« AnteriorContinuar »
although a justice who is related to one of the parties evening time he said nothing. I came with my brothin a suit before him cannot be prevented from proceed. ers, Horace aud Henry - 1 came with my brother's ing with the cause by a challenge or otherwise, yet his horse aud Henry. A medical witness, speaking of the judgment in the cause, if he render one, will be re illness of a lady "patient, said: “She appeared to be versed for this cause alone, and a justice ought never to somewhat unstrung and nervous." The transcriber grant process for the trial of a cause, either where he is made him say, “She appeared to be somewhat kneea near relative of the party by blood or marriage or spruug and nervous." A minister, preaching a sermon where his opinion has been sought and obtained in re on the death of a gentleman named Samuel, quoted: lation to the matter in controversy ; nor even where “And buds and blossoms in the dust." He was dethe party has made a statement of facts, and taken lighted to read in the next issue of the paper: "And from the justice any direction whatever concerning buds and blows Sam in the dust." An attorney asked them, though it be merely as to a course of proceeding a female witness how she came to be employed by to obtain redress."
plaintiff, and she answered: “I saw a sigu in the winA juror cannot sit in a cause where he is related to a dow, ‘Female clerks wanted here.'” The blundering party in the action within the ninth degree, 3 Blacks. reporter rendered it. “Family color warranted bere." Com. 363; (which rule excludes third cousins by the A physician under examination as to his attendance civil law mode of counting degrees up to and from the upon a sick lady, said “he never examined her antececommon stock, which is generally followed in this dents," and was so reported by a stenographer. The country), and according to Sir Edward Coke a juror transcriber, however, made it read," he never excannot sit, however remote the relationship. Co. Lit. amined her intestines." An grator referred to the 137. If a juror related to a party to the action is not different religious sects or denominations “ going for allowed to sit, for the reason that he might be affected one another” throughout the country, and said: by the kinship, what reason is there why the justice “Here we have one sect persecuting another," and may not be affected in the same way? How is it that was so reported, but the transcriber rendered it: there is a “gross indecency" in one's hearing a cause “Here we have one sick person feeding another," and as justice in the State of New York, for a near relation, so it appeared in the moruing papers. Several years and that it is considered lawful and proper in the State ago an eminent lawyer bired one of these professors to of Rhode Island ? Do the laws defining what is judi take testimony in an important case. The transcribed cially decent or indecent vary at the boundary lines of minutes astonished him. A “patent," upon which separate States and territories?
much depended in the suit, was converted into a I had supposed that the rule forbidding a judge to "potentate;” a “solid frame" was turned into an sit in his own cause, or where he has a pecuniary in “isolated farm;" the “furnaces of this country "were terest, or where he is related to a party-litigant, is set down as “Fenians of this country;" “clerks and founded upon principle, and is invariable, in contem bar-tenders" were made into “ clocks and barometerş;" plation of universal law and the constitution and na- | and the question, “ Were you in the habit of visiting ture of man, to guard against the weakness of human the house?” was written, “ Were you in the habit of nature in vindicating and establishing human rights. fastening the hose ?"
EGBERT WHITAKER. SAUGERTIES, N. Y., October 19, 1880.
In the Supreme Court of the United States, October
29th, in the case of United States ex rel. McBride v. NOTES.
Carl Schurz, Secretary of the Interior, a motion was filed by the Attorney-General for an order to strike
from the files, on account of its scandalous character, THE October number of the Virginia Law Journal a pamphlet placed thereon and purporting to be the 1 has an article by Samuel D. Davies on the Power remarks of James H. Mandeville, of counsel for plaintof an Insolvent Testator to make preference between | iff in error in this cause. The motion was argued by creditors of different classes, - The London Law | Assistant Attorney-General Smith in support, and by Journal advertises a “ Law Coach." We suppose this Mandeville in opposition. Upon consideration the has something to do with conveyancing. — At the court ordered the pamphlet purporting to be a brief of Social Science Congress in Edinburgh, “Mrs. Duncan Mr. Mandeville, of counsel for plaintiff in error, to be McLaren protested against the custody of children stricken from the files of the court on account of the being considered as a minor matter." Pray what is it, impertinent and scandalous matter contained therein. then?
