Howard County IN Archives History - Books .....Bench And Bar 1909
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/in/infiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Joy Fisher sdgenweb@yahoo.com April 3, 2006, 10:54 pm

Book Title: History Of Howard County Indiana

BENCH AND BAR.
BY OTIS C. POLLARD.

   The first term of what was then known as the Richardville circuit court was
held November 7, 1844, at the house of John Harrison, in the township now called
Ervin. Nothing much was done on the first day of the term. N. R. Linsday,
subsequently judge of the Howard common pleas court, was enrolled as a member of
the bar on the second day. On the third day the grand jury returned twenty-five
indictments. There being no business for the petit jury at that term they were
discharged.

   The grand juries of the period believed in earning their salaries, if you
choose to put it that way—but others chose to say that they loved to gratify
petty spites at the expense of their neighbors. They would sometimes still be
searching for facts when a term of court would come to an end.

   The grand jury of the first term of court in the history of the county
indicted John Harrison, the sheriff, for retailing. This offense was selling
small quantities of whisky in violation of the law. Benjamin Newhouse, a member
of the petit jury, at the same term of court, was indicted for trespass. Betting
was a common offense and five indictments for this law violation were returned
against William Smith. While Sheriff Harrison was acquitted of the charge of
"selling a quart of whisky to Theopholis Bryan, to be drank about his house,"
Charles J. Allison, also indicted for retailing, did not fare so well. He was
found guilty and fined two dollars. Allison was frequently indicted for
retailing. He kept a saloon, or wet-back grocery, the bar being in the rear, in
a double log house on the east side of the public square, and, saving his
business, alleged to his discredit, he bore a good reputation and was generally
spoken of by his neighbors as an honest man. He had good business
qualifications. He ran the first saloon conducted in Kokomo, and was frequently
before the circuit court. He came to the county before it was organized and died
in 1863.

   Judge Biddle once observed of the pioneer grand juries:

   "The early grand juries were of curious composition often, being made up
largely of men from other states, and even natives of foreign countries. I think
that generally they were honest and devoted to the law, when they knew what it
required of them."

   Summoned before a grand jury, David Foster was asked:

   "Did you observe any one fishing on Sunday?"

   "Yes, sir."

   "You may give the names of the parties you saw."

   Mr. Foster gave them.

   The foreman of the grand jury, in order to prove the offense within the limit
of the statute of limitations, asked Mr. Foster in what year he saw the parties
named fishing on Sunday.

   "Eighteen fifty-six."

   As the examination was several years later the jury had its pains for
nothing, the offense described by Foster being barred to prosecution.

   The list of offenses for the early-day indictments were pronouncedly in
contrast with those of 1908. John Lamb and Benjamin F. Faucett were indicted for
improperly granting license, and Mr. Lamb was also indicted upon two charges of
extortion. David Bailey was arraigned upon two charges of the same character.
Samuel Garner was prosecuted for illegal voting. Attachments were issued against
Jonas Dalgilkin and John Ryan for contempt of court in divulging the secrets of
the grand jury.

PAY OF PETIT JURORS.

   The first petit jury serving the county was allowed seventy-five cents each
for one day's service.

   Upon beginning its sessions in Howard county the court ordered a seal, which
was to have a device upon the face thereof of a man on horseback on a chase
after wolves in the distance with his hounds in pursuit, the horse to be
represented "on the loap" and the words engraved on the seal, "Richardville
County Seal, A. D. 1844."

   A term of court generally lasted from three to four days. Seldom longer. All
the business could easily be disposed of within that time. A week of court would
have been considered a judicial sitting of unusual and tedious duration.

   Had you entered the log courthouse in the forties you would have found upon
the ground floor the tailor shop of G. W. Poisal, the saddlery of H. B. Havens,
and the offices of Dr. Corydon Richmond and the county clerk, F. S. Price. Dr.
Richmond and his brother, Orsemus Richmond, were eventually associated in the
practice, occupying the same office, and finally N. R. Linsday and C. D. Murray
established a law office in the courthouse. In September, 1850, Mr. Havens wras
notified that his office rent would be fifty cents a month. The rest were
notified in June, 1851, that they had better pay their office rent.

   The "courthouse rats" of that day were a jolly bunch. Someone had been taking
Dr. Corydon Richmond's whisky, which he had in a quart bottle upon a shelf in
his office. Tailor Poisal told him that his liquor was being appropriated by a
certain carpenter. One morning the doctor furnished a fresh supply of whisky and
placed an emetic in it. The carpenter purloined a drink. Soon he began spitting,
but unsuspectedly took another drink. No sooner had he lowered it until he
became very sick. Whereupon he rushed to an oak stump, and, like Job, cursed the
day upon which he was born. He made a friend of nearly every stump on the way
until he reached home. He never again molested the whisky.

   The lawyers of the early day were plain and simple in their habits of life,
as were the other pioneers with whom they were associated. They relished the
substantial food of the day, dressed in the rough garb of their neighbors, and
were in all respects a part of the great commonality. Yet they were the leaders
in public spirit. They were the politicians. The best offices fell to their lot.
not because they were of "better clay than other men," but because they were
considered better qualified by the people to discharge the duties incident to
the various official positions with which they were honored. They must have been
early risers, at least upon one occasion, for one evening the Richardville
circuit court adjourned "to meet to-morrow morning at seven o'clock." A dozen
books, all told, would comprise an average lawyer's library. But these books
were known by them thoroughly, large portions of which they were able
substantially to quote from memory. The standard authority most frequently
consulted was the statutes of the state—the Koran of the Richardville bar. The
county clerk, Franklin S. Price, who served a number of years, spread on record
a list of books comprising the courthouse library, April 25, 1845; four volumes
of local laws, six volumes of Blackford reports, three copies of the Senate
Journal, 1845, three copies of the journal of the house of representatives of
the same year, sixty-five copies of the school laws, eight copies of the revised
statutes of 1843. Milk and bread were the principal foods of Kokomo's earliest
denizens. The lawyer-politicians, in order to obtain votes, would win the
popularity of the women by assisting them to milk and to suckle the calves.

MEAGER LEGAL BUSINESS.

   The law business was not heavy during the early days of the Richardville bar,
nor such as to put the bar up in the way of learning and power. Land was cheap
and controversies few. The principal suits were for slander, bastardy, hog
stealing, betting, whisky selling, and so forth. The bar under Judges Wright and
Biddle averaged well, and improved greatly as business became more serious.
In an early day the judges and lawyers from the various circuits of the state
congregated at a frame hotel near the center of the north side of the public
square, generally after supper, to exchange experiences, divulge all kinds of
news and relate anecdotes.

   Moses Cromwell was distinguished in an early day by the frequency with which
he sought the judicial decree. His name appears very often upon the records of
the court. A drinker, "on his muscle," and quarrelsome, he naturally occupied a
good deal of the court's attention. Scarcely a term of court passed without his
being either a plaintiff or a defendant. When not figuring as the accused in
some state case he was almost certain to be mixed up in some kind of a civil
action. In a large number of prosecutions he was able to secure his acquittal.
He figured in all kinds of prosecutions, assault and battery, retailing,
affrays, and others too numerous to mention. One of the first slander cases in
the county was that of Pleasant Walker against Cromwell. At the trial the jury
was unable to agree. The case was afterwards compromised and dismissed. This
case was the first called at the May term. 1846. He was still litigating as late
as 1858.

   David Foster also did a considerable business in court. But his preferences
were for civil rather than criminal cases. The records show him to have been
interested in a great many suits.

