gallantry at the battle of Shiloh, and took part in the subsequent capture of Vicksburg. At one time he was provost-marshal of the armies in the 116 GEORGE M. VAN H(3ESEN. field for tlie Department of the Mississippi. At the close of the war Major Van Hoesen resumed the prac- tice of law in New York City, where his success was marked. Perhaps the most notable event connected with Judge Van Hoesen's practice at this period was the fact that in 1866 he drew the first bill ever drawn for the con- struction of an elevated railway. Mr. Richard Mont- gomery had invented a plan for an aerial railway. Judge Van Hoesen interested capitalists in the enter- prise, but considering the expression " aerial " a little flighty, caused the proposed law to be entitled, *' An Act to Authorize the Construction of an Elevated Rail- way on Broadway," thus giving the name ** elevated " to the system which is so well known to-day. The bill, which passed the Assembly by a large majority, failed in the Senate, but it was the pioneer of the legislation that has given to New York the nearest approach to rapid transit. Upon the retirement of Judge Van Hoesen, in 1889, an editorial in one of the leading metropolitan journals well expressed the dominant feel- ing at the time, calling it a misfortune " that a man of his talents, kindly feelings and dignified courtesy could not have received a renomination." After leaving the bench Judge Van Hoesen resumed active practice. The same care, industry, accuracy, and conscientiousness which he exercised in the discharge of his judicial duties have ever marked his relations in regard to his clients. Possessed of a wonderful memory he is not only remarkably well versed in the principles of the law but can always quote his authorities with accuracy and promptness. Of kindly nature, gentle 117 and pleasant in his manners, upright in all his relations to life, honors have come in abundance to Judge Van Hoesen. He is a trustee or the Holland Trust Com- pany, was chairman for three successive terms of the Memorial Committee of the Grand Army, of which he has long been a comrade in La Fayette Post No. 140; was one of the founders and has been one of the presi- dents of the Holland Society. On the organization of the Zeta Psi Club, in 1882, he was by acclamation ten- dered its presidency. He is also a member of the Union and Manhattan Clubs, the St. Nicholas Society, and of the Historical and Geographical Societies. Judge Van Hoesen is unmarried and is still engaged in the active practice of his profession. 118 MILES BEACH. THE HONORABLE MILES BEACH. More litigation came before the Supreme Court in the City of New York than was brought before either the Superior Court or the Court of Common Pleas. To relieve the Supreme Court Judges the Governor was accustomed to appoint one of the Judges of the Supe- rior Court and one of the Judges of the Court of Com- mon Pleas to sit on the Supreme Bench. Judge Miles Beach, through frequent appointments of successive Governors to act with the Justices of the Supreme Court, was always more identified in the popular mind with the latter than with the Court to which he had been originally appointed and twice elected and of which he was one of the last Judges. Son of the late Hon. William A. Beach, who ranked with Charles O'Conor, James T. Brady, and other prominent lawyers of the preceding generation, Miles Beach, eighteenth Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born at Saratoga Springs in 1833. Soon after his graduation at Union College in 1854, he became associated with his father in the law firm of Messrs. Beach & Smith, at Troy, N. Y. The law busi- ness of this firm grew to such an extent that in 187 1 father and son came to New York. Upon the election of Judge Rapallo to the Court of Appeals the law firm of Rapallo, Daly & Brown was changed to Beach, Daly & Brown, with the Messrs. Beach as members of the 119 firm. Mr. Daly retiring, the firm became Beach & Brown, and, acting as attorneys for Mr. Jay Gould and for some of the Vanderbilts, had, for a period, the largest railway business in New York. In 1879, Governor Robinson appointed Mr. Beach Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. Though his opponents in the election of the following year were ex-Recorder Smyth and Elihu Root, he was elected in the Autumn, and again re-elected at the end of his term, in 1893, for another term of fourteen years. Judge Beach has been known for many years as one of the most cultivated Judges of the New York Courts. His " opinions" are models of conciseness. He has a notable faculty of expressing his conclusions in half the space usually required by others. By the Constitution of 1894 Judge Beach was perma- nently transferred to the bench of the Supreme Court. 120 HENRY WILDER ALLEN. THE HONORABLE HENRY WILDER ALLEN. Henry Wilder Allen, nineteenth Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born at Alfred, Maine, October 1 8, 1833. He was a son of the Hon. William Cutter Allen, a lawyer by profession, and for many years Judge of Probate for York County, Maine; and the grandson on his maternal side, of Henry Holmes, a native of Kingston, Mass. , a graduate of Brown Univer- sity, and an active member of the bar for many years at Alfred, Maine. Prepared for college at the schools of his native town he was duly graduated at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, with the class of 1856. While an under-graduate he became an active mem- ber in one of the more noted Greek fraternities, a fact which doubtless did much to develop those social quali- ties which rendered Judge Allen so popular in after life. He taught in Alfred Academy for a little while after leaving college, but soon coming to New York became a clerk in the office of Hon. Nelson J. Waterbury. When the latter became District Attorney for the City of New York Mr. Allen followed his chief and became a clerk in the District Attorney's office. The friend- ship between the two men so ripened that when Judge Waterbury returned to private practice he and Mr. Allen became partners under the firm name of Water- 121 bury & Allen, Mr. Allen in tlie meantime having been admitted to the bar. ^ Subsequently, through the recommendation of United States District Judge Samuel Blatchford, Mr. Allen was appointed by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, one of the registrars in bankruptcy in the City of New- York. He filled this office so satisfactorily that upon the recommendation of Mr. Hubert O. Thompson he was appointed by Governor Cleveland, in 1884, Judge of the Court of the Common Pleas of the City of New York. In the following Autumn he was elected for the full term of fourteen years. Popular, well educated, a good companion, he was in all his dealings noted for his scrupulous honesty. Exact in his own relations with those with whom he was brought in contact, he compelled the same exact- itude in his subordinates. Possessed of a thorough knowledge of details as well as of human nature and of the niceties of life, he served for many years as Chair- man of the House Committee of the Manhattan Club with great satisfaction, not only to those who knew him personally, but to the entire membership of that institution. While leaving the Court House, he was seized with a paralytic stroke, and his untimely death at the Cham- bers Street Hospital, after several days* illness, in 1891, •cut him off in the full plentitude of his powers. HENRY W. BOOKSTAVER, LL.D. THE HONORABLE HENRY W. BOOKSTAVER, LL.D. Henry W. Bookstaver, twentieth Judge of tlie Court of Common Pleas, was born in Orange County, New York, in 1835. He is the son of Daniel Bookstaver and a direct descendant of Jacobus Buchstabe, or Boochstaber, who emigrated from Switzerland early in the eighteenth century and became an extensive owner of real estate in Orange County. The original form of the family name signifies "book-stick," a wooden letter such as was first used in printing — or denotes one en- gaged in the printing of books. The family was a noted one in the old country; two brothers, Henry and Johannes Buchstabe, being prominent on opposite sides in the theological struggles of the middle of the sixteenth century. It is from Henry, who espoused the reformed religion, that the Judge is descended. Judge Bookstaver was graduated with honors at Rutgers College, New Brunswick, N. J., in 1859, and immediately entered the office of Brown, Hall & Van- derpoel. He was admitted to the bar in 1861, and shortly afterwards was taken as a partner into the firm with which he had studied. He became successively sheriff's attorney, counsel to the Police Board, and counsel to the Commissioners of Charities and Corrections. His defence of Sheriff Reilly established his reputation, not so much for legal 123 acumen — for he already had that — as for forensic elo- quence. In 1885 he was raised to t^e bench by a large plurality over Judge Paterson and Theron G. Strong. During twenty-five years at the bar he enjoyed an extensive practice covering all branches of the law, and had acquired a perfect familiarity with every question likely to arise at a trial term. He has also been keenly interested in the study of scientific and general topics of interest; being a member of the Archaeological, His- torical and Geographical Societies of New York City; of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the American Museum of Natural History; the Botanical Garden Society and various other scientific and literary organi- zations. His training was, therefore, such as has come to few of our Judges, and his ability as a trial Judge is reckoned among the highest on the bench of New York Courts. He is noted for the clearness of his methods of presenting facts, his power to inspire confidence and his unfailing courtesy. Socially, Judge Bookstaver enjoys wide popularity, and is a member of the Manhattan, Casino, New York and Zeta Psi Clubs, and of the St. Nicholas and Huge- not Societies, all of New York City. He is a member of the governing body of the Dutch Reformed Church, the second richest religious corporation in the city. The degree of LL.D. was conferred on him by Rut- gers College in 1888. He was married in 1865 to Miss Mary Baily Young, daughter of Charles Young, of Hamptonburg, Orange County, N. Y. By the Constitution of 1894 Judge Bookstaver was transferred to the bench of the Supreme Court. 