Among the passages to which tho attention of the court was especially called is one which contains an
intemperate personal attack upon the Secretary of the There is some good reading in the current report of Interior, who is described as “an arrogant scion of imthe New York State Stenographers' Association, in- perialism, a soldier of fortune, a traitor to his country, cluding an excellent paper on Books of Reference, by and a fugitive from justico, wafted from Germany to Mr. President Rogers. From a paper on Blunders, by America upon the wave of a revolution." Another F. J. Morgan, of Syracuse, we extract the following as passage im putes improper motives to the justices of the ludicrous instances of stenographic interpretation, and Supreme Court, as follows: “Your honors can never transcriptions therefrom: Gross receipts - Grocery make good plain people in this land believe that this seats. Tamarack knees - Dam rickety knees. The court is the palladium of their liberties if the rights of mother's prayer – The matters prior. He was a little persons or property can be swept out of existence, as fellow - He was a little full. They captured two par have been the rights of Thomas McBride, and then rot guns, They captured two pirate guns. The that the United States Supreme Court will deny relief woman was baking bread — The woman was begging because it is sensitive about interfering with a cabinet bread. I found the horse in that pasture - I found | minister. These samo plain people who toil and sweat the horse in that posture. Counsel offered paper in to support the goverument, and who have fought to evidence-Counsel brought pauperin evidence. Arthur preserve it as the best of all governments, if you coldly Waite, the chalk-talk evangelist- Arthur Waite, the turn him out of court because you hold a cabinet min
Choctaw evangelist. The showers were not sufficient | ister abovo the reach of the law, will justly suspect · to meet the wants of millinen -- Wants of milkmen. / that you are controlled by some patronage which saves
In the intervening time he said nothing - In the entire such officers from the wrath of the Legislature."
the objection raised many years ago against allowThe Albany Law Journal.
ing counsel to prisoners, namely, the heavy expense
to poor prisoners, an argument which Sidney Smith ALBANY, NOVEMBER 13, 1880.
ridiculed out of hearing. The judiciary of this
State, we think, have outlived the sentiments quoted CURRENT TOPICS.
by Mr. Maury from the Ruloff case in this State,
and there is no wish, on the part of any consideraTHE November number of the American Law Re- | ble number, to return to the old rule. 1 view contains an article by William A. Maury, on Validity of Statutes Authorizing the Accused to
The current number of the International Revier Testify, in which the author takes the ground that
contains an article on the Whittaker case, by Prof. such statutes are unconstitutional because they prac- Andrews, of the West Point Military Academy. tically compel the accused to testify against himself.
With the political part of the article we have nothThe author hardly succeeds in establishing that
ing to do, but the reader will find in it a very carestatutes which simply give the accused the right to
ful and complete statement of the legal aspects of testify if he chooses, and explicitly provide that his
that curious case, tinged, it is true, with something omission to testify shall not be taken against him,
of the West Point spirit, and its bias in this particare unconstitutional as compelling him to testify
ular case, but expressed very intelligently, and genagainst himself. As well might he be said to be
erally in good taste. Prof. Andrews believes that compelled to testify against himself when he sim
Whittaker is an imposter and a perjurer, and says ply sits in court, and witnesses by looking at his
so, but he expresses himself temperately. He canface identify him as the criminal.
not, however, find it in his heart to give Mr. Dis
trict Attorney Townsend his due title of “Hon.," Mr. Maury does not take into account the in- | and seems to think him blamable for charging stances, presumably frequent, where an innocent the government $700 for his services in this case. man wishes to testify and his testimony would make But in this he shows only a natural antipathy to a in his favor. To hold that a statute permitting such gentleman who did something for once toward retestimony is unconstitutional because it compels the
versing the maxim, Inter arma silent leges. It is witness to testify against himself, is clearly absurd. | noteworthy that several of the same experts who And yet it seems impossible to separate the statute, pronounced the note of warning in this case to be and hold it constitutional as to innocent persons in Whittaker's writing, unite in pronouncing the whose testimony would help them, and unconstitu 6 Chinese letter," attributed to Gen. Garfield, a tional as to others whose testimony would hurt forgery by the accused Philp. We have more than them. The omission of the accused to testify can once expressed our skepticism about the trustworthnot be held to proceed from a sense of guilt. It | iness of expert evidence on handwriting, but it ocmay frequently arise from an utter ignorance of and curs to us that the large class of political partisans inability to explain circumstances. Therefore, un who accepted that evidence in the Whittaker case, less there is criminating testimony, the mere omis must, in consistency, accept it also in the Philp case. sion probably never harms the accused. If there is sufficient criminating testimony, a conviction must From the opposite sides of the Atlantic come follow without regard to the omission,