   John B. Hopkins might, during a court term in an early day, be seen often
standing on a stump in the courthouse yard. He sometimes carried an ax and a
chicken, asserting that he was going into the poultry business. His general
features, large physique, partially stooped form, and long, thin hair touching
his shoulders, gave him a commanding presence. A string of losely-tied, green
mango peppers encircled his shoulders and swept his breast. He was barefooted,
and had a powerful voice. He was a great walker. Once a candidate for
representative, he spoke at Greentown and Kokomo, addressed an audience near
Poplar Grove and made two speeches at Logansport within the space of twenty-four
hours, hoofing the entire distance between the places where he delivered his
addresses. He had a state reputation and was intimately connected with the
lawyers of the county, frequently assaying the defense of "mercy cases" and an
attendant upon court. The lawyers listened to him, conversed with him and read
law to him. To this community in early days he was a periodical visitor. His
sensible utterances, by no means few in number, profound and practical, were
treasured up in the minds of his hearers. However, this man was demented. Yet
his intellect was of the highest order. He was finely educated. His choice of
words was apt. His sentences were of such construction that they excited the
admiration of rhetoricians. In his younger days he had been a prodigious
student. If deserted by his audience he would seek another spot and address new
listeners. To hear him sing old settlers declared was to experience a genuine
pleasure. He composed all his own songs, many of which were highly meritorious.
Hopkins walked from one end of the state to the other, starting generally from
some leading city situated on the National road, which route he traveled,
pulling after him a light buggy, which he filled with tracts. At nearly every
town along the entire distance he would sell his buggy and buy a new one.

   The statute of 1843 divided the state into twelve circuits. A president judge
was appointed by the legislature for each of these circuits. Two associate
judges were chosen by each county to preside with the president judge. Although
they made but little pretense to learning "these side judges," as they were
called, often overruled the president judge, giving for their decisions some
preposterous reasons. Not infrequently, too, their rulings, absurd as they may
have sometimes been, were sustained by the supreme court.

   The terms of office for the judges were, by statute, fixed at seven years;
the clerk was to serve for seven years and the sheriff and prosecuting attorney
for two years.

JUDGES LONG AND ERVIN.

   The associate judges for Richardville county were T. A. Long and Robert
Ervin. Mr. Long was born in Lexington, Kentucky. He apprenticed himself, when a
young man, to an old gunsmith, working six years for nothing and clothing
himself. Besides being a gunsmith he was a farmer and nurseryman. He lived in
Harrison township. In politics he was a Whig and a Republican. In religion he
was a Methodist, being a member of the M. E. church over forty years. Of these
associate judges, Judge Biddle, with whom they served, once said: "Long I
remember to have been a very quiet man. I was not as intimate with him as I was
with Ervin. Ervin was a man of good thought and possessed of clear, solid,
common sense. On the bench he ever strove to do his duty. I always regarded him
as a very safe counsellor up to the extent of his legal intelligence."

   Judge Long, from the fact that he wore glasses, was called "Old Specks" by
the Indians. He erected a little shop near his cabin in Harrison township "and
for several years repaired guns for the Indians. Across the creek from his shop
stood Foster's trading house, where the Indians would take their skins and buy
blankets and 'heap good whisky,' and then would go and get Long to fix their
guns. Foster would frequently interpret and vouch for them, and Long would
charge the bill to Foster and Foster would charge three or four times as much to
the Indians. Long had a nice little horse, worth some fifty dollars, which
Foster wanted; but being afraid of making the price too high, asked him what he
would give Foster replying he would give sixty-five dollars, agreeably surprised
Long at his generosity, and consequently got the horse. Foster kept the same for
four days and sold it to an Indian for two hundred and fifty dollars. Mr. Long,
being somewhat surprised, a second time concluded he could sell a horse which
his father-in-law owned for a good price. As the horse would lie down and let
its rider mount, the feat greatly pleased the Indians, and Foster sold it to one
for four hundred dollars. The next autumn the Indian brought the horse back to
be placed in order, and for so doing was charged two hundred dollars by the
trader, Foster. Mr. Long having several cattle and needing some brass to make
bells for them, was informed that he could get it of the old chief, Kokomo. He
went to the chief's wigwam and was introduced to his dusky highness as a
Kentuckian. The chief began to act strangely, went out and painted himself,
returned and told Long's companion that he had scalped several Kentuckians, and
would scalp the new-comer. But Judge Long told the Indian he had better not try
that game, or he would shoot him upon the spot." Judge Long was permitted to get
the brass and depart.

A LOG COURTHOUSE.

   During the administration of Associate Judges Long and Ervin the sessions of
the circuit court were held in the two-story log courthouse within the public
square. The upstairs of this structure was utilized as a courtroom, the lower
story embracing a hall and four office rooms. The courtroom was reached by an
inside stairway.

   The shades of evening are falling. The courtroom is deserted within a few
moments. But in leaving the courthouse square a lawyer meets with a misfortune.
The ground was wet and swampy. The mud in places was about belly deep to a
horse; in others half boot-top deep. The lawyer is attempting to walk along a
slab placed in the mud to insure a pedestrian a safe and convenient passage. But
he slips and falls. Bitter are his words of denunciation as he regains his feet
against those cows that tramp and those hogs that wallow this particular piece
of ground into such a horrible condition. Uncle Tence Lindley, in his quaint
way, once said: "Well, I'll tell you what is a fact; the courthouse yard in them
days was skittish muddy. It were skittish muddy for a fact."

   Thomas S. Shepherd, a man of medium height, with light hair and blue eyes,
was a striking pioneer lawyer, but really a better preacher. He was an
uncompromising Democrat, and once stood for the legislature, but was defeated.

   Thomas J. Harrison was a son-in-law of Judge Linsday, with whom he was
associated in the practice of the law. Harrison was a big-hearted, generous man,
who did everything in his power for his friends. The duties of his profession he
performed well, in a punctilious and unflinching manner. His personal bearing
and influence had weight with a jury. His record is chiefly military.

LEADING PIONEER LAWYERS.

   Of the two leading pioneer lawyers of Kokomo, Judge Biddle once said:
"Charles D. Murray was a man of fine talent, but had only a fair amount of
learning. He was not a diligent student and did not attend strictly to business.
To make popular speeches was the delight of his soul and in this line his
success was extraordinary. But to take charge of a lawsuit of weight and
character he was too slack. He generally came into court ill-prepared. In brain
he wras large, in physique weighing one hundred and ninety pounds and
well-formed. In carriage he was manly, being free and easy in manner. His
talents were such that he ought to have secured a much higher position than he
gained. His ease and ability as a speaker diverted him from the severer studies.
His social qualities were number one. A first-rate wit himself, his relish of an
anecdote or practical joke was keen. He was an amiable gentleman and a lovable
man. At one time he was seriously talked of as a candidate for governor of the
state. The announcement of a political speech by Murray was always the signal to
prepare for lots of fun."

   Speaking once of Judge N. R. Linsday, Judge Biddle said: "N. R. Linsday had a
clear head and was a very able man. He drew up a remarkably clean paper and in
this respect was Murray's superior. He also made a more solid argument, but as a
speech-maker was not nearly so popular or versatile. In integrity he was pure
and upright. I remember of his undertaking to draw up a common law plea in
abatement, a task for him most difficult. It was his first attempt. Its
construction gave him an infinite amount of trouble and worry. But he finally
got through with it, having framed it pretty well. I looked it over and
corrected several errors. The plea then stood unassailable. I think I never saw
a man appear more grateful than he did for that favor. He was not much of a man
for fun, but was a hard working man, with excellent brain power." Judge Biddle,
when he came from Logansport to this county to hold court, was frequently
entertained at the cabin of Judge Linsday. The dwelling was very crowded, but
they always made room for him. There was but one door to the structure. Judge
Linsday was the second county agent. By act of the legislature the duties of the
office were finally transferred to the county auditor, and Tohn Bohan was first
to discharge them after the change in the law. As careful a lawyer as Judge
Linsday was surprised when he went to pay his taxes, in 1846, to find that he
was delinquent eighteen cents upon his taxes of 1844. Judge Linsday, a candidate
for the legislature, was a-vehement opponent of a clique proposing to unite
Howard and Tipton counties and establish the county seat at Sharpsville. He made
telling points against his opponent, who favored the plan. Judge Linsday was one
of the most influential workers in behalf of Kokomo's claims.

FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.

   Attorney Charles D. Murray was fined twenty dollars for contempt of court at
the May term, 1857. He had a tilt with Henry S. Kelly, who was serving as judge
pro tem., owing to the absence of Judge John M. Wallace, the regular judge,
whose absence was caused by sickness. Mr. Murray gave security for the amount,
which, it is probable, was never collected by the local authorities, as they did
not desire to execute the order. They saw to it that Mr. Kelly did not preside
the next term. Clerk Adam Clark, Sheriff Samuel Lamb, and Auditor Harles Ashley,
as they had a right to do under the law, appointed Mr. Murray to preside at this
term of court, as a solace to his dignity, as Judge Wallace had not appeared the
first day. He did arrive the second day, however, and assumed the duties of the
bench. Mr. Murray presided at a part of the May term, 1858.