124 HENRY BISCHOFF, JR. THE HONORABLE HENRY BISCHOFF, Jr. Henry Bischoff, Jr., twenty-first Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born in 1852 in the City of New York. Nearly one hundred years ago, his paternal grandfather was a church builder in Germany, but sub- sequently engaged in the business of a lumber merchant and brick manufacturer at Achim in the kingdom of Prussia, where his descendants still carry on the busi- ness he established. His father, Mr. Henry Bischoff, has been a banker in the city of New York for upwards of forty-nine years. The son entered his father's office, but later deter- mined upon a professional career. He read law, was graduated at the Columbia College Law School in 187 1, and at the same time secured "honorable men- tion " from the Department of Political Science. Being at graduation but nineteen years of age, he was not admitted to the bar till November, 1873, when, devoting himself to civil causes, he succeeded so well that in June, 1889, he became the attorney to the Tax Department, and in the following November, 1890, was elected a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas. Judge Bischoff is a director of the Oratorio Society, and of the Union Square Bank. He is a member of the German Society, the New York State and American Bar Associations, the Manhattan and Democratic 125 Clubs, and the Liederkranz, Arion, Beethoven and Maennerchor Societies. His moral courage, his self reliance, his independence of character, his firm adherence to the right cause have rendered his decisions more than usually acceptable to the bar. Though one of the youngest Judges on the bench, he has already become noted for his industry, his uniform courtesy, and the soundness of his decisions. Judge Bischoff was married in October, 1873, to Miss Annie Louise Moshier, daughter of Frederick and Louise Moshier. They have one child, a daughter, Loula, born May 13, 1876. Transferred by the Constitution of 1894 to the Supreme Court, he, to- gether with Judges Joseph F. Daly and McAdam, composes the Appellate Term which hears all appeals from the decisions of the lower Courts. 126 ROGER A. PRVOR. LL.D. THE HONORABLE ROGER A. PRYOR, LL.D. Roger Atkinson Pryor, twenty-second Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, editor, diplomat, statesman and soldier, son of the Rev. Theodoric Pryor, who was known for over half a century as an eloquent and emi- nent Presbyterian clergyman, was born in Dinwiddie County, Virginia, in 1828. He was graduated at Hampden-Sidney College, took several schools at the Universit)^ of Virginia; was admitted to the bar; entered journalism, was editor of the Soiithside Demo- crat at Petersburg, of the Washington Unioji, and of the Richmond Enqui^'er; was appointed in 1855 on a special mission to Greece by President Pierce, and, on his return in 1856, attracted great attention through his opposition to Mr. William L. Yancey's plans for the re-opening of the slave trade. He was elected to the National Congress in 1857, and re-elected in 1859. Upon the secession of his State, he became a member of the provisional Confederate Congress and subse- quently of the first regular Confederate Congress. He was in turn colonel, brigadier-general and private, for when political reasons had induced him to resign his commission as brigadier-general, he immediately re-en- listed as a private in the Confederate army. Taken prisoner in 1864, he was confined in Fort Lafayette. After the war. Gen. Pryor removed to New York, determined to devote himself to the legal profession. 127 He was obliged, however, to begin his studies anew, and was at the time thirty- five ^earsof age, without for- tune, having the responsibility of a large family, and settled among strangers. While studying law, he supported his family, by writing for the press. Admitted to practice he soon became recognized in the profession. He was engaged in some of the most important causes of the time, includ- ing the Beecher trial, the Elevated Railroad cases, the divorce suit of Governor Sprague, of Rhode Island, and was of counsel with Gen. Butler in all the Sprague Estate litigations, and also in the suit in the United States Circuit Court to recover the New York & New England Railroad for its original stockholders. Gen. Pryor defended Governor Ames on his impeachment by the Legislature of Mississippi. In the controversy between Mr. Tilton and Mr. Beecher, Gen. Pryor was retained by the former. He made the argument before the General Term of the City Court, and before the Court of Appeals, resisting the granting to the defendant of a bill of particulars as well as the argu- ment before Judge Neilson in favor of the competency of Mr. Tilton as a witness, In both these contests, Gen. Pryor was opposed by Mr. William M. Evartsand his arguments gave him celebrity as a profound and accomplished lawyer. The honors conferred upon Gen. Pryor, were culmi- nated when he was appointed in the latter part of 1890 by Governor Hill to the bench of the Common Pleas, and this was made the occasion of a remarkable compliment in the form of a banquet at the Astor House, New York, given in Judge Pryor's honor by 128 the Hon. John Russell Young. At this banquet were assembled about fifty guests, including President Cleveland, Chauncey M. Depew, judges, lawyers, clergymen, eminent physicians, prominent merchants, military men, editors of all creeds and of all stripes of political belief, thus rendering a magnificent testi- monial to the position in New York which Judge Pr}^or had reached in the face of the most pronounced obstacles, and while combating conditions which might reason- ably have defeated his ambition and his hope. Perhaps one of the most curious facts concerning Judge Pryor is that his legal, political and military record have overshadowed the position to which his scholastic training entitles him. A man of thought as well as a man of action, he stood at the head of his class when he was graduated at Hampden-Sidney in 1845, and has since, some ten years ago, received from his Alma Mater the highest honor which she could give, the degree of Doctor of Laws. The University of Virginia, which has never granted honorary degrees, has made him one of her Board of Visitors. Elected in November, 1890, for the full term of fourteen years, Judge Pryor was, by the Constitution of 1894, trans- ferred in 1896 to the bench of the Supreme Court. 129 THE HONORABLE LEONARD A. GIEGERICH. Leonard A. Giegerich, twenty- third Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, was born in Rotz, Bavaria, May 2oth, 1855, and was brought to this country when scarcely more than one year old. He was educated at the public schools, the St. Nicholas parochial school and the De La Salle Institute, N. Y., but from the age of twelve he was obliged to earn his own livelihood. He studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1877. He was elected to the State Assembly in 1886, and in 1887 was appointed by President Cleveland Collector of Internal Revenue for the Third New York District. Governor Hill in 1890, appointed him to a vacancy on the City Court Bench, caused by the death of Judge Nehrbas. Though it was generally thought that Judge Giegerich would receive the Democratic nomination for the full term as City Court Judge, political exigen- cies decreed differently. It was deemed wise to strengthen the local ticket among the Germans. Judge Giegerich again in 1890, and much against his will, was nominated and elected County Clerk. He held this office, one of the most remunerative in the Courts, until the following Autumn, when he resigned to accept tlie appointment by Governor Hill to fill a vacancy i-'on the bench of the Court of Common Pleas caused by the sudden death of Judge Allen. Both political parties placed him in nomination in 1892, to succeed himself, 130 LEONARD A. GIEGERICH. and he was elected for the full term of fourteen years. He was also elected a member of the recent Constitu- tional Convention. As a member of Assembly, his record was warmly endorsed by the Reform Club of New York. He was one of the two members who persistently refused all passes from railway corporations. As County Clerk he introduced many reforms which relieved wants long felt by practicing lawyers. Dur- ing his incumbency of the County Clerkship, he endeared himself, probably without the least intention, to all historians b}^ the classifying of musty records, 200 years old that had been stored for years in the Court House. Always attentive to duty, he has required the same attention from those under him, and has thus earned the reputation of a disciplinarian. Though the youngest Ji»dge on the Common Pleas Bench, his record was most satisfactory to both the bar and the public, and he has rapidly acquired a reputa- tion as one of the best trial Judges of our time. Judge Giegerich was married in 1887 to Miss Louise M. Boll, of New York City, and they have had several children. By the Constitution of 1894 Judge Giegerich was transferred to the Supreme Court. 