contemporaneously two somewhat conflicting opin
ions as to the conceded decline of eloquence at the Mr. Maury has some queer ideas about the disad- | bar. Mr. Frank Fuller, in the October number of vantages of innocence. He says: “Filled with the the Southern Law Journal and Reporter, laments this terror and distraction which usually take possession decline. He says the omission to study the art of of the minds of the innocent from the moment they oratory “ will develop a race of lawyers for the become the objects of a criminal prosecution, par desk rather than the forum; good judges, poor alyzing their reasoning powers, the scene swims be pleaders; men who know the law, but fail in forcifore him, and he becomes involved in contradictions bly expounding it. The courts of to-day are and improbabilities of statement,” etc. This is cer- crowded with such advocates, men whose mental tainly a novel view of the situation. We had sup armory is full of the choicest weapons of judicial posed that the righteous were bold as a lion. Mr. warfare, but when the conflict deepens they become Maury, on the same principle, would prohibit our enervated, and the force of argument sweeps down frontier settlers from carrying rifles to protect them- | the force of law.” “We open the catalogue of our selves against bears and Indians, because occasion profession and find it barren of a single name which ally the settlers become flurried and shoot them even claims a distinction for force of jury pleading. selves. If he should allege that such was the habit / We have practically no jury lawyers. The shades of the settlers, it would be about as correct as his of Choate, Wirt, Pinckney, and a host of legal statement that innocence generally puts the accused chivalry, look down upon us to-day without a man at a disadvantage. His description seems to us a to take their places and show us what once was. caricature, and his theory a weak resource of soph- We have able lawyers, profound jurists and wise istry against the uniform teaching of experience. | judges, but the advocates, whose souls kindle with This tenderness toward the accused reminds us of I their own fire and set the listening spirits ablaze,
VOL. 22.- No. 20.
have drifted away like the mountain mists." Mr. had been highly commendable, and that they were Fuller thinks this decline is much less marked at not obliged to give the plaintiff any thing more the South than at the North, and he attributes the than a certificate stating she had lived with them a decline mainly to the spirit of Avarice. The Lon certain time.” If there is any truth in the parables, don Law Times takes a more prosaic view. Speak this wicked servant herself will yet be sadly in need ing of the late Lord Thesiger, it says: “ Another of water, and will be dreadfully answered when she observation made by the same writer is, that the late asks for it. But we feel certain that for good Mrs. judge laid no claim to the gift of eloquence. No
Lawson and those “boots" there is a crown laid up barrister making a large income in the present day somewhere. There is no use of Eliza's coming to does, or would wish to do so. The occasions for this country after this warning. its display rarely occur, and in ordinary business to be eloquent is a fatal disqualification unless counter- England may be willing to give up her Lord acted by a large development of prosaic common Chief Baron of the Exchequer, but she has a citizen sense. Fortunes are now being made by barristers who will not give up the signboard of the Royal Oak to whom oratory is an unknown art.” This goes hotel at Bettwsycoed. This signboard was painted far to justify Mr. Fuller's reason. We should in by the famous David Cox, R. A., and for many cline to attribute the fact to the enormous increase years was hung upon the outward wall, like Macof legal business, which leaves no time for elo- beth's banners. Subsequently it was brought inside quence. If there were time, the men would arise. for protection from the weather, and was framed Indeed, they already exist. There are a score of and screwed into a wooden plug let into the wall jury lawyers in this country second only to Choate of the hall. Lady Willoughby d'Eresby, the owner on occasion. Pinckney cannot be called a great of the hotel, claimed it as a fixture, as against the jury lawyer, for his triumphs were in the discussion trustees in bankruptcy of a tenant. The Bangor of purely legal questions, and this was true of the county court has awarded it to her ladyship. The latter part of Wirt's life. The Tichborne and court says: “I incline to think that as it was Beecher trials brought several such men to widely placed, and having regard to all the circumstances, public notice. But if eloquence has declined there it was a fixture, and as such, not a chattel' within is some consolation in the fact. Reason is a safer the meaning of the order and disposition clause. guide for courts of justice. than eloquence. The But I rest my judgment mainly on the ground that carrying of a bad cause by sheer force of appeals the notoriety of the article, and the general knowlto the sympathies, the prejudices, or the passions, edge of its history as the signboard of the hotel, is a degradation of a noble art. With eloquence absolutely exclude all legitimate ground for supposwe have also lost a great deal of fustian and “high- | ing that there could be any reputation of ownership falutin."