   Joe Lewis, a pioneer lawyer of the county, and once the partner of Judge
Linsday, was a well-trained lawyer and close reasoner, but not so very good
advocate. His legal opinions, however, had great weight and he was a formidable
opponent.

   Lawyers from adjoining counties did a large business at the Howard county
bar. Among the number was D. D. Pratt, of Logansport, afterwards United States
senator, and a Daniel Webster in physique, intellect and ability.

   Franklin S. Price served the county as clerk faithfully and with ability from
1844 to 1854. In 1858 he was a candidate for the office, but while at New London
followed the advice of Timothy. The unpopularity of the act caused his
retirement from the ticket and he was replaced by Ross Gray. Gray was defeated
by Adam Clark. Price was of very slight and fragile build, and his hair, eyes
and beard were black. He was very social in his nature and enjoyed great
popularity. At a convention of the pioneers, held in Harrison township, Price
and Hiram, his uncle, were candidates for the same office. Each was to rise and
walk from the other, and his supporters were to follow him, and the one having
the most friends was to be the nominee. Hiram had the test of numbers. Franklin
burst into tears, which so excited his uncle that he withdrew from the contest.

THE FIRST CIRCUIT JUDGE.

   Judge John W. Wright, the first circuit judge of this county, a resident of
Logansport, was a very eccentric man. An important case was before him for
disposition, involving many difficult questions of law. The procedure of his
court was governed by the technical practice of the common law. The pleadings
were numerous and complicated. Many were the pleas in replication, the
rejoinders, the rebutters and surrebutters. Eminent counsel was engaged upon
both sides of the case, tried in one of the counties of the circuit to which
Howard belonged, and among them were Abraham Lincoln and Joseph E. McDonald,
pitted against each other. After a lengthy discussion of the law questions
raised by the issues, conducted by the counsel of the opposing sides. Judge
Wright, without allowing himself any time for the consultation of authorities,
or deliberation, staggered the attorneys by announcing that he would rule
immediately after noon. When court convened after the dinner hour, true to his
word, Judge Wright divided the pleadings into two separate piles, and, picking
up a paper in his right hand, threw it down, saying, "Demurrer overruled," and
with his left hand picked up another pleading, threw it down and said: "Demurrer
sustained." This was kept up until all his rulings had been announced. This
procedure was nothing more nor less than judicial ledgerdemain, haphazard,
uncertain guessing. The lawyers had spent weeks in the careful study of the same
questions of which he so effectually disposed within the short space of ten
minutes. But imagine their surprise when, upon appeal, the supreme court
sustained every* one of his rulings. Afterwards, when Lincoln had been elected
President and when the first rumblings of the impending Civil war were heard
throughout the length and breadth of the land, a large assemblage of military
officials, among whom mingled several cabinet officers and other eminent
personages, darkened one day the parlors of the white house, when the late
Joseph E. McDonald was a caller at the Presidential mansion. Immediately upon
his entrance he was recognized by President Lincoln, who grasped him heartily by
the hand and exclaimed, "How are you, Joe? How's old Judge Wright, anyway?"
following the remark with a hearty laugh.

   It was during a term of court held in Tipton county by Judge Wright that a
peculiar incident occurred. The grand jury reported that it had no indictments
to return. In discharging them Judge Wright said, in his usual brusque and gruff
manner, "Well, gentlemen, I suppose you are discharged, but I have not the least
doubt in the world but what half of you ought to be indicted for hog stealing."

   Having been convicted of a felony, a certain prisoner once stood up to
receive sentence from Judge Wright, who has been reported to have used upon that
occasion the following language: "Sir, the first acquaintance this court ever
formed with you was in a house of ill-fame, but you have steadily gone down in
the world till now you must make your future home in the penitentiary."

   In personal appearance. Judge Wright was about five feet and six inches in
height, weighing from one hundred and eighty to two hundred pounds: was athletic
and graceful in movement, whose general appearance countenanced the accusation
that he was vain and proud, which, however, was not true of him in an offensive
sense.

A STRANGE CHARACTER.

   It was hard to convince Judge Wright that he could make a mistake. This he
thought to be impossible. This peculiar belief of Wright's originated from the
dogmatic tendency of his mind, which, by nature, was a rugged one. The haste
with which he pronounced his decisions was deplorable, and one of his weaknesses
which cost his friends much pain and regret. His character was positive, his
popularity great, his friends bound to him by the strongest ties, and his
enemies were of the malignant type. As a lawyer it is said that he valued
victory higher than perfect honesty; that he was unscrupulous and employed
underhand methods continually; that he "browbeat" and terrorized witnesses
completely, and sought to torture them into testimony in behalf of his clients;
that he had little feelings for others and, when inclined, heaped torrents of
abuse on parties to the suit. In argument he was powerful and in address strong.
He would not tolerate the slightest noise or confusion in the courtroom and
would invariably stop procedure until it ceased. He won the majority of his cases.

   He was a great practical joker and loved to perpetrate jokes on others, but
never liked to have them played upon himself. He instantly resented personal
insult by word or blow. Judge Wright once stopped at a Virginia hotel for
dinner. A colored waiter took his order and asked him which he would have,
"Strawberries and cream, or fritz?" "Bring all mixed," said Wright, who did not
know the meaning of "fritz." "Why, you isn't gwine to hab 'em mixed, is you?"
asked the astonished waiter. "Mixed," reaffirmed Wright, resolved not to show
his ignorance. The compound was set before him, but was not relished.

   Wright related a good anecdote at his own expense. "I had a novel experience
when I was traveling on a certain occasion from Logansport to Winamac, where I
was to hold a term of court. I came near getting into serious trouble. You see,
it was this way. I came to a very muddy lane. Well, I thought that was simply
impassable. I will lay down the rail fence to my left,' I said, 'and go through
the field.' I did so and rode almost across it unmolested. Soon I came to the
edge of a woods. A man with an ax in his hand confronted me and asked, 'Why did
you come across this field?' 'The road was impassable,' I coolly explained. If
you are acquainted with law, as I suppose you are, you will remember that
private welfare must yield to public convenience. I hope I have a right here,
sir.' To which my interrogator replied, 'Who said that you could cross this
field?' 'No one,' I replied. 'Then go back and lay up the fence.' said he. My
anger began to rise. 'Look here,' said I, 'do you know who you are talking to? I
am Judge Wright.' 'Judge Wright; for once," he replied, 'Judge Wright is wrong.
Now you go back and lay up that fence!' he exclaimed, as he clinched his ax the
tighter for his indignation. 'I say go back and lay up that fence.' Well,
gentlemen, I went."

JUDGE BIDDLE.

   Judge Horace P. Biddle, of Logansport, second judge of Howard county, said of
Judge Wright: "It must not be overlooked that his mind was not steady. He was
not all bad, by any means. He was governed by fits and starts. The mind of the
man, I may say, was flighty in a sense, inclined to aberration—more so at
certain times than at others. For a period his decisions would be correct and
his whole bearing judicial. I have known him many a time to announce his
decisions in perfect order and to conduct cases with the greatest propriety. At
other times he would fly off in every direction and we could not tell what he
would do. Becoming eccentric he would reverse in principle every, one of his
former decisions with the greatest sincerity and honesty, apparently believing
that he was deciding the same way he had before. He would tell without any
visible motive gigantic falsehoods. These seldom proved to be of injury to
anyone, however. Seemingly he believed everyone of them. One winter I had seen
quite a large herd of deer. In number there must have been at least ninety. In
telling of it I rather had a dislike of making the number that high, for fear
some might think I was not telling the exact truth. But 'Jack,' as Judge Wright
was called, heard the story and endeavored to relate it. The number of deer,
according to him, was fifteen hundred.