131 THE NEW ORGANIZATION OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY i, 1870. The amended New York State Constitution of 1869 provided for the election of three additional Judges of the Court of Common Pleas. In pursuance of this provision, Hamilton W. Robinson, Joseph F. Daly and Richard L. Larremore were chosen as such Judges at the election in the city of New York held in May, 1869. According to the statute they were to enter upon the duties of their office on the first of July, 1870. The oath of office was administered to them at noon. The ceremony took place in the large room of the trial term. Part I. of the Common Pleas. At the appointed hour all the seats and standing places were occupied, mainly by Judges and members of the bar. Among those who occupied seats upon the platform, in addition to the Common Pleas Judges, were Judge Woodruff, of the United States Court; Judges Bos- worth, Mitchell, Henry E. Davies, late Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals; Pierrepont, Slosson, Vanvorst, Judge Brady, of the Supreme Court; Messrs. Chas. O 'Conor, Peter Cooper, Smith Barker, J. W. Gerard, Judges Jones, Fithian and Freedman, of the Superior Court; Henry Nicoll, N.J.Waterbury andWm.M.Evarts. Among those present beside these, were notably : Messrs. Luther R. Marsh, Augustus F. Smith, A. J, 132 Vanderpoel, Algernon S. Sullivan, Henry Brewster, Jesse K. Furlong, Frank Byrne, Amos G. Hull, Henry Morrison, Mr. Devine, Wm. H. Ingersoll, D. Marvin, J. M. Scribner, Wm. Edelsten, Dennis McMahon, Frederick Smythe, Clarence A. Seward, Mr. Pinckney, Mr. Spink and Justice Quinn. Chief Justice Chas. P. Daly administered the usual oath of office to the three new Judges severally, after which he announced that in consequence of the addi- tional number of Judges in that Court, some alterations had been made in the rules, which would be made known to the bar in due time. ADDRESS OF MR. J. W. GERARD. Mr. James W. Gerard then addressed the audience at some length. He had, he said, never been a Judge; no politician or lawyer had ever thought of making him one, though why he did not know. He had for a long time believed that he possessed some of the attributes of a Judge. The speaker gave a history of the Court of Common Pleas, from the time when, more than 200 years ago, this same Court was known as the Court of the Mayor, Aldermen and Sheriff of New Amsterdam. This Court was the oldest one in the State. Peter Stuyvesant was one of the first Judges. In that day the Court was always opened with prayer. (The speaker here read the prayer used upon such occasions and pro- nounced it to be a model prayer in its simplicity and purity of thought. ) In those days they did what we have finally concluded to do — that is, allow all parties to be witnesses for themselves in both civil and crim- inal cases. They had juries then, but the Dutchmen 133 did not like that system much^ and generally preferred to have their causes heard before a Judge. Peter Stuy- vesant, he said, authorized the first fee bill in New York. His doctrine was that lawyers should "serve the poor gratis for God's sake." We make it up in charging the rich man. Within a hundred yards of the Court House, Mr. Gerard said, he had seen a man tied to the whipping post and whipped according to a judicial decision, for an offense committed in the post- office. Sometimes they put the offenders in the stocks and threw rotten eggs at them. In 1665, the name was changed to the Mayor's Court, and so continued for about 160 years, or until about the year 182 1, when it was altered to the Court of Common Pleas. The speaker recited a long list of names of those who had occupied seats on the bench of the Common Pleas, and also those who were prominent practioners at its bar. Among them he mentioned DeWitt Clinton, the father of the Erie Canal ; Cadwallader Colden, Col. Willett, Samuel Jones, the grandfather of a Judge now on the Superior Court Bench; Matthew Livingston, Pierre C. Van Wyck, Josiah Ogden Hoffman, Richard Riker, John T. Irving, brother of Washington Irving, the poet ; Martin S. Wilkins, Elisha W. King, Gen. Robert Bogardus, David Graham, Jr., and John Leveridge. The address of Mr. Gerard was delivered in his usually humorous vein, and was frequently relieved by anec- dotes. ADDRESS OF MR. AUGUSTUS F. SMITH. Mr. A. F. Smith spoke of the Court of Common Pleas, since he commenced to practice in it, a little more 134 than a quarter of a century ago. The bar must recol- lect that this Court, during the last quarter of a cen- tury, was a very different tribunal from what it was during the times of which Mr. Gerard had spoken. In those early days, there was only one Judge. The Court could not be held more than two days at one term, nor could there be more than four terms in a year, and only eight attorneys were allowed to practice in the Court. He spoke of Judge Irving, who for seventeen years was a Judge of this Court, and who for fourteen years of that time was the sole Judge. He did not propose to compare him with his brother, Washington Irving. What lawyer was there whose name will be known in future generations except in the way of anecdote and legend ? At the meeting of the bar recently held in regard to the death of Mr. F. B. Cutting, he heard it stated that the deceased owed his great success to friends and family influence, who enabled him suddenly to reach the height of his profession. The speaker wished to say to the young members of the bar that he did not believe any man ever achieved success at the bar by means of friends. Something was undoubtedly due to circumstances, but it must be by honesty, indus- try, perseverance, and a faithful discharge of duty to clients, that any success worth retaining can be attained in the legal profession. Mr. Luther R. Marsh was the next and last speaker. ADDRESS OF MR. LUTHER R. MARSH. I suppose I may consider myself commissioned to unite with the gentlemen who have spoken, in virtue of having represented the first cause which 135 appears in the regular series of the reported cases in this Court — a cause in which no one else survives of the parties, attorneys, counsel or witnesses, though only- fifteen years have since elapsed. The people of the State of New York, as well as of the city, let us hope, have good cause to congratulate themselves on the changes just wrought in their judicial system by the amended Constitution. Among them, the lengthened tenure of office is a decided improvement — reaching, as now established, to about half a generation — more than half of what may fairly be considered the average busi- ness life of man. This makes the judgeship a sort of life-work ; and while Judges are men, with considerable human nature in them, it must necessarily induce a feeling of greater security and a more absolute inde- pendance of judgment. Among these changes, the new features engrafted upon this Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of New York — by which its numerical power is doubled — and it, no longer dependent on legislative will, has struck the flukes of its anchor into the Constitution itself. The ceremony we witness this day is one of great significance. It is not merely the usual result of an election ; filling im- portant offices either with former incumbents or a new personality. It is not the retirement of certain men from judicial stations they had occupied, and the advance of other men to supply the vacancy. If it were that, and only that, it would be an imposing cere- mony. The smooth and peaceful change of power, from hand to hand, is, of itself, a sublime event. The advent of a new priest at the altar; of a new represen- tative of justice ; of one who is to stand with absolute 136 impartiality, between contending litigants; who is to see that wantonness and selfishness do not override j ustice and right, to hold, with steady nerve, those hal- lowed scales, which shall weigh to each applicant his due, and shall pronounce all forms of injustice, wanting, in the balance; to guard the doctrines settled by the Courts, so that uniformity shall be maintained, and men may know the standard by which their rights and duties are to be squared, to enforce the will of the whole people as expressed in the enactments of their Legislature — such an inauguration is an event ever to be regarded with interest. But this is all that, and something more. It is an enlargement of the altar itself. It is, in effect, adding a new Court of equal power and jurisdiction to the one already existing. It is launching anew with enlarged capacities, and age renewed, this ancient and most useful Court, the oldest judicial tribunal in our State, which begun its life of toil and duty, though under another name, two hun- dred and five years ago, this just retreating month of June ; which saw this great city of ours in its struggling youth, and whose roots are deep and firm in the primal soil of our own liberty. An interesting epoch, there- fore, in the history of this Court, do we behold this day. Of the many changes of added or diminished function which have occurred in its organization during the last two centuries, this is not the least. But though it enters this day on a new career — let us believe for yet other centuries to come — and though most of the pres- ent and now newly inaugurated ministers of its power are untried to its bench, though not to its bar, yet does not, nor will this tribunal seem strange to its habitual 137 practioners, as long as he, who as more intimately iden- tified with the Court than any of his predecessors, and to whom we are indebted for the biography of the Court itself, continues to be a participant in its author- ity. Of those who have enunciated the law from this seat, some have departed to the Grand Assize : Edward Livingston, De Witt Clinton, Jacob Radcliffe, Col. Marinus Willett, Cadwallader D. Colden, John T. Irv- ing and William Inglis. Others have been transferred to other tribunals, where they are now at work : Michael Ulshoeffer, to the quiet but efficient administration of the Referee's office; Daniel P. Ingraham, Albert Cardozo and John R. Brady to the Supreme Court; and Lewis B. Woodruff, first to the Superior Court, then to the Court of Appeals, and now to the Federal Judiciary; while yet others, Henry Hilton, Hooper C. Van Vorst, and George C. Barrett, have returned to the forum, to invoke the very powers they wielded from its bench. But the Presiding Judge remains faithful to his first love; and that familiar form, which, for twen- ty-six years, has occupied this bench may be seen there still. Let it be our prayer and hope that this honora- able Court, venerable by its days, but fresh in its vigor, may ever boast as able and upright Judges in the com- ing years, as in the past, and preserve its ermine as immaculate, that it may still hold in order the surging interests of this commercial community, and that it may continue to rear and educate advocates in its arena, who, like Emmet, Jay and Samson, of a former day, and, more recently, like Brady, so lately gone, and Cutting, yesterday laid at his rest, shall add to its use- fulness, its honor and its renown. 