in Miss Thomas as the person having the actual
possession. * * * I am of opinion that Our current number of the Irish Law Times brings | the circumstances of the history of this signboard, us some strange intelligence, namely, that in Dublin known to all interested parties, were such as to lead there is a “court of conscience"; that it is held by to the conclusion that it belonged to the house and an alderman; that Irish ladies have trouble with not to the debtor, or to any other tenant for the their serving-maids; and that when a servant leaves time being of the house. It is idle to suppose her employer she may legally demand a “charac- that any credit was given to the debtor upon the ter.” On the 13th of October, before Aldermanfaith of this particular article being her property. Tarfey, Eliza Butler, a servant, summoned her late | * * * I confess that it is difficult for me employer, Mr. William Lawson, jeweler, Fleet street, to imagine that any tradesman dealing with her, for £1 compensation for refusing her a character and having any knowledge of the house, could be when she left. But it seems that if the master was ignorant of the fact that this picture was notoria jeweler, the servant was not a “ jewel," and yet ously the signboard of the house, the history of she got a good setting-out. The Times says: “Mr. which was well known to every frequenter of the Lawson said the plaintiff left of her own accord
district. I find the circumstances to be such as to under such circumstances that he thought himself
exclude the possibility of any reputation of ownerentitled to refuse a certificate. Mrs. Lawson stated
ship in the tenant, and I must therefore hold that that while the plaintiff was in the house there was
the order and disposition clause does not apply." quite a reign of terror in it. She was a girl to whom
The signboard probably represents Charles hiding in they could not say the simplest thing without her
the oak after the battle of Worcester. We are glad threatening to leave directly. She came to witness' to see a little reverence left for hallowed things in house very ignorant; the greatest pains were taken radical England. to teach her, and make her as happy and comfortable as one of the children, and at the present mo
NOTES OF CASES. ment she was standing in a pair of boots belonging to witness' daughter. She finally got beyond her- TN Green's Bank v. Chilton, Mississippi Supreme self and forgot herself, and the children could not 1 Court, 1 South. L. J. and Rep. 782, it was held ask for water she would answer so dreadfully. that a collection and a conversion to his own use of Finally witness dismissed her. His lordship dis- | the proceeds of a note by a bankrupt from a foreign .missed the case, holding that the defendants' action correspondent does not fall within the exception in the Bankrupt Act as to fiduciary debts. This is on previously made to others; but the witness may the authority of Forsyth v. Chapman, 2 How. 202; / himself be interrogated on the subject, either beCronan v. Cotting, 104 Mass. 205, and Nede v. Clarke, fore he is sworn upon the roir dire, or even, as it 95 U. S. 704. The same principle was lately held would seem, after having been sworn in the cause." in Hennequin v. Clews, 77 N. Y. 427, as to a factor; | The error in the principal case, however, was held and in Woodward v. Towne, 127 Mass. 41, as to an | harmless, because after the witness had been quesattorney in fact. To the same effect are Woolsey v. tioned the opposite party declined an offer to permit Cade, 54 Ala. 378; S. C., 25 Am. Rep. 711; Lemcke him to produce testimony. v. Booth, 47 Mo. 385; S. C., 4 Am. Rep. 326; Ban- | ning v. Bleakley, 27 La. Ann. 257; S. C., 21 Am. Rep. 554; Cronan v. Cotting, 104 Mass. 246; S. C.,
The witness, however, may personally be ques6 Am. Rep. 232. But the contrary was held, over
tioned as to his intellectual competency. Thus in
Carter v. State, Alabama Supreme Court, December, ruling Banning v. Bleakley, in Desobry v. Tete, 31 La. Ann. 809.