   "On a certain occasion he told me a great cock-and-bull story about Lincoln.
He said: 'Lincoln is a fool. I was in Washington, not long since, and called
upon the President. He told me he was surrounded by thieves, by robbers, by
murderers, by assassins: that he did not know what to do and that he was
momentarily expecting trouble; and that if he got into trouble he wanted me
(Wright) to come to Washington and help him.' 'Did he really tell you that,
Jack?' I asked. 'To be sure,' answered Wright. 'Then Lincoln certainly is a
fool,' I answered. Judge Wright exaggerated and falsified unconsciously.

WALKED IN HIS SLEEP.

   "He was a somnambulist. One night we were bunking together as travelers had
to do in the early days of the state, as bed room was rather limited. After we
had been asleep two or three hours he suddenly sprang upon me, seized me by the
throat and began choking me. Though sound asleep his eyes were wide open and he
glared upon me with the fury of a maniac. I beat him vigorously in the ribs, but
it was some time before I awakened him. 'My heavens. Jack,' I said, 'what do you
mean choking me this way?' 'I am very sorry. Judge.' he replied: 'I did not know
I was choking you.'

   "He was vicious at times. In him the good and the bad alternately
predominated. I think he was incapable of a persistent fraud. He had a good
heart, spoke and acted well and was by no means intensely selfish. I was very
intimate with him. In his confidential moods he intrusted his secrets to my
keeping. When he was worried or in trouble, or had been abused, he always came
to me. One day he stepped into my office. As was characteristic of him he
puckered up the left corner of his mouth, and intently stared at me, his head
being to one side. Alternately rubbing his hands together, with his right fist
he would beat his breast with great rapidity. While going through this gymnastic
performance he finally blurted out, 'Judge Biddle, what do you think of me,
anyway?' 'Can you stand the truth?' I asked. He replied that he thought he
could. 'Well, Jack;' said I, "I'll tell you. If all the bad in you were absent
you would make a good citizen. But if all the good in you had been taken away
and nothing but the bad left, you would have been in the penitentiary long ago.'

   "Estimates of Judge Wright as a speaker differ. I never thought that he was
possessed of genuine eloquence. The chief fault of the man as a speaker was
repetition. He often spoiled his points. 'Jack' was a great temperance worker.
Once in an address upon that subject he tried to imitate Patrick Henry, in a
speech made in defense of a man who had sued the officers furnishing supplies to
the revolution, in which speech Henry made use of about this language: 'But what
note of discord do we hear? That of John Bull shouting, "Beef! Beef! Beef!" '
Wright blundered along after this fashion: 'In this age of peace and sobriety we
hear a shout of peace and prosperity arising. Arising from the earth. As high as
heaven—as high as heaven. Yes, higher than heaven— arising—arising—higher than
heaven—arising, from Maine to Georgia.' This was ever afterwards spoken of as
Wright's climax.

   "Judge Wright was not for ceremony in adjourning court. Sometimes he even
adjourned court without the knowledge of the bar. Once he did this. The grand
jury, unable to secure accommodations in the courthouse, were in session in the
jail. He adjourned court proper then. Judge Wright proceeded to dismiss them by
going to the door of the jail building and exclaiming: 'Go home, gentlemen!'

   "Judge Wright went to Washington City, where he died. While there he became
quite wealthy. Just how he made his money I never knew. The last five or six
years of his life he was perfectly helpless. His body was finally brought to
Logansport for reinterment. He was a Presbyterian in faith and believed that his
election was sure. He was firmly convinced that he was one of the elect. The
expressions which he used most frequently were 'dyed in the wool,' and 'for the
love of God and the Democracy.' He was a very enthusiastic Democrat."

AN ABLE JURIST.

   Judge Biddle, Howard county's second judge, was an able jurist, a savant, and
a gentleman of broad culture. At eighty years of age his hair was thin and gray.
His forehead was broad and retreating. The most delicate pencil lines in a
crayon portrait would have sufficed for his eyebrows, from beneath which peeped
eyes, small, keen and intelligent, such as are commonly ascribed to acute
logicians. Deep furrows had plowed their downward way upon his countenance,
throwing up upon either cheek swollen veins of flesh. The features of the man
told plainly that for years he had been a tireless student, and upon his brow
could be seen the evidence that the brain within for years had been busy with
wasting thought.

   The language which the judge used stamped him at first blush as a linguist.
His memory in his age was strong, clear, and accurate. Seemingly inexhaustible
was the storehouse of his mind. He was an expert mimic, a fine musician, a
writer upon the technology of the subject, and played a violin to perfection.

   Upon his retirement from the supreme bench of Indiana and the active practice
of the law, Judge Biddle lived the closing years of his life upon Biddle's
island, adjacent to Logansport. He and his wife had disagreed, the judge
conceiving a jealousy of her, and a separation followed. The judge attempted to
secure a divorce but failed. His wife also lived on the island, and while he
always spoke to her if he chanced to meet her, he never was reconciled again to
her, although she also lived upon the same island. Judge Biddle passed the last
years of his life alone, surrounded by his books and living in a house that was
a literary curiosity and an antique museum.

   In the room most frequented by Judge Biddle was an old bureau filled with
curious things and an old-fashioned bedstead, the posts of which were four feet
from the floor, the two one way topped by a couple of hats. Along the north wall
of the room, immediately behind the stove, was a row of boots and shoes, as the
judge carefully preserved cast-off footwear and headwear, having thus a complete
museum of styles. The walls were hung with pictures and-dotted with plaster of
Paris statuary.

   Proceeding through a door of heavy box-like casing, one came into a hall
papered with maps, and clinging to the ceiling of which was a birch canoe and
Indian moccasins. A cabinet contained a collection of relics. A case was filled
with geological specimens, upon the top of which rested the models of two large
vessels. In a corner leaned a rifle picked up at Island No. 10. Near it was a
sword and scabbard pinioned to the wall. Keeping company with these two articles
was a large whalebone. In a stand of canes was the one with which Judge Biddle
struck Senator D. D. Pratt over the head, a courtroom incident of state note.
The Biddle home consisted of nine rooms, in which seven were occupied with
collections of books, several thousand in number. In several, troughs of books
hung from the ceilings. One room Judge Biddle used as a workshop and employed
himself in building the second musical instrument. In one room he had cords of
books arid a stuffed bear. In an outside building he had newspaper files which
covered a period of over half a century.

   Judge Biddle, who served with Associate Judges Long and Ervin, said of the
system:

   "I was rather attached to the system of associate judges. Those judges were
first-rate jurors, upon questions of fact before the court. Their assistance was
often very valuable, being acquainted with the credibility of witnesses and the
solvency of proposed sureties, as well as various other matters of legal
importance. Upon the technicality of legal procedure, I seldom consulted them.
Once in a while they would overreach themselves by yielding to a very effective
and plausible moral appeal and sometimes announced rulings formed from imperfect
data. But they were most generally in the right and their motives uniformly pure."

   General R. H. Milroy, the third judge of Howard county, was a very brave man
and a high-toned gentleman, incapable of a wrong or mean act. He often did
things that he afterwards regretted, was a very impulsive man and was not a
thoroughly trained lawyer. A military man, pure and simple, his whole manner was
military and his pride ran in that direction. At the bar he had had but an
imperfect experience. While upon the bench he was upon a severe strain and made
many mistakes. He was glad to get rid of his office because he felt that the law
was not his forte. No one ever learned better than he from painful experience
that law as a science and a system must be understood as a whole and that patch
work is not sufficient. Very modest, he distrusted his own knowledge, and did
not feel himself equal to his position. His administration did not give
satisfaction. Love, respect and admiration were due him, but his chief trait was
military and his courage extended even to rashness. He was one of the very
strictest of disciplinarians. His men loved and feared him and would follow him
anywhere. A glance at his portrait, with its stern, piercing eyes and firm-set
lips, revealed his determination and inexorable will.

JUDGE MILROY'S ONLY TERM.

   The November term of 1852 was the first, last, and only term of court held by
Judge Milroy in Howard county.

   At this period the circuit court acquired a migratory character. The May
term, 1854, was held in the Methodist church, a frame structure which stood upon
West Mulberry street.

   At this term, Samuel Wilson, a notable character of Kokomo, was tried for
assault with intent to kill and acquitted. While intoxicated, and being a
Kentuckian, he had chased a negro through a cornfield with a shotgun.