138 PROCEEDINGS ON THE DEATH OF JUDGE HAMILTON W. ROBINSON, APRIL 24, 1879. The next proceedings of any especial moment on the part of the bar of the City and County of New York in connection with the Court of Common Pleas, took place on Thursday, April 24, 1879, ^^ ^^^ Court House New York City. On that day a meeting of the bench and bar was held to commemorate the life and services of the Honorable Hamilton W. Robinson, who died April 7, 1879, during his term of office as Judge of the Court. Chief Justice Charles P. Daly presided over the meeting. The vice-presidents were the Honorables Noah Davis, George C. Barrett, Gilbert M. Speir, John Sedgwick, William G. Choate, John K. Porter, Stephen D. Law, John R. Brady, A. R. Law- rence, Hooper C. Van Vorst, J. J. Freedman, Charles O'Conor, William A. Beach, Charles Donohue, William E. Curtis, Charles F. Sanf ord, Samuel Blatchf ord, David Dudley Field, Lucien Birdseye. The secretaries were: Messrs. John M. Scribner, James J. Thomson, Douglass Campbell and James T. Law. Resolutions eulogizing Judge Robinson were passed at the meeting and ordered to be entered on the minutes of the Court. Addresses were made by Messrs. A. J. Vanderpoel, Luther R. Marsh; by ex- Judge Lucien Birdseye and Judges Hooper C. Van Vorst and Charles P. Daly. 139 ADDRESS OF MR. A. J.^ VANDERPOEL. We have met to pay respect to the memory of the late Hamilton W. Robinson. While this tribute is due to his character as a lawyer and as a Judge, it is also a tribute and token of our respect and affection for him as a man. For nine years he has been a member of the bench of the Court of Common Pleas of the City and County of New York. Thirty years of hard labor and varied practice at the bar had thoroughly fitted him for this position, from which an all-wise Providence has removed him in the prime of life and season of usefulness. He was justly noted for the patient study and careful pre- parations of his cases, and every question likely ta arise was fully investigated and brought to the test of his well-balanced mind. In his bearing he was diffi- dent and unobtrusive; in his friendships, cordial and sincere. As a Judge he always remembered ' ' that a Judge must never be allow himself to be warped or trammelled, and must ever maintain the free employ- ment of a watchful and unbiased mind." Mr. Vanderpoel then offered the following resolu- tions : Resolved^ That by the death of Judge Hamilton W. Robinson, we have lost one who was an honor to the judiciary and to our profession. His urbanity of man- ner while at the bar and on the bench, his sincerity of heart and faithfulness to duty had endeared him to us; while his learning, probity and justice command for him universal respect. We cherish pleasant recollec- tions of his well-spent life, and revere his memory as an able and upright Judge. 140 LUTHER R. MARSH. Resolved, That the proceedings of this meeting be presented to the Court of which Judge Robinson was a member, with the request that they be entered upon its minutes. ADDRESS OF MR. LUTHER R. MARSH. Mr. President : — In rising to second the resolutions presented by Mr. Vanderpoel, which so truly deplore our loss, a few additional words may not be out of place. So rapid are the changes in our bar ; such a tide of new practitioners is constantly poured into it from all sections of the nation, that there are many here, no doubt, who have only known him — whose loss has called us together — in his office as a Judge. There are some present — among them his class-mates Judge Speir and Samuel Campbell — whose memories hold the slender form of a beaming and studious youth at college; ambitious of honor, free from any evil habits, and on terms of cheerful amity with all his co- collegiates. Some, too, here, remember him, when afterwards graduated from college, and from a counsellor's office, he had taken rank as a lawyer at Albany, where there were centered many men famous in the records of the bar. Some too, remember him when, seeking a wider field, he encountered the hazards of a removal to this city, where only courage, effort and pertinacity could secure a foothold, and by his modest sign announced that he would give his time and labor to those who should intrust their interests to his hands. Ut He returned, temporarily, to -Albany to officiate as deputy attorney-general under Mr. Van Buren; and, subsequently, they united in partnership, and so for many years continued in New York, where a clientage, large in volume and responsible in character and amount, grew up around them ; numbering in its list George Law, and the great and varied interests he controlled. The services of almost every lawyer are, at one time or another, called into use as a mutually selected arbiter; and for this Judge Robinson developed such a special adaptation that he became, and was several years, our most active and prominent referee — thus be- coming especially educated to the duties of the office he was subsequently to fill. The proportion of causes dis- posed of by referees is very large ; and they are often of the most troublesome and complex kind, involving many- itemed accounts, which a jury cannot try. The referee unites in himself the functions of juror and Judge; and, but for him, I do not see how the Courts could keep abreast of the accumulated business of the time. Of these referees, as I have said, Judge Robinson was, in his day, the most conspicuous; and such quantities of references flocked to his office, either by mutual consent or the compulsory orders of the Courts, that he might often be seen presiding at the trial of two, three, and even four causes at the same time — walking through his ample rooms to the various tables, and disposing of questions of pleading and evidence as he passed. Judge Robinson, when he came to the bench, had well withstood the strain of his professional labors. He was, I believe, in perfect health. It is a question 142 of some moment whether, if he had remained at the bar, he would not now have been living and in full capacity. So many of our judiciary have become impaired in health, that it suggests a very serious inquiry as to the cause. Comes the trouble from the over-breathed air of crowded rooms, or from the per- petual and unrelieved stress of judicial duties — pecu- liarly responsible and exhausting — or from the jomt effect of both ? And yet it would not seem to be safe to deduce any general principle from a limited range of facts; for on that very bench in which this sad vacancy occurs, there presides a jurist who has administered at its shrine for more than a generation; who has carried on besides, immense concurrent labors; who has gathered and recorded the annals of that historic Court; who has been ever ready to take part in all public meetings and aid in all public enterprises ; who, by his wise devo- tion to geographic science, has made his name famil- iar and respected over the world, and yet, who still bears the evidence of health undiminished and vigor unimpaired. It was a pernicious habit — induced by his sensitively nervous organization and the anxieties of his office — which used to drive our departed friend, at midnight, from his bed to his table, when many of his opinions were written and revised. He must possess a large original stock of vitality whose constitution can long sustain the drafts upon it required by the intense and varied application of the daytime in our city practice, and carry protracted labor into the night besides. An 143 habitual encroachment on the domain and jurisdiction of "Tired Nature's sweet restorer — balmy sleep," is, sooner or later, sure to be avenged. He was a faithful and concentrate worker. But not- withstanding the remarkable facility with which he wrote, he used to revise and re-revise till his manu- script opinions almost required a Champollion to decipher them. I have been reminded, sometimes, while puzzling over his manuscripts, of a paper I saw when a student at Utica. There was, in the office of the late Charles A. Mann, a chest of historical docu- ments left by Richard Varick. Amongst them, a draft petition to Congress, by Baron Steuben, for some additional aid, as I remember it. It was in the hand- writing of Alexander Hamilton — whose pellucid style vindicates his renown as a writer — from whom, by the way, our late friend derived a portion of his name — and its erasures and interlineations evinced that it was not struck off at white heat, and at a blow ; that it did not drop without labor from the nibs of the pen; but had received many a careful revision and correction. It was, however, in his social relations — in the com- pany of his family and friends — that Robinson was king. His supremacy there was affectionately acknowledged. It is believed that he never lost a friend ; rather, he bound them to him with enduring cords. Some of his boyhood and college classmates have kept up with him, through the vicissitudes of life, the most intimate relations; and we may only witness the afflicting sor- row they express, to know how supremely he reigned in the domain of the affections. 144 His great pleasure was to spend the Summers on his ancestral acres at Worcester, in the County of Otsego, where he dispensed a charming and bountiful hospi- tality. He dreamed in his illness that the crisp air of the Otsego hills — resinous with the delicious odor of the woods — would renew his strength, like the eagle's; and that could he but touch his mother earth, he would, Antaeus-like, receive new vigor in his frame. But he had approached too near the confine for any natural means to bring him back. And so, his mission here ended, he has gone to join the generations on the other side of the line; where our friends, in large majority, already are; the ultimate destination and home of all. ADDRESS OF EX-JUDGE LUCIEN BIRDSEYE. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: — My long acquaint- ance with Judge Robinson, the kindness with which he welcomed me to the ranks of the profession, and the earnest regard which was the fruit of my long intercourse with him, render it a privilege to me, pain- ful indeed but real, to join in these tributes to his memory. When I commenced practice in Albany, Mr. Robin- son had been some years at the bar. Although, while there, he had been but the junior member of his firm — that of MacKown, Van Buren & Robinson — ^he had already made his mark as a lawyer. Mr. MacKown was Recorder of Albany. Presiding as he did at the monthly sessions of his Court, and feeling the burdens of his great age and increasing infirmity, he had sub- stantially withdrawn from active participation in the business of the firm. The tastes and aptitudes of Mr. 145 Van Buren led him to engage in the contests of the bar and of the political arena, rather than in the severe studies and what to so many seem the dry labors of the law office ; while these were precisely adapted to the tastes, and called forth all the powers of Mr. Rob- inson. Thus the business of the firm had passed at an early day into the hands of Mr. Robinson. He, however, left that firm, and came to New York to engage in practice. I think his residence here at that period was too brief to do much more than prove his sagacity in selecting the field of his life's labors^ and the real strength of character which underlaid all his modesty and self -distrust. For, without both sagac- ity and force of will, he would not have ventured into such a field. When Mr. Van Buren was chosen attorney -general he induced Mr. Robinson to return to Albany to act as his chief assistant in that office, while he himself be- came still more completely the popular advocate and orator. Taking up also the business of his former firm, the preparation of pleadings, opinions and briefs fully occupied his time, and led him far and wide in legal studies and examinations. At this period of his life^ and indeed for many years afterwards, he was but rarely seen, and still more rarely heard in the Courts. The bar of Albany was then a very strong one. Among those most frequently seen and heard in the Courts, and who were famous throughout the State and beyond it, were, besides Mr. Van Buren himself, such men as Samuel Stevens, Marcus T. Reynolds, Daniel Cady, Teunis Van Vechten, Nicholas Hill, Rufus W. 146 Peckham, Azor Taber, Julius Rhoades, Deodatus. Wright, Henry C. Wheaton, Samuel H. Hammond and others. But besides these men, famous as advocates and orators, there was then in Albany, as there must be at every bar, a class of men marked by characteristics very different. Of retiring dispositions, distrusting themselves in the active contests before Courts and juries, hardly becoming accustomed or willing to hear their owrt voices, but yet knowing well their own powers of study^ and examination and logical statement, they gave themselves up to the labors of the office and library, rather than of the Court room. They made the deep researches into legal principles; prepared the careful array of authorities, and made the thorough prepara- tions for trials and arguments, which, after all, are the real ground of professional success. Among the men of this class were Gideon Hawley, Cyrus Stevens, George W. Peckham, Peter Cagger, Stephen D. Van Schaick our late lamented Surro- gate in this city ; Mr. Robinson and others. Some of these men, either by the native force of their character, or under the pressure of circumstances, as when the advocate of the firm had fallen, or been laid aside, overcame the modesty of their natures, and became useful and successful in the more active and public uses of the Courts. Eminent as the bar of Albany then was for the ability and eloquence of its leading advocates, it may well be doubted whether it was not equally strong in the learn- ing, the industry, the acuteness, the skill and the vigi- 147 lance of those who, according to the English classifica- tion of our profession, would have been known only as attorneys and solicitors. Such men as Mr. Cagger, Mr. Van Schaick and Mr. Robinson, were powers, not only in their several offices, but in the Courts, where they seldom appeared, and even in general business and public affairs. Each performed great labors and discharged with success great responsibilities. If, as has sometimes been the fact, the public, not knowing whose were the real labors that contributed so much to the triumphs of the bar, gave the fame and reputation to those whose voices had been heard there, rather than to those who had, in fact, but in private, done so much both to deserve and to command those successes, it was not strange. I am sure that none of the gentlemen I have named ever experienced a pang of disappointment, or felt anything but the desire to accomplish, in their several spheres, all that was possible to protect and promote the rights and interests of their clients. Soon after the close of Mr. Van Buren's term of office as attorney-general, he and Mr. Robinson removed to this city. Here Mr. Robinson, though still disin- clined to appear in the Court room, became well, if not widely, known for his great learning, his quick per- ceptions, his instant grasp of the points of a case, his logic, his power of legal statement; in short, for all that marks the lawyer and the judge. As a consequence, he was sought as a referee. It was not at all the patronage of Judges, but the free choice of attorneys and parties, that made his offices to resemble rather a crowded Court room than the £4^ chambers of a very modest, quiet and retiring member of the profession. Scarcely had Mr. Van Buren retired from active practice when those engaged in the litigated business of this city seemed to discover, as by common consent, that here was a great lawyer and a great Judge ready at their hand. The labors and studies of his early life had borne their fruit. And some years later, when this Court was reorganized, this verdict of the profes- sion was ratified by that of the people, and he was placed on the bench of this Court. In what manner he discharged the duties of his high office needs not be told in this place or this presence. On his own part, with what assiduity and faithfulness; with what fulness of learning; with what wide re- search ; with what quickness of perception ; with what patience; with what gentleness of demeanor and kind- ness of heart ; with what singleness of mind and simple purpose to perform every day the duties of that day; and on the part of others, with what genuine, univers- al confidence in his uprightness, his purity, his un- selfishness, his supreme love of right and truth and justice, I do not attempt to speak. For are not all these things recorded in all that he has done in this Court, and engraven on the memory of us all? Let me, rather, say a few words of his personal character, as it impressed itself upon me during a friendship of many years. It was my good fortune to become his friend at the very beginning of my own professional life ; to have seen much of him while we dwelt in Albany ; to have followed him thence to New York at an early day, and 149 in no small part because of his advice ; to have had my own chambers, for some years thereafter, almost in <:ommon with his own; and during that time, and always afterwards, to have regarded him with affection and esteem. Few men were better adapted to inspire esteem or affection. The same qualities of the mind and the heart which seemed to withhold him from the forum made him delightful as a companion. Genial, quick, ready, keenly appreciating wit and humor, as ready and as strong in conversation as in the use of the pen, sincere, simple in tastes and pleasures, of a memory quick, ready and correct, how could he be other than he was — the charming companion, the friend, faithful, trusting and trusted, loving and beloved ? That trait which has to me seemed, perhaps, the most noteworthy in the character of our departed brother, was the quickness, the clearness, the direct- ness of every operation of his mind and heart. What with others was a process, with him seemed oftentimes to be a result. What other minds sought by induc- tion, and with pains and labor, he appeared often to reach as if at a glance. And this quickness and purity of his mental operations was joined with, if not in large part derived from, the quickness and purity of all the feelings of his heart. His sympathies were ready. He was himself last in his own thoughts. And so he was considerate of the rights and interests, the enjoyments and pleasures of all around him. In reviewing the career now closed, so long, so full of honor, and of all useful service, public and private, 150 one is, I think, reminded of a somewhat similar career, long since passed into the history of our pro- fession. It is now a little more than a hundred years since an English lawyer was promoted to the Court of the King's Bench, where he was long the associate and friend of Lord Mansfield, who desire.d him to be his own successor as Chief Justice. When Francis BuUer was made Judge in the highest common law Court of England, it is said that the propriety of his appointment was questioned, because of his want of prominence and success as an advocate at the bar. But he adorned the bench of that Court for nearly a quarter of a century. He proved to be, almost, as it were, by nature and instinct, a great jurist, a great nisi prius lawyer, a great Judge. His book upon the practice at nisi prius was the first effort to state in a formal or scientific manner the principles of that part of the science of our profession. It has done much, especially in the writers whom he has led to treat of the same subject, to throw light upon what was in his day a very obscure, and must ever be a very important and difficult branch of practice. Certainly it cannot be said that the elevation of Judge Robinson to the bench was anything like the experiment which the appointment of Mr. Justice BuUer was at first thought by some to be, but which resulted so happily. For, at the time of his nomina- tion and election. Judge Robinson (almost unknown as he was in the more active walks of his profession) had really passed through a more careful professional and judicial training than was at all known to or appre- 151 ciated by most of his brothers at the bar. His whole career upon the bench has shown how his great natural powers had been disciplined and supplemented, by long and deep study and large experience, to fit him for his eminence as a lawyer and a Judge. Still, it seems to me, that in the tone and character of their minds; in the amplitude and readiness of their learning; in their fitness for judicial labors; in their fondness for and faithfulness in those duties; and in the ease and clearness of their legal statements, these two great Judges were very much alike. Indeed, I think it may be said, that in respect of all those qualities which render a lawyer and a Judge really useful and great, Judge Robinson was singularly well endowed. Happy was he that in his life he secured so much of the respect and the