1879, 1 South, L. J. & Rep. 796, it was held that a
negro girl, about nine years old, was improperly In Arnd v. Amuling, St. Louis Court of Appeals, permitted to testify in this case, when the only eviOct., 1879, 1 South. L. J. and Rep. 769, it was held dence as to her competency was, that in answer to that it is error to question the witness himself as to questions put to her by the defendant's counsel, she his religious belief, even after he has been sworn, said, “that she did not know what the Bible was; although formerly it was held otherwise. The court had never been to church but once, and that was to said: “ The point raised by this bill of exception is her mother's funeral; did not know what book it both novel and interesting in this State, as no de- / was she had laid her hand on when sworn; had cision of this court has been cited by the counsel on heard tell of God, but did not know what it was; either side, and it is presumed none exists. The and said, if she swore to a lie she would be put in questions are involved in this exception: 1. Whether jail, but did not know she would be punished in the witness objected to should have been sworn and any other way." The court said: “The rule inexamined at all. 2. If examined, whether he should sisted on in all the books is, that “the admissibilty not have been examined in reply to the testimony of children as witnesses depends not merely upon impeaching his competency, and not before. The their possessing a competent degree of understandgeneral rule regulating the mode of ascertaining | ing, but also, in part, upon their having received and determining the competency of witnesses ob- such a degree of religious instruction as not to be jected to on account of insensibility to the obliga- | ignorant of the nature of an oath, or the consetions of an oath from defect of religious sentiment quences of falsehood.' 1 Phil. Ev., 4th Am. ed., and belief,' is prescribed with great precision by the Cow. & Hill's Notes, 11, 12. In Rex v. Williamson, elementary writers and more recent authors on the 7 C. & P. 320, a child eight years old, who, up to law of evidence. Mr. Greenleaf, vol. 1, ch. 2, $ 370, the time of the event of which she was to testify, treating of the competency of witnesses, says: The had received no religious training, nor had even burden of proof is not on the party adducing the heard of God, or of future rewards and punishwitness to prove that he is a believer, but on the ments, and had never prayed, and who, in the interobjecting party to prove that he is not. * * * * val (about sixteen weeks) between that time and The ordinary mode of showing this is by evidence the trial, had been twice visited and instructed by a of his declaration previously made to others — the clergyman as to the nature and obligation of an person himself not being interrogated — for the ob- oath, but still appeared manifestly to have no real ject of interrogating a witness in these cases, before understanding on the subject of religion or a future he is sworn, is not to obtain knowledge of the facts, state, was not permitted to testify. In Massachubut to ascertain from his answers the extent of his setts, it was said, in 1813, that by the later opincapacity, and whether he has sufficient understand ions, it was the settled law at that time if an ining to be sworn.' In a very elaborate note to this fant appear, on examination by the court, to possess section, the cases of modern date, both English and a sufficient sense of the wickedness and danger of American, are collected and summarized in part as false swearing, he may be sworn, although of ever follows: The witness himself is never questioned, in so tender an age. The credit of the witness * * modern practice, as to his religious belief, though * * is to be judged of by the jury from the manformerly it was otherwise. 1 Swift's Dig. 739; 5 ner of his testifying, and other circumstances.' CoMas. 19; Am. Jour., vol. 4, p. 79, note. It is not rum v. Hutchinson, 10 Mass. 225. If after the eyent allowed after he has been sworn. The Queen's case, 1 of which he is to testify, a child, previously ignor2 B. & B. 284. * * * * The old cases in which ant, is by instruction made to understand the nathe witness himself was questioned as to his belief ture of the obligation to speak the truth which is have on this point been overruled. Note 1, $ 370, imposed by an oath, he is then a competent witness. 1 Greenleaf's Ev.; 1 Whart. Crim. Law, $8 796, 798." And it has been held that the trial of a criminal Taylor, however, states the rule differently: “One cause may be postponed, when an important witmode, and perhaps the least objectionable mode of ness for the prosecution is a child, that he or she proving that a witness is incompetent to take an may, in the meantime, receive such instruction. 