   At this date the old log courthouse was no more. It was inadequate and had
been torn down. It was ordered, on the 2d day of June, 1852, by the county
commissioners, that Corydon Richmond, Austin C. Sheets and Charles D. Murray be
appointed to prepare specifications for the erection and furnishing of offices
for the clerk, auditor, recorder and treasurer. Two buildings were to be
erected, each to be constructed of brick and to be eighteen feet by thirty-six
feet in dimension. Their aggregate cost was to be not more than one thousand
dollars, and were to be so located as to leave space between them for a
courthouse, the present one. One of the buildings was erected near the northeast
corner of the courthouse yard and occupied by the auditor and treasurer; the
other was located on the opposite corner west and was used by the recorder and
clerk.

   For a season court was held in one of these buildings, but the quarters were
too small, and the James & Armstrong, and later the Wildman halls were utilized
for judicial hearings.

   March, 1853, the materials of the log courthouse were ordered sold, but
instead they were used for a walk in the courthouse yard.

   The fourth judge of Howard county was John U. Pettit, of Wabash. He was a man
of striking personal characteristics and eccentricities. He was a graduate of
Columbia College and a classmate of Robert Toombs, of Georgia, "the great
Southern fire-eater and slavery advocate." He was a small, spare man, of about
the average height, active and graceful in movement, fluent in speech,
exceedingly polite, firm and determined, a good wit, a thorough scholar and a
highly polished gentleman.

   The fifth judge of Howard county was John M. Wallace, of Marion. This jurist
was popularly spoken of as the "ready" judge. He transacted while upon the bench
a large amount of business, with the utmost ease and rapidity. He was not noted
for his profound thought, or research, but was a very ready speaker. In personal
appearance Judge Wallace was a handsome man, with coal-black hair and eyes,
unusually large chest and head. His dress was very tasty for the time in which
he lived. He was born in Franklin county, this state, and was a brother of
Governor Wallace and an uncle of General Lew Wallace. His father was a tavern
keeper in eastern Indiana. Judge Wallace died a poor man.

   Judge Brouse and Wallace were intimate friends. Wallace, after deciding a
case against Brouse, laughingly remarked to him, "Well, Brouse, I don't suppose
you feel quite as good as you did before I made that decision."

   "You know well enough that you made an old ass of yourself, Judge Wallace,"
retorted Brouse with affected anger.

   This touched Wallace deeply, who, supposing that he had really given offense,
said sympathetically, "Come now, Brouse; you are not going to strike down an old
friend, are you?"

   "Well, I guess not by any means," responded Brouse with a smile.

   This assurance relieved Wallace from a dread apprehension. He would not
intentionally give offense, or wound another's feelings for any consideration.
Yet under no circumstances would he permit motives of friendship to dictate his
judgment. He was conscientious and honest to the extreme.

A DR. JEKYL AND MR. HYDE.

   Wallace, the judge, and Wallace, the citizen, were .two different characters.
The one character was stern, harshly indifferent, rigid in severity and of
unbending dignity. When trying a case his features were seemingly as inflexible
as those of a Roman senator. The procedure of his court was conducted with the
strictest discipline. Order and monotonous regularity prevailed. No slave-master
ever exerted a firmer control over his bondsmen than did Judge Wallace over his
associates in the administration of justice. When Wallace thought an attorney
had said enough to enable him to understand a subject he instantly told that
attorney so, and shut off his speech. Wallace always ran court to suit himself.

  Anybody could laugh and joke with him in private social intercourse. Then he
was good-natured, jolly and sympathetic, and ready for any kind of innocent fun
that came along. Of nights it was his favorite amusement to play his violin to
the loungers at the hotel and he would nearly shake himself to pieces with
laughter as he saw some "greeny" trying to execute a clever imitation of any
kind of dancing. Nothing seemed to gratify him more than to see some nimble
fellow beat the floor into splinters with his feet, or hear some extra good joke.

   Henry A. B rouse, whose name, before his death, headed the list of Howard
county practitioners as being the oldest of the number at the bar, came to
Howard county from Wayne county when the town of Kokomo did not contain more
than fifty log cabins. He settled upon a farm south of the city. There were in
the town three resident lawyers and three stores of general merchandise; those
of T. J. Faulkner, John Bohan and C. J. Allison, the latter a "wetback" grocery.
Wearing high-top boots Brouse trudged to town three times a day. His office
furniture consisted of a few rickety chairs, a dilapidated table, and a library
worth less than three hundred dollars. In writing he made use of quill pens.

   Along in the fifties his practice was large and he had about all the legal
business to which he could well attend. When court was in session, in order to
get his cases at issue he would have his clients sleep at his office and would
work all night getting the pleadings in shape, awakening his clients one by one
for information as he finished one paper and went on to the next. Brouse tried
his first case in the county before Judge Biddle. Brouse was one of the prime
movers in the organization of the Republican party here, and mainly instrumental
in securing the election of Nelson Purdum as the first mayor of the city, and
subscribed largely for the construction of the normal school building.

A COURTEOUS JUDGE.

   During the morning hours, or those of early afternoon, Judge Pettit greeted
an acquaintance in a most complaisant voice and pleasing and courteous manner in
substantially this language: "Oh, John," or James, as the case might be, "now I
am real glad to see you. How are you? I was just thinking about you a moment
since. How is your family now, anyway?" But after four o'clock in the afternoon
his form of salutation, expressed with a deferential bow, but with a slight and
graceful wave of the right hand, was almost invariably: "Good evening! Good
evening!" When at his meals he would eat a while, stop and converse with whoever
chanced to be present in the room and then fall to again. Purchasing a fine pair
of trousers, Pettit has been known to offset these with a cheap, shoddy hat,
without any band, and he would encase the neat and dainty foot of which he was
possessed in a stoga, heavy-sewed shoe. But T. C. Philips, one of his great
admirers, once declared that Judge Pettit, as congressman, "was not the same
Pettit that he was in mingling with his constituents." "Why," said Philips,
"when I saw him at the National capital he was as tastefully dressed as Charles
Sumner, which is saying a good deal. When I saw him after the National
legislature had adjourned he looked as seedy as a man without a dollar."

   Pettit hated with his whole soul and his enmity was bitter, intense, and
uncompromising. He seemingly, when aroused, feared no man and would, if he lost
his control, jump upon a man twice his size. One of the judicial campaigns in
which he was successful was extremely personal and malignant. As he was riding
along, one day after the election was over, in his buggy, he saw coming down the
street his defeated opponent. Perceiving a good opportunity to tell him in
direct language what he thought of his manner of campaigning, Pettit squared his
vehicle around so that his-former rival could not pass and then proceeded to
say, to the object of his contempt: "I am that dirty, lousy, and unscrupulous
John U. Pettit that you told the people so much about lately! Good day, sir!"

   A witness for whom Pettit had the most profound contempt testified against
his client in a suit in which he was engaged as an attorney. Later on in the
progress of the trial it became necessary to recall this witness to testify to
additional matter. Pettit arose, made a sligh bow, and in those cutting and
sarcastic tones which be could use with such scathing effect, remarked: "The
honest and virtuous gentleman may again take the witness stand and proceed to
perjure himself a little more." Pettit's repartee was like a dagger thrust.

   A witness that Pettit believed had lied in his evidence once pressed the
judge to drink with him. "If for no other reason," said Pettit, "I'll not drink
with you, because you are an infamous liar. And I'll thank you, sir, I don't
wish to drink with a liar." He was not afraid to say to a man's face what he
thought of him.

   He instantly adjourned court once because the spectators rushed to the
windows to see a passing circus procession.

A FINISHED ORATOR.

   The oratorical powers of Pettit were of a high standard. In delivery he was
rather deliberate. Many of his finest addresses were purely extemporaneous. The
language of which he made use in the exposition and elaboration of a subject was
the best that could be chosen. His words, selected with faultless judgment,
carried home the idea to the mind of his auditor with a force that made a deep
impression.

   C. C. Shirley, who once heard Judge. Pettit speak at a congressional
convention, describes his manner of delivery as "very precise, smooth and oily,
and apparently of studied suavity; exhibiting the fact that he had a rare
command of the best and choicest English."