love of all who came within the sphere of his influence ; and that, at his death, he is found to deserve so well the admiration of those who shall come after him. ADDRESS OF JUDGE HOOPER C. VAN VORST. The life and character of Hamilton W. Robinson, in whose memory the bar of New York is this day assembled, are interesting to contemplate and study. There was a remarkable unity in the development of his life from its beginning to its close. In college, although among if not the youngest of his class, his whole course was marked by a diligent and thoughtful attention to his studies and duties. He properly, although then a mere youth, regarded this period of his life as truly formative, and as likely 15a to give direction and character to his future career. Evil habits were avoided and good ones formed. I have heard him in after years speak with much feeling of the preparatory training and discipline which he received from his father, whose heart seemed wrapped up in the life and future of his son. He gratefully acknowledged the ever present and inspiring influence that his father exercised on him. He had marked out for himself a life of devotion to the profession of the law, in the principles of which he was always deeply interested. He always loved his profession, and in his life honored it. His early training had prepared him for a useful and successful career. But this he knew could only be realized by constant study and earnest application. He never suffered himself to be drawn aside from his duties, or to miss the mark upon which his eyes were always fixed, by any pursuits or interests which would hinder his onward progress. As his tastes would have preferred, so he was led into a plane of professional business important in its char- acter, and which gave full play to the excellent quali- ties of his mind. The interests of his litigations were generally large, and the legal questions involved serious. While a junior to others, much of the effective pre- paration of cases fell upon him. He seemed to antici- pate and guard himself and his case against all difficul- ties likely to arise, and was prepared to meet unusual exigencies. He enjoyed the confidence of his clients to a large degree. This confidence was always merited and respected, and to the end of his life he held the 153 esteem of all with whom he had held professional rela- tions. He was fitted by education, training, and mental constitution to be a Judge. And in the course of 3'ears, he was called to a place upon the bench of this honorable Court. But on the day he took his seat with his respected associates, he was in truth already an experienced and useful Judge. He had been disciplined into habits of careful thought and sound judgment. He was already fitted thoroughly to analyze evidence, and reach the truth amid conflicting statements, and to apply the controlling legal principles. He had an inborn love of justice and equity. He was always con- siderate and impartial. He was not hasty in his con- clusions, but accepted results only when his judgment and conscience were satisfied. He had a just regard for authority, which he had been educated to respect, and in decisions always remembered that it was the province of the Judge to interpret and not to make the law. When his judgments and decisions come to be con- sidered, they will be found to be reasonable and just in their scope and substance, and clear and logical in statement. He was patient in the hearing of causes, kind, considerate and courteous in his demeanor to counsel engaged. The cause of justice and the rights of parties were always safe in his hands. And although his life, measured by years, was not long, yet through its work and fruit it was complete and beautifully rounded. 154 ** That life is long which answers life's great end," and in this regard his work was thoroughly well done. We may well deplore the loss of one so excellent as a man, so sincere and kind as a friend, and so upright and just as a judge. ADDRESS OF CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES P. DALY. It is proper, gentlemen, that some expression should be given by this Court, of which Judge Robinson was a member, on the loss it has sustained in his decease. It is very gratifying to us, his late colleagues, to hear the tribute paid to his memory in the remarks which have just been made, and to witness the even much more substantial tribute paid by this large assemblage of the profession. It was at my particular request that Judge Robinson consented to become a candidate for the judgeship of this Court. We had reason to be par- ticularly gratified, as he had previously declined a nomination for Judge of the Court of Appeals, and at a period when his election to that position was deemed certain ; an assurance which was confirmed by the very large majority accorded to those who were afterwards elected. I say we had reason to be particularly grati- fied as members of the Court that he consented to become a candidate for election, and were much more so with the association that followed upon his election. I have had some experience in judicial life; I have had some contact with Judges, and a large contact with members of the bar, and I only pay a just tribute to my deceased colleague when I say that no one with whom I have ever come in contact in the discharge of intellectual duties, fulfiled, in my judgment, all the 155 requirements so much as he di(i. Gentle in his nature, painstaking, accurate and conscientious, there was no amount of labor that he was not willing to bestow, no attention that he was not prepared to give. Where industry is stimulated by exceeding conscientiousness as it was in his case, it naturally followed that great confidence was felt in his conclusions, springing as they did from so pure a motive, and after so diligent and laborious an exercise of all the qualities w^hich are requisite to secure a sound judgment upon anything. It was not only in this respect that he was most valuable to us, but if I may be permitted to say what is not com- mon upon public occasions, he was very dear to us for other qualities. I think there is an old Russian proverb that says, " You never know anything of a man until you have made a campaign with him;" and my experi- ence is that you know comparatively little of a Judge unless you are associated with him in the discharge of official duties. You then see more clearly the motives by which he is actuated. You see a great deal which the world can never see. You get an insight into his finer and better qualities which is not perceptible to those outside; and it is this knowledge which makes the loss of Judge Robinson to us a very great one. We can all unite in the statement that during the period he was in the Court the greatest harmony prevailed in our intercourse with him, which was never in any way affected. When there was difference of judgment on his part there was always that kindly bearing which it is easy to remember, but difficult to express; a uni- formity and gentleness of character which was exceed- ingly attractive in official intercourse. He always met 156 us with a pleasant smile, and such a thing as an unkindly word never passed his lips ; nor so far as the human countenance is an index did he ever appear to harbor an unkindly thought. We are especially grate- ful to the gentlemen who have taken the trouble upon this occasion to call particular attention to the special merits of our deceased colleague — Mr. Marsh, Judge Birdseye and Judge Van Vorst. They have dwelt upon the intellectual and moral qualities by which he was dis- tinguished so fully that it is unnecessary for me to say anything more. I can only say, gentlemen, in con- clusion, that we feel his loss much more deeply than it is in our power to express, for those things are felt most which are beyond expression. We are exceedingly grateful for the tribute which has been paid to his memory, and none know better than we do how justly it has been bestowed. The question was then put upon the adoption of the resolution that had been offered by Mr. Vanderpoel, and the resolutions were adopted. Upon motion of Mr. Charles Tracy, the secretary of the meeting was directed to transmit a copy of the resolutions to the family of Judge Robinson, and also to furnish copies to the public press for publication. The meeting then adjourned. After the death of Judge Hamilton W. Robinson, who was succeeded by Judge Miles Beach, Judge Charles H. Van Brunt was elected to the Supreme Court in 1883, his successor being Judge Henry Wilder Allen. Judges Joseph F. Daly, Richard L. Lar- 157 remore and Henry Wilder Allen had been re-elected for full terms in 1874. Th^ next meeting of the bar, in the rooms of the Court of Common Pleas, was convened on the occasion of the retirement of Chief Justice Charles P. Daly, whose term of office expired December 31, 1885, and who was ineligible to re-election by reason of the constitutional limit as to age. This interesting event was the occasion of an immense gathering of members of the bar in the Gen- eral Term room. The proceedings are reported in full on the next page and the general expression of pub- lic opinion on the incident, as voiced by the press, will be found in the appendix. 