1 oath on the ground of want of religious belief, is by Leach, 430, note; Rex v. Nichols, 2 C. & K. 246. furnishing evidence of his atheistical declarations | But disapprobation of such a practice has been expressed by other judges. In 2 Cowen & Hill's Notes of the treasury. Mr. Morse gives us the following to Phillips on Evidence, 1, note 8, the case of one interesting particulars: Jenner is cited, in which a girl, nine years old, very “Dexter was more simple (than Pinckney) in his intelligent, but ignorant of the nature of an oath style, seldom rising into oratorical flights, but preand of the moral penalty of false swearing, was in- | ferring a clear, even, and persuasive fashion of adstructed by the judge on the spot and then sworn." dress. He was not a learned lawyer; but he was a " When, however, a child of tender years is pro- profound thinker, and was wont to work out his duced as a witness, it is the duty of the presiding arguments by careful reflection rather than by the judge to examine him or her without the interfer constant use of books. By some this custom was ence of counsel further than the judge may choose attributed to a weakness of eyesight, caused by to allow, in regard to the obligation of the wit-over-studious habits in youth. It was observed that ness' oath, and in proper cases, to explain the same | he seldom had a brief, and in the rare cases when to one intelligent enough to comprehend what he | he made one it was only a few lines in length. At says, and then to determine whether or not such the time when the embargo laws were pressing hard child shall be sworn and permitted to testify." upon the industries of Massachusetts, the merchants
combined in a desperate effort to have them declared BOSTON LAWYERS IN THE OLD DAYS. unconstitutional by the courts. Mr. Dexter acted
as their counsel, and, though he lost the case, as UNDER this title there is an article of interest, was inevitable, yet his argument was long remem
U by John T. Morse, Jr., in the November num bered on account of the ability displayed in it, and ber of the International Review. Lawyers are al was generally reputed to be the most famous madle ways greedy of the traditions of the elder and great by him. Soon afterward, however, he changed his of their profession, and this article will give a cer- political views, and early in the war of 1812 he sev. tain entertainment to readers of our profession. Mr. | ered his connections with his old Federal friends, Morse's subjects are John Lowell and Francis Dana and joined the party of the administration. For (whose busts, if we recollect right, are in the an this conversion he was dubbed by the indignant cient and beautiful King's chapel, Boston), Robert John Randolph, of Roanoke, Mr. Ambi-Decter.' Treat Paine, one of the “Signers," Samuel Dexter, | It is not without interest to recall that he was an Christopher Gore, Chief Justice Parsons, Jeremiah energetic laborer in the cause of temperance, and Mason.
was the first president of the first temperance society John Lowell was the great grandfather of the ever organized in Massachusetts. His personal appresent Judge Lowell, of the Federal Circuit Court pearance is thus described by Sullivan: "He was of Massachusetts. He seems to be chiefly memora- | nearly six feet in stature, of well-proportioned, musble for having been turned out of his Federal judge- cular frame. His hair was black, loose, unpowship under Jefferson's administration, and accused dered, and worn rather long; it came lightly over by Jefferson, in his posthumous diary, of having bis high, expansive forehead. His face was long, taken “British gold.”. Mr. Morse pronounces him his complexion dark, his eyes large and light blue. "an honorable gentleman, a sound lawyer, and a | * * * IIis common and usual manner was a digthorough patriot.” He was one of the most efficient nified and formal reserve, that of one who is con"abolitionists."
scious of intellectual superiority. His personal Francis Dana was a “Son of Liberty." From presence indicated that he was not a man with 1791 to 1806 he was chief justice of the Massachu- whom liberties could be taken, or to whom familsetts Supreme Court. He was remarkable for "car iarity could be offered. Yet in private intercourse, rying a large muff and wearing a wbite corduroy and when he felt himself unrestrained, he was an fur-lined surtout — trophies, it was supposed, of agreeable and instructive associate; but he did not his Russian mission " - in 1781. Chief Justice take much interest in what is called 'company,' and Francis Dana himself was the son of Judge Rich | spent but little time in that way.'” We find freard Dana; and in turn the son of Francis, Richard quent references to Dexter in Story's life. Mr. H. Dana, was a gentleman well known in literature; Morse says: “Samuel Dexter's son, Franklin Dexand his son, again, Richard H. Dana, bas long been ter, was a lawyer, second only to his own father, one of the most able advocates and brilliant speak- and a grandson is to-day probably at the head of ers of New England.”
the bar of Chicago." Of Robert Treat Paine Mr. Morse says, he was Gore is mainly remembered by his legacy to Har" an honest, kindly gentleman, able and patriotic, vard University, which was used for building the but irascible to an uncomfortable degree. His bad library named after him, Gore Hall. He was protemper and appropriate manners won him the nick- fessional preceptor of Daniel Webster, and by his name of Ursa Major. Indeed, the manners of the | influence our greatest orator and statesman was judges to lawyers practicing before them at that pe- saved from being a court clerk up in New Hampriod are reported upon all hands to have been exe shire. Gore was evidently a liberal and sagacious crable."
man. Mr. Morse says: “When he was governor of In Samuel Dexter we strike a great lawyer, Massachusetts he used to make journeys, or rather esteemed by Story the rival and peer of Pinckney. progresses, about the country in a coach-and-four, He flourished from 1761 to 1816, and was Federal oftentimes without outriders. He had a handsome representative and senator, and secretary of war and l estate at Waltham, where he built a fine house with