   Pettit stood high in his profession and in the trial of his cases he
demonstrated his thoroughness, masterly skill, chained logic, keen analysis,
correct judgment, shrewdness, and ability to fetter an opponent. He was
naturally a diplomat.

   An appeal case in which the plaintiff sought the recovery of damages for some
sheep killed by several dogs was tried before him in the old Methodist Episcopal
church.

   The plaintiff was represented in court by N. R. Linsday [sic] and C. D.
Murray, who did the bulk of the earliest legal practice in the county, and
practically had a cinch on the practice. One of the principal attorneys of a
somewhat later day, Henry A. Brouse, represented the defendant. Case called for
trial. Judge Pettit ready to hear the evidence. The testimony of the plaintiff
is soon produced and he rests. Inquiry by the court of Brouse whether he has any
evidence. "None," replies that lawyer. "What?" gasps Brouse's client, "hain't
you goin' to put in any evidence? That's what I hired you for." Observation by
the court. "Mr. Brouse, can't you manage to keep that boisterous client of yours
still?" Mr. Brouse looked daggers at his client, who blurted out: "That's all
right, Mr. Brouse, you needn't look cross-eyed at me. If you hain't a-goin' to
tell this here court some evidence on my side of this here case, I quit right
away. There's more'n one lawyer in this town besides you." This remark finished,
the court observes: "It is with pain that I again call attention to this matter.
I repeat, will you, Mr. Brouse, oblige the court by keeping that boisterous
client of yours still? If not, I shall fine you both." "I'll try, sir," answered
Brouse, who knew Pettit's nature too well to risk any display of defiance. "I'll
try, sir." Brouse then hastily whispered to his client in husky tones to keep
still, for heaven's sake; that no evidence was needed, and that he could beat
the plaintiff without any. "The court finds," said Pettit, as he picked up his
pen and began writing, "for the plaintiff and-------"

   "One moment, your Honor," said Brouse, as he arose to address the court. "I
have a few points to-------"

   "Sit down, Mr. Brouse," said the court, sternly. Brouse obeyed, as he knew it
was not good policy to do otherwise.

   "I have, your Honor, some-------" said Brouse, as he arose again.

   "Sit down," said Pettit. Brouse sat down.

   Wiping the perspiration from his brow he at once arose. "Sit down," said
Pettit. Brouse sat down.

   After he had written a few lines Pettit asked of Brouse, "Have you any
authorities to present?"

   "Yes, sir," replied the latter, choking with eagerness. "I disclosed on
cross-examination that the dogs belonged-------"

   "That will do. Sit down, Mr. Brouse," said Pettit. Brouse sat down. "You
refer to that elementary principle of law that a man is to be held responsible
only for the damage done by his own property. The proof in this case does not
disclose the amount of damage done by each dog. The court finds for the
defendant and-------"

   "Your Honor——" said Linsday, arising.

  "Sit down, Mr. Linsday," said Pettit. Linsday sat down and, arising again, said:

   "But-------"

   "Enough," said Pettit. "The finding is for the defendant. Sit down." Mr.
Lindsay sat down.

   The mind of Pettit was keen and incisive, as subtle as that of a sophist,
enabling him to draw fine-spun distinctions. From the slightest hint he grasped
a point in its remotest connections. The movements of his mind were swift, as
straight to the mark as an arrow.

WHEN SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.

   When speaker of the house of state representatives during the war period he
displayed great nerve and incorruptible patriotism. Among the offices held by
him were consul to Brazil, judge of the eighth and twenty-seventh judicial
districts and congressman for three terms.

   James W. Robinson was a singular character. He read much, but studied little.
But he had a smattering of a large number of subjects. Incessantly he bluffed
and blustered. With witnesses, the attorneys, and the court he would wrangle by
the hour. Sarcasms, rebuffs, or reprimands did not abash him in the least, and
he persisted in continuing in the same course of conduct confident, to all
appearances, in the correctness of his position. Speaking for a defendant
accused of larceny he exclaimed: "I tell you, gentlemen, these are the same,
identical verbatim boots that my client bought in Cambridge City." In a case
wherein he urged an alibi as a defense he said: "Gentlemen, how can you, in the
light of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, convict my client here? It
would be preposterous to convict him when he has already proven an albino." Once
again: "Gentlemen of the jury, I want to tell you that Nat Linsday and Hen
Brouse, who appear against me, are two of the biggest wind-bags in the United
States. They don't know any law. Neither does the judge in this case. But I know
the law perfectly well and just as it is. Listen, I will give you the law. It is
this. Now don't pay any attention to what Linsday or the judge says, but follow
the law as I have given it and you are on the right side. There can be no doubt,
gentlemen, but what you will give my client a verdict." Going into the auditors
office one day, Robinson said: "You have got me taxed up here with some land
that I never owned."

   "I hope not, Mr. Robinson," was the reply.

   "But I know you have. I never owned an acre and fifty-hundredths in my life."

GOOD AT REPARTEE.

   After searching the records carefully the auditor said: "I find these against
you, Mr. Robinson. They show you to be the owner of an acre and a half of land."

   "An acre and a half! Well, that will do. But I repeat, I never owned an acre
and fifty-hundredths in all my life."

   "You may state your name to the jury," said Robinson to the only witness by
whom he hoped to prove a case of slander.

   "John Joybreaker."

   "Are you acquainted with the parties in this suit?"

   "I don't remember."

   "Don't you know the plaintiff in this action?"

   "I don't remember."

   "Do you know the defendant?"

   "I don't remember."

   "Don't you know that he called the defendant a-------and slandered him in
this manner, by saying the following language?"

   "I don't remember."

   "Did you eat your dinner?"

   "I don't remember."

   "Didn't you run off as soon as you were subpoenaed in this case?"

   "I don't remember."

   "Weren't you put in jail?"

   "I don't remember."

   Parsons on Contracts has, for years, been a standard authority in this
country. But Robinson, on one occasion, didn't think so. Joe D. Johnson vs.
James W. Robinson. Case in bailment. Trial upon an agreed state of facts.
Johnson reads to the court from Parsons on Contracts.

   "What are you reading from?" inquired Robinson.

   "I am reading from Parsons on Contracts."

   "Great God!" exclaimed Robinson, throwing up both hands in horror. "Have you
come out here to pull the wool over the eyes of the court, by reading Parsons on
Contracts? Parsons is English law. It was written in England over five hundred
years ago! It is British law!"

   "On the contrary," said Johnson, "I know better. Parsons is the very best
authority upon this subject that we are discussing. It is as much American law
as the statutes of this state. To say that Parsons is not American law is to
talk utter nonsense. The passages which I have read are directly in point."
Johnson continued his reading after the delivery of his remarks, but was again
interrupted by Robinson, who inquired of the court:

   "And will you, sir, allow the gentleman to persist in reading British law?"

   The justice answered: "You may stop reading, Mr. Johnson. I do not believe
that your authority has any reference to this case." So Johnson stopped.

CAN'T PREDICATE WHAT A JURY WILL DO.

   But very few lawyers, however, have gainsaid the truth of what Robinson once
said: "Nobody but God Almighty knows what a jury will do." A colored man was
once defended by Robinson before John W. Cooper, then mayor of the city.
Judicially speaking, Robinson's client, when sentence was rendered, received a
"black eye" from the court. "By-------" said the prisoner, as he was being
conducted to jail, "if Robinson  would have talked much more, I would have been
sent to the penitentiary."

   J. D. Johnson was a young man of considerable brilliancy and had more than
ordinary talent. Had he lived he would have "made his mark." He was a good
talker, had a good voice, used good language, and presented ably his thought. He
did not live long enough to fully mature and develop his powers, but
demonstrated to a certainty the fact that he possessed the requisite
qualifications to have made a most effective practitioner. Untimely death,
however, cut off his hopes in the flower of his youth. His nature was ardent,
ambitious, and aspiring.

   Nelson Purdum, an early attorney at the bar and first mayor of the city, was
a practical lawyer. He detested buncombe, rant and bombast. Hating
superficiality he was never guilty of soaring above the heads of a jury. In
civil law he was most proficient and it was there that he was in his element. He
was a man of good, hard sense, strong in conviction, clever-hearted, industrious
and successful in practice. Being clear, simple and comprehensive in statement
he generally had little difficulty in persuading the twelve judges of fact to
adopt his view of the case.