158 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ON THE RETIREMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES. P. DALY. A meeting of the bar was held December 30th, 1885, in the General Term room of the Court of Common Pleas at 3 P.M., for the purpose of uniting in an expression of respect for the character and services of Chief Justice Daly, on his retirement from the bench. The signers to the call for this meeting were: David Dudley Field, Wm. Allen Butler, Aaron J. Vanderpoel, Charles A. Peabody, Clarence A. Seward, F. R. Coudert, John M. Scribner, Isaac P. Martin, J. E, Burrill, Aaron P. Whitehead, M. W. Divine, James C. Carter, Luther R. Marsh, John L. Cadwalader. Wm. D. Shipman, Wm. G. Choate, Edw'd Patterson, George Zabriskie, Osbom E. Bright, Grosvenor Lowrey, Chas. M. Da Costa, Ch. Francis Stone, C. W. Bangs, Algernon S. Sullivan, Almon Goodwin, E. R. Robinson, Theron G. Strong, Elihu Root, Fordham Morris, Joseph H. Choate, Charles C. Beaman, George C. Holt, Francis Lynde Stetson, John W. Sterling, Duncan Smith, E. B. Hins- dale, Edward E. Sprague, Austen G. Fox, Cephas Brainerd, Henry H. Anderson, F. F. Marbury, W. M. Prichard. Ex-President Chester A. Arthur presided, and on either side of him were the vice-presidents, ex-Judge 159 Henry Hilton, Justices Van Brunt, Barrett, Brady and Van Vorst and ex-Judge Fi^derick W. Loew, all of whom have been Judges of the Court. Among those present, in addition to those who signed the call for the meeting were ex-Judge Edwards Pierrepont, ex-Governor John T. Hoffman, Henry L. Clinton, Abram Wakeman, Judge-elect Henry W. Book- staver, Amasa A. Redfield, Frank Loomis, Rufus F. Andrews, Robert Sewell, ex- Judge A. J. Ditten- hoefer, John O. Mott, Peter B. Olney, Frederick G. Gedney, Douglas Taylor, Rastus B. Ransom, John Sherwood, ex-Judge William H. Arnoux, Anthony M. Keiley and many others. Sitting with the Judges within the rail was Chief Justice Daly, the observed of all observers. He listened with heightened color to the warm encomiums passed upon him, but when he rose to reply he was as calm in manner and self-pos- sessed as if dealing with an ordinary motion. Ex-Presi- dent Arthur took the chair at the nomination of Algernon S. Sullivan. ADDRESS OF EX-PRESIDENT ARTHUR. Gentlemen of the Bar: — It is with no slight reluc- tance that I accept the office to which your generous preference has called me, for I cannot forget that these many years I have been a ''truant in the law," and that at no time have I been worthy to be classed among its conspicuous practitioners. We have gathered here to pay our glad tribute of affection and respect to one who more than two score years ago, " His years but young, but his experience old, His head unmellowed, but his judgment ripe," i6o was called to the bench of our Court of Common Pleas. How admirably he has ever since discharged the duties upon which he then entered, this company of lawyers know, and some among you will to-day bear witness. Their province I shall not usurp. It is for them, and not for me, to dwell upon that love of truth and justice, that courtesy and candor, that wide and profound learning, that strict impartiality and stainless integrity which have ever distinguished Judge Daly's juridical life, and because of which his retirement from the bench cannot fail to be attended with deep and general regret. To whom else, indeed, could be more fittingly applied the encomium of Richard Baxter upon Sir Matthew Hale : " That pattern of Judges, entering upon, using and voluntarily surrounding his place of judicature with the most universal love, honor and praise ? " Gentle- men, what is your pleasure ? ADDRESS OF MR. DAVID DUDLEY FIELD. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: — When we see a man of three score years and ten wearing his faculties unimpaired, dwelling with satisfaction upon the past, enjoying the present, and looking cheerfully into the future, we congratulate him upon his serene old age. And if he has been as mindful of his public as of his private duties, helping to form and reform parties, to make and unmake magistrates, and to shape the policy and the fate of that wondrous organism, the body poli- tic, we call him a deserving citizen. If he has borne public office to public satisfaction, we commend him for the honorable performance of his duty to the common- wealth. And if the office has been judicial, and he has i6i borne it long, and borne it well, so well, indeed, that no one blames, but all men ;f)raise him, we pronounce him thrice happy. These conditions are fulfiled in the friend whom we are here to receive and greet on his descent from the bench. He has lived a manly and blameless life; he has been a faithful citizen of the dual republic into which he was bom, that lesser republic the State, and that greater the Nation, to which the State belongs, and he has discharged the functions of high judicial magis- tracy for nearly half a century, without fear and with- out reproach. This is not the place nor the occasion for eulogy, which would be as unpleasant for him to hear as it would be unbecoming in me to speak, but the most fastidious taste would not refuse me the privilege of saying that there must be something remarkable in one who has had the rare distinction of having been once appointed by the Executive and five times chosen by universal suffrage to the same high judicial office, who has walked unharmed over the hot plowshares of popular elections, and filled his station for nearly two- and-forty years, twenty-seven of them as the Chief Justice, to the general acceptance of all our citizens. Some details of his life are to be mentioned by the gentleman who will follow me. I will say no more than that he had the great advantage of beginning without patrimony, actual or expectant. He started in the race of life, free of the impediment which hinders so many of our youth ; but he» had a stout heart and a steady hand, and with these he went forth into the world. His first venture was on the sea, where he acquired 162 that taste for travel and love of geography which have distinguished him since. In one of his voyages it was his good fortune to see the capture of Algiers by the French. Who of us would not have toiled hard to see the lifting of that curtain which had hung so long over the southern shores of the Mediten*anean, and the open- ing of a new drama on the theatre of the Dark Conti- nent ? Returning from the sea to the land, he threw in his lot with the great and honorable company of mechanics, until the advice of a friend led him away to the law, where, as we all know, he has been an apt scholar and a great teacher. Consider for a moment the nature of the judicial office. The judgment seat has been accorded in his- tory sacred and profane the chief place of honor. The praise of the greatest of men was that he sat in the ^* seat of judgment." If this was so in former days, how much higher has the seat been raised in our day and country. The ever-enlarging circle of civilization, the development of industrial arts, the strides of com- merce, the accumulation of corporate wealth; and above all the subordination of the law-giver to a written constitution, as the supreme will of the sovereign people, all these have invested the office of Judge with a dignity and power the past never knew. What new responsibility do they not entail! What qualities of intellect and will, what laborious study, what patient forbearance, what self-control do they not require; and I will add, what increase of danger do they not bring ! I appeal, then, to all who hear me, whether our friend has not earned that good name, that affluence of 163 respect, which by common consent he bears. He has held office by choice of the executive and votes of the people. He has lived under the old dispensation and the new. His half -century of service is a long link in that endless chain of law, which began with society and will end only when society is dissolved. With what unswerving honesty, what quiet dignity, what honor- able simplicity, he has discharged his great trust, we, who are his witnesses, can testify. Who has seen him indifferent to the duties of his place ? None. Who has seen him turn to the right hand or the left for any man's frown or any man's favor ? None. Who has heard him discuss out of Court what was to be decided in Court ? Nobody. Who has believed him to be moved in his judgments by any consideration but the law and the testimony ? Not one. Let us then greet him as victor, coming to us from the arena; one who has honored himself and in doing that has honored us. Mr. Field concluded by offering the following reso- lution for the consideration of the meeting : RESOLUTION. The retirement of Chief Justice Charles P. Daly from the bench of the Common Pleas, where he has served for more than forty- one years, and presided for twenty- seven, appears to us, members of the bar of the City and County of New York, a fitting occasion for express- ing our respect for his private character and our com- mendation of his judicial career. To have passed safely for more than two score years through the trials of judicial life, encountering meantime the ordeal of 164 t/i^c^^^^ ^^tC^^^^f"^'^—^ JAMES C. CARTER. BENJAMIN F. TRACY. five popular elections, and leaving in the minds of all citizens the conviction that he has always administered justice without fear or favor, caring only for the law and the testimony, which he diligently studied — these things, combining with the uniform courtesy, patience and impartiality which have characterized his entire course with the bar, have given him a place pre- eminent in our regards, and lead us to salute him with our most respectful homage, as he descends from the bench of this tribunal. And while we give him this salutation for the past, we wish him for the future long life and that happiness in rest from judicial labor which springs from one's own self-respect, and a life well spent in the service of God and his fellow- men. ADDRESS OF MR. WILLIAM ALLEN BUTLER. Mr. Chairman : The privilege is accorded to me of seconding the resolutions just ojffered, which I am sure express the unanimous sentiments of the bar of this city on this occasion, marked by so much of peculiar interest and significance. However we may differ in individual opinion as to the wisdom of that provision of Section 1 3 of the Sixth Article of the Constitution of this State which cuts the thread of the judicial tenure at the age of three score years and ten, we are grateful for the opportunity it gives us to-day of testifying our respect and regard for the retiring Chief Justice of this honorable Court, who, having helped, as a member of the Constitutional Con- vention, to frame this very section, now feels its force ; as the struck eagle of the poet's fancy 165 '* Viewed his own feather in the fatal dart, And winged the shaft that cfuivers in his heart." We are all reluctant to concede the facts which require the application of the constitutional mandate to Chief Justice Daly. Could our suffrages prevail, we would gladly imitate the example set, day before yesterday, by the great Republic of France in con- tinuing in its highest office one whose years number seventy-three.