A GOOD COLLECTION LAWYER.

   Joe Lewis had the reputation of being one of the best collection lawyers in
northern Indiana. If anybody could extract blood from a stone or turnip he was
the man. When enforcing the payments of collections he never desisted from
tormenting debtors and stretching them upon the rack until his demands were
fully satisfied. It would have been him exactly to order out an execution at
midnight and to compel the sheriff to levy upon all property instantly. He was
nervous in writing, in speech, in everything. He would study night and day.
Often in his cogitations, when a young man, he would abstract the contents of a
book which he held in his hand, while he leisurely walked back and forth. He was
bitter in his dislikes and scrupulously tasty in his dress.

   Rawson Vaile, more than any other member of the bar, would explore and dive
into the depths of old records, minutely and critically examining every mouldy
paper buried beneath the dust of the years. It used to be the common remarks of
attorneys when they would see him in the county offices: "Well, there is Brother
Vaile, again, going into antiquity to see what he can discover." Fiery energy
was one of his characteristics. He always walked as if he was in a desperate
hurry, and had only a second of time in which to accomplish a certain act. He
moved forward with an impetuosity that threatened his dismemberment. He was of
unquestioned rectitude and probity. About the truth he was extremely scrupulous.
He would never mislead a client, but would tell him the law as he thought it to
be, whether for or against his client's interest. Vaile was tenacious in the
advocacy of a proposition. There was no foolishness about him, and he was little
inclined to a joke. His strongest tastes were not for the law. At one time in
life he was actively engaged in the duties of journalism. He published the Free
Territory Sentinel and was one of the editors of the Indianapolis Journal.

WHEN MILTON GARRIGUS CAME.

   In February, 1847, Milton Garrigus came to Howard county, being a native of
Wayne county, Indiana. Many of the relics of the Indians were still strewn over
the grounds, situated in the vicinity of Greentown, upon which Garrigus passed
his first night, in company with his father and brother under a rude covering of
logs hastily thrown together and wanned by a blazing fire burning immediately in
front. Pheasant was the sole dish upon which he made his first meal in this, the
Miami reserve. Garrigus farmed the land spoken of for some time, roughing it in
true pioneer style, and doing his own cooking. Wild turkey ranged not far from
his door. Squirrels by the legion scampered up and down the trees of the
adjacent forest, which stretched away for miles unbroken, and was inhabited by
wildcats, polecats, mink and muskrats.

   While postmaster at Greentown Captain Garrigus studied law. Trials were held
in the postoffice. The Captain borrowed his books of Lindsay & Murray.

CARRIE NATION'S HUSBAND.

   David Nation, famous as the divorced husband of Carrie Nation, the Kansas
temperance cyclone, was once a lawyer in Howard county, and prosecuted a case in
the old Methodist church in the fifties. A gunsmith of Jerome was accused of
setting fire to the barn of Harvey Brown, of that place. Wood had been piled
against one side of the structure and the flames started. Nation was a very
vigorous and capable prosecuting attorney. He was opposed by Captain Garrigus
and Joshua Mellett, a noted cross-examiner, who represented the defendant. It
was during the trial that William Branhouse realized the full power of Mellett's
ability and as he underwent the ordeal the perspiration rolled down his face in
streams. The defendant was acquitted because he deserved to be under the
evidence, but under Nation's prosecution he had the call of his life. Judge
Buckles, of Muncie, was on the bench and Nation then lived in the same city.
Kokomo and Muncie belonged to the same judicial circuit. It was the custom for
the judge and the prosecutor to travel the circuit together, and that is how
Nation came to appear in the trial in Kokomo that year.

   During his career at the bar Captain Garrigus had been identified with many
trials of public moment.

   The sixth judge of Howard county hailed from Muncie. Joseph S. Buckles lived
near that city upon a stock farm of six hundred and fifty acres. He was what
might be called a farmer judge. Judge Buckles was a fair judge, a man of good
natural sense and disposed to be impartial. He was heavy set and imposing in
personal appearance, lending dignity to the bench. His disposition was jovial
and he loved company. Had he devoted himself exclusively to the law he would
have been a lawyer of exceptional capability. But he was largely interested in
farming, and this interest induced him to neglect the close pursuit of the law,
for which he was so well qualified by nature. The lawyers whispered that he
eminently preferred to remain at home and look after his hogs and sheep than
hold court. There were eight counties in his judicial circuit, comprising
Delaware, Hancock, Hamilton, Tipton, Howard, Grant, Blackford and Madison. Judge
Buckles was elected to the bench as a Democrat before the Civil war, but at and
after the war he was a Republican. While on the bench the legislature decided
that his circuit was too large and cut it down one-half, making a circuit of
Madison, Hamilton, Tipton and Howard counties.

A CHANGE IN THE CIRCUIT.

   This change in the circuit removed Judge Buckles from the Howard county
bench, the new circuit of which it was a part being presided over by Judge Henry
A. Brouse, appointed to fill the vacancy in the bench until the election.

   Judge Brouse never admired technicality enough to be skillful in the use and
construction of it. As a lawyer he employed it from necessity. He had a natural
antipathy and aversion to it. In taking advantage of technicality he was much
more skillful than in the formulation of it. Technicality he regarded as a means
to an end— a mode of progress. He believed that courts were established to
administer justice and that when technicality conspired to this end it ought
scrupulously to be observed. That such was the purpose of its existence, and
that when it operated to defeat justice or delay right, then it ought to be
lightly regarded and overlooked, observed only sufficiently to avoid reversal in
the supreme court.

   A great lover of what is often spoken of as natural equity, Judge Brouse ever
sought to abstract from the mass of confused and conflicting evidence in a case
the real and substantial points upon which a trial hinged, and decided for the
party with whom he conceived justice to be on the face of the issues. The honors
of his position he bore with becoming modesty and impressed the bar with his
evident desire to make a good judicial officer, fair and impartial. He was
exceedingly liberal in the admission of evidence. Every syllable of evidence
that could throw additional light upon the subject under consideration by the
jury was placed before them for their reflection and deliberation. No jury, if
he could possibly avoid it, retired to return a verdict with an incomplete,
defective and unsatisfactory understanding of the material points in
controversy. He never suffered the jury to remain in the dark about a matter.

   It was Brouse's idea that the court and bar were examples to the community.
For this reason he insisted upon the strictest observance of the rules by which
he governed his court room. He tolerated no offensive personality, no
bulldozing, no improper conduct of any kind, and repelled rather than invited
the familiarity of attorneys and others, whom he kept at a respectful distance
while court was in session. Civility, respect and courtesy were conditions
precedent to the transaction of business in his court. Brouse repressed every
manifestation of interest for either side by the spectators with an iron hand.

   The Anderson bar had the reputation of employing dilatory tactics in their
practice. Hearing of this, Brouse, who went there to hold court, was not all
pleased. He resolved to inaugurate a new order of things. Court called Case No.
10185. A demurrer is filed to the complaint. The swiftness with which it was
overruled made the attorney's head swim. Under penalty of the dismissal of the
case the lawyer hustled around and files a motion to make the complaint more
specific, but Brouse is of the opinion that its allegations are in no wise too
general. A motion to file a bill of particulars is presented and overruled, and
so on, case after case. Brouse disposed of legal matters in this summary manner
and made up issues with frightful celerity until he accomplished his object.

JUDGE BROUSE'S SUCCESSOR.

   When the time came to select a successor to Judge Brouse a convention was
held in this city. The names of the ambitious presented for its consideration
were: Henry A. Brouse, of Howard county: John Davis, of Madison county, and
William Garver, of Hamilton county. The convention adopted the two-thirds rule.
The respective counties from which the aspirants hailed stood by their men.
Tipton divided her strength. The convention, unable to agree, adjourned to
reassemble at Noblesville.