* But we have no alternative. Against the presumption of fitness arising from our observation of his unimpaired mental and physical vigor, we are met by his candid admission and by the conclusive evi- dence on the files of this Court, and so by force of a kind of inequitable estoppel, both in pais and by the record, the organic law, not of nature, but of the State, adjudges his retirement. When this Court was organized by the Act of 1821, the tenure of office of its Judges was during good behavior, or until the age of sixty years was attained. This provision was similar to that of the Constitution of 182 1, following the earlier Constitution, and it applied to the Chancellor and the Justices of the Supreme Court. Our present Constitution has length- ened the span of the judicial life by a decade, and the judiciary itself has improved on the Constitution by the repeated instances it has afforded of unimpaired facul- ties and fitness in incumbents of the bench when the limit of their terms had been reached. As it was with * This happy reference of Mr. Butler's was to the re-election of President Gr^vy, whose term as President of the French Republic was expiring, and who was re-elected to his hie:h oflBce at the age of seventy-three, in Decem- ber, 1885, just before the retirement of Chief Justice Daly. 166 them, so it is with our retiring Chief Justice; the shadow crosses the dial and marks the appointed hour; the object on which it falls still stands erect and in the sunlight. The resolutions fitly emphasize the long duration of his term of office now about to expire ; a term longer by ten years than the judicial life of Lord Mansfield, and by nearly ten years that of Judge Story. The illustrious career of Judge Samuel Nelson, reaching to within a few months of a full half century of judicial service, embraced his term in the Supreme Court of the United States as well as that in the Supreme Court of this State. The peculiar feature of the judicial life of Chief Justice Daly is that it has been spent in this single sphere of duty, within the limits of this city, and the precincts of this Court. To have served as Associate Judge, First Judge and Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of New York is to have held a foremost place as a judicial officer in the commercial centre of the nation, during the most event- ful period in the history of our jurisprudence ; a period marked by progress and reform ; by the simplification of the methods of procedure ; by the application of the principles of justice to all the new and unprecedented activities of the age ; by the enlargement of the field of judicial cognizance and research through the aid of science and the inexhaustible energies of commerce; by the investiture of the Courts of Common Law with the benignant powers of equitable jurisdiction; and by the unexampled advance of freedom and the rights of man. This growth and advance are well illustrated in the 167 history of this tribunal, and in the experience of its Chief Justice. At first, an outgrowth of the Mayor's Court — a purely municipal organization — it was com- mitted in 182 1 to the care of a single Judge. After- wards, as the city grew and its commerce was enlarged, the number of its Judges was, from time to time, increased, and the jurisdiction of the Court extended, until now, with its common law and equity jurisdiction it is, substantially, coordinate with the Supreme Court. I cannot but think that the Chief Justice must have exerted some occult influence over the Reformers of 1848, when the whole nomenclature of pleading was swept away, and pleas in abatement, ■plea.s ptiis darrein, rejoinders, rebutters, and surrebutters, went by the board. Nothing was saved except the demurrer — which no honest defendant will ever part with — and the name of this Court, which remains unchanged. It is a link between the judicial system of to-day and that which was administered by the Court, when, in 1844, Chief Justice Daly first took the oath of office and found himself encircled, but not entangled, by the net- work of special pleas woven by such veteran experts of the common law as John Anthon, James W. Gerard, Charles O'Conor, Daniel Lord and their many com- peers, whom time fails me to mention, but whose names your memories will supply. Very near to the people in its original and its appellate jurisdiction, this Court has commanded the respect of the bench and the bar, by the character of its Judges, and the weight of their decisions, a respect largely due, as many of us can testify, to the personal probity, the undeviating courtesy, the ability, the 168 m% Grosvenor, 159. Limacy Proceedings in the Common Pleas, 32, 57. Lynch, Judge, 42. McAdam, David, 107, 126, 226. McCloskey, Cardinal, 77, 87 McClure, Dax-id, 185, 186-190, 200, 204, 227. McElrath, Thomas, 78. McGown, Henry P., 32. McKeon, John, 30, 55, 56. McMahon, Dennis, 133. Mann, Albon P., 30. Mann, Charles A., 144. Mansfield, Lord, 151, 167, 176, 181. Marbury, F. F., 159. Marcy, Gov., 74, 175. Marshall, John, 180. Marsh, Luther R., 31, 132, 135- 138,139, 141-145, 157, 159.183 Martin, Isaac P., 159. Marvin, D., 133. Matzel, George W., 43, 45. 250 Maxwell, Hugh, 24, Mechanic Lien Cases in the Common Pleas, 32. Merritt, Henry W., 37, 38. Mickle, Andrew H., 56. Minuit, Gov. Peter, 10. Mitchell, William Minot, 31. Mitchell, Judge, 132. Monell, Claudius L., 31. Montgomerie, Gov. John, 18. Moore, Gov. Henry, 19. Morrill, John A., 37. Morris, Fordham, 159. Morris, Robert H., 30, 37. Mott, John O., 160. Morrison, Henry, 32, 133. MulHgan, John T., 24. Murphy, Henry C, 31. Names Changed by the Com- mon Pleas, 33. Naturalization by the Common Pleas, 32. Nelson, Samuel, 78, 167. New Amsterdam, 11, 12, 13. New York University, 103, 116. Nicholl, Henry, 132. Nicholls, Gov., 194, 195, 196. Nicholls, Matthias, 194. Noyes, William C, 31, 105. Oakley, Judge, 84. O'Conor, Charles, 36, 37, 38, 39. 57, 73, 80, 110, 119, 132, 139, 168, 182, 202. Ogden, Abraham, Jr., 29. Ogden, David B., 24. O' Gorman, James G., 221. O' Gorman, Richard, 80, 172. Olney, Peter B., 160. Parker, Miln, 40, 43, 45. Parsons, John E., 180. Paterson, Edward, 159. Patterson, Matthew C., 43, 44, 45, 50, 51, 124. Peabody, Charles A., 31, 159. Peckham, George W., 147. Peckham, Ruf us W. , 147. Peckham, Wheeler H., 58, 98. Phelps, B. H., 58. Phillips, Jonas, B., 56. Phoenix, Thomas, 24, 37. Pierce, Franklin, 127. Pierrepont, Edwards, 84, 132, 160, Porter, John K., 84, 139, 182. Price, Charles, 32. Price, William M., 24. Provoost, John B., 23. Pryor, Roger A., 25, 59, 127- 129, 226. Radcliffe, Jacob, 23, 138, 198. RadclifiEe, Peter W. , 24. Ransom, Rastus B., 160. Rapallo. Charles A., 32, no, 119. Redfield, Amasa A., 160. Report of the Common Pleas, 35, 63, 66. Reynolds, Marcus T. , 146. Riker, Henry L., 31, Riker, John, 31. Riker, Richard, 23, 36, 134, 217. Richardson, Sir Thomas, 181. Rives, George L., 185, Robinson, E. R., 159, Robinson, Hamilton W.,25, 26, 34, 57, 106, 108, 109-111, 113, 132, 139-157, 181, 182, 183, 186. Robinson, Henry A., in, 186. Robinson, Lucius, 120. Roesch, George F., 223-227. Rollins, Daniel G,, 59. Roosevelt, R. B., 105. Roosevelt, S. W., 105 Root, Elihu, 80, 120, 150. Ruggles, Philo T., 30. Runk, Charles A., 186. Russell, Abraham D., 30, 40. Russell, Horace, 93. Rutgers College, 112, 123. St. Nicholas Society, 104, 118, 124. Sampson, William, 24. Sanford, Charles F., 84, 139. Sandford, Edward, 30, 41. Sandford, Lewis H., 31. 251 Savings of Merchants' Clerks, Institute for, 31, 34 Schell, Augustus, 31, Schepens, 9, 12, 15, 194, 195. Schout, 9, 10, 12, 15, 194, 195. Scott, John B., 56. Scribner, John M., no, 133, 139, 159, 182, 185. Sedgwick, John, 139. Sedgwick, Theodore, 31. Senate, N.Y., 65. Seward, Clarence A., 80, 133, 159- Sewell, Robert, 160. Shepard, Lorenzo B., 56. Sherwood, John, 160. Shipman, William D., 159. Silliman, Benj. D., 30. Slosson, William, 24, 84, 132. Smith, Historian, 20. Smith, Augustus F., 132, 134- 135. 202. Smith, Duncan, 159. Smith, E. Delafield, 34, 63, 66, 206, 209. Smith, Floyd, 44. Smith, James M., Jr., 31. Smith, Thomas J., 74. Smith, T. W.,64. Smythe, Frederick, 120, 133, 217. Soule, William, 78. Speir, Gilbert M., 31, 139, 141. Sprague, Edward E., 159. States General, The, 11. Sterling, John W. , 80, 1 59. Stetson, Francis Lynde, 159. Steuben, Baron, 144. Stevens, Cyrus S. , 147. Stevens, Ephraim, 43, 45. Stevens, Samuel, 146. Stewart, Alexander T., 91, 92. Stone, Charles Francis, 159. Story, Joseph, 79, 167. Stoughton, Edward W., 31. Strong, Theron G., 159. Stu3rvesant, Gov. Peter, 11, 194. Sullivan, Algernon S , 58, 133, 159, 160. Sweeny, Thomas, 234. Tabor, Azor, 147. Talmadge, Daniel B,, 30. Talman, George F., 37. Tammany Society, 66, 94. Tappen, Abraham B., 32. Taylor, Douglas, 160. Thompson, Hubert O,, 122. Thomson, James J., 139. Tilden, Samuel J., 32, loi. Townsend, John J., 32. Tracy, Charles, 157. Tweed, William M., 79, 94, 98, 113, 176. Ulshoeffer, Michael, 24, 25, 34, 37, 38, 46, 49. 52, 54, 64-67, 83, 138, 179, 198, 202, 234, 237- Union College, 95, 96, 109, 119. University of Virginia, 127, 129. Van Brunt, Arthur H., 104. Van Brunt, Charles H., 25, 57, 103-104, 106, 113, 157, 160, 185. Van Buren, John J., 142, 145, 146. 148, 149. Van Cott, D. M., 41. Van Cott, George M., 40. Vanderpoel, A. J., 133. Vanderpoel, Jacob, 102, 139, 140, 157, 159, 183. Van Hoesen, George M,,25, 57, 112, 116-118, 183, 185, 186, 234. Van Schaick, Stephen D., 147, 148. Van Vechten, Teunis, 146. Van Vorst, Hooper C., 25, 95- 96, 132, 138, 139, 152-155, 157, 160, 183. Van Winkle, Edgar S., 30. Van Wyck, Pierre C, 23, 24, 134- Van Wyck, Robert A., 219-221. Varick, Richard, 23, 144. Verplanck, Gulian C., 75, 81. Verplanck, Samuel, 29, 204. WagstafE, Alfred, 34, 235. 252 Wakeman, Abram, i6o. Warner, Andrew, 31, 34. Walworth, Reuben H., 204. Washington, George, 22, Waterbury, Nelson, J., 31, 121, 132. Waterman, Thomas W., 74. Wells, Thomas L., 29. West, Surrogate, 214. West India Company, 9, 10. Wheaton, Eber, 36. Whitehead, Aaron P., 159. Whiting, James R., 37, 38, 40, 46, 47, 48, 50, 56. Wiley, William, 41. Wilkins, Martin S., 24, 134. Will Contests with Jury, 32. William the Conqueror, 191. Willet, Marinus, 23, 133, 138. Willet, Thomas, 196. Wilson, Peter, 30. Wood, George, 51, 83. Wood, Isaac W. , 40. Woodruff, Charles H., 84, Woodruff, Lewis B., 25, 83-86, 138, 203, 206. Wright, Deodatus, 147. Yale College, 30. Yancey, William L., 127. Young, John Russell, 129. Zabriskie, George, 159. 253