   Some weeks later, at that place, the contest was renewed with the same
result. On one ballot Brouse came within six votes of being successful. But it
soon became evident to the delegates that no one of the men being voted upon
could be selected unless some sort of a compromise was effected between the
candidates. The delegates, exasperated at the turn affairs had taken, put.on
their war paint and declared that something must be done, and that quickly, too.
The candidates retired to canvass the situation. Brouse and Garver agreed to
throw their influence to Davis, and in accordance with this compact John Davis
was declared the nominee and was elected at the polls.

   Judge John Davis, of Anderson, was elected. He was a man of good intellect
and scholarly attainments. For a time he was in the employment of a railroad
company, and was in corporation law a power, having a wide understanding of
technicality in its manifold application. He was especially apt in perceiving
the finer shades of distinction between elementary principles of law in respect
to their relation to facts. The arts of his profession he exercised more as a
scholar than a matter of fact practitioner. He was widely read in history,
poetry and literature in general, and was something of a linguist. To become a
great chancery lawyer was the acme of his ambition, and this desire occupied his
thought by day and dreams by night, .and was his most pleasurable topic of
conversation. The discussion of but one other theme delighted him as much, that
of analyzing the subjects of equity, the origin of that grand science, to ponder
over the jurisdiction of its courts, and reflect upon its remedies and its
procedure.    He had little love for criminal law.

   Shortly after taking the bench his body became enfeebled by disease and his
intellect clouded. Receiving a stroke of paralysis, he was rendered unable to
perform the duties of his office. He refused, nevertheless, to resign. His
office being a constitutional one he could not be removed. The legislature of
1871 passed an act to meet the emergency, providing for the choice of a judge
pro tern. Governor Baker appointed Judge James O'Brien to this elevation.

A JUDGE OF POWER.

   O'Brien was a judge of strength, force and power and satisfactory to the
majority of the people in every respect. His understanding of the law was broad
and matured by research. His decisive mind, active memory of leading cases, high
moral standard, steadfastness, unwavering firmness and familiarity with the
details of practice enlisted public confidence and approbation.

   Generally cool and collected, when aroused and under the influence of a
heated temper, he became a person most impulsive and interrogated a witness
savagely. So thorough and deep-rooted was his contempt that when -he thought he
was being imposed upon his anger arose to a sublime height. The experience
gained by a service of four years as county clerk of Hamilton county made him a
proficient issue lawyer, and his love of investigation made him study his cases
thoroughly. He was not, however, an advocate. His knowledge of men surpassed
even his knowledge of books. The cross-examination of witnesses with him was a
strong point. Positive in his likes and dislikes, he was a man of strong
opinions, friendships and enmities. His appetite for a joke was good and
frequently indulged.

JOHN W. KERN AND J. FRED VAILE.

   Two members of the Howard county bar have attained to national fame, J. Fred
Vaile, now of Denver, Colorado, and a leading lawyer of the United States, and
Hon. John W. Kern, Democratic nomineee for the office of Vice-President of the
United States in 1908.

   Signal industry characterized the work of Mr. Vaile. Everything with which he
had to do was done as thoroughly and as promptly as could be expected or as was
possible. Offenders, while he was prosecutor, were pursued with relentless
persistence. They were not permitted to crawl through any loopholes. He had not
the slightest sympathy with crime. Acting as state's attorney in a murder trial
at Tipton, Vaile learned that a person living at a distance and in a locality
not reached by railroad was in the possession of information, the nature of
which was so weighty as to make him an indispensable witness for the
prosecution. Many attorneys, notwithstanding the importance of the situation,
would have consulted personal ease and comfort and let the matter go by the
board. But Vaile was a hustler and had his heart set upon winning a verdict, and
was willing to go wherever duty demanded. During the night he drove in a vehicle
several miles and had the witness in court upon its opening the next morning.
Turning a deaf ear to his father's remonstrances, Vaile, when a youth, ran away
to college, entering Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio. The expenses of his first
year's schooling he paid by choring and cutting wood. He graduated with honor
and then taught school in Kentucky. Enthusiastically he sought after everything
which promised mental culture and advancement.

   Vaile's faculty of observation was acute, critical and broad in its grasp of
detail. His power of description was exceptional. Upon every subject he brought
to bear his scholarly attainments. In argument to court or jury he was strictly
methodical and strictly logical, and in effect the manner in which he let drive
a disastrous array of facts at the opposite party's side of the case resembled
the steady and continuous beating of a sledge hammer, increasing in force at
each successive blow. With his mode of interrogation he elicited testimony in a
clean, clear-cut and exhaustive manner. When Vaile concluded a severe
cross-examination the whole of a witness' knowledge was laid bare for the jury's
consideration, and all his weaknesses exposed. He secured the only death penalty
ever obtained from a Howard county jury. In a case involving technical chemical
knowledge his argument reflected the learning of a college professor.

NO PREVIOUS PREPARATION NECESSARY.

   John W. Kern, without any previous preparation, can come into court, read
over the pleadings and become so familiar with it that to all appearances lie
can try the merits of a cause as successfully as if he had studied them for
weeks. His fertility of expedient is brought to light at almost every turn of
the case. A weak place in an opponent's case he detects in a flash. A legal
controversy would have to be dryer than the sands of the Sahara if he did not
get some kind of fun out of it. When Kern began his career as a lawyer he was
not exceedingly well versed in the practice. One of his first cases was a suit
upon a promissory note. The case was to be tried at Tipton and thither Kern went
to look after the interests of his clients. He was not expecting the defendant
to make an appearance, but contrary to Kern's expectations that personage was
represented in court by Judge Green.

   There is an expression among the attorneys and peculiarly in the courts like
this: "Let a rule go against the defendant, or plaintiff, as the case may be."
To "take a rule" is to obtain an order of court that the defendant answer the
plaintiff's complaint, or that the plaintiff reply to the defendant's answer. Of
these things Kern was ignorant and when he learned that he must contend against
Judge Green he became confused and greatly embarrassed. He was at his wits' end
and floored. Judge Garver was on the bench and after waiting some time, said:
"Well, what are you going to do, Mr. Kern? Will you take a rule?" Kern now saw a
way out of his difficulty. He knew that the sympathetic judge would not mislead
him. So with his eyes flashing triumph and with an air of crushing learnedness,
Kern remarked: "Yes, your Honor, yes, I believe I will take a rule."

   Kern is ingenious and knows where to strike and when to let a witness
severely alone. He never allows an opportunity to raise a laugh slip by. He
has—call it what you will—an innate genius, an inherent power or peculiar talent
for the defense of those charged with crime.

KERN BEGINS PRACTICE.

   After three years in the University of Michigan, at Ann Arbor, a tall,
slender youth returned to Kokomo one day in 1869 and hung out his shingle. It
read: "John W. Kern, Attorney at Law."

   Because of his ability as a fluent and forceful speaker and his recognized
shrewdness in dealing with the human personality, he at once had a thriving
practice. Of course, most of it was in the justice of the peace courts of Howard
county, but the experience he gained there was invaluable. Of Kern as a lawyer
at this time C. C. Shirley, formerly a Kokomo attorney, but now of Indianapolis,
recently gave this picture:

   "I first knew of him in the justice of the peace courts of Honey Creek
township. As often as he was an attorney in a case I was present at the trial. I
was charmed with his eloquence and drew my early inspirations from him at the
bar. There are no courts which represent the human passions, humor and pathos
more potently and effectually than the justice of peace courts. In them John W.
Kern was perfectly at home. He ran the gamut of human emotions and sympathies.
He had a big heart himself and understood human nature perfectly, and
consequently was a perfect master of the human heart and played upon the heart
strings at will."

   Kern's success in the criminal practice lay not alone in his natural
eloquence. He was shrewd in legal expedient. In one trial, where his client was
accused of stealing a pocketbook, he procured a money wallet as near like the
one taken as possible. He pressed the prosecuting witness to a positive
identification of the missing pocket-book, using, of course, the substituted
article, with the result that the prosecution was put to rout and humiliation.

KERN'S TACTICS.

   In another trial he all but ruined a witness. Without a scrap of evidence
upon which to rely he suddenly yanked open a drawer of a desk of a table with
which the circuit court room of Kokomo was provided. Looking the witness upon
the stand full in the eye, he queried in fierce tones, as he produced a blank
sheet of paper: "Did you not upon a certain occasion testify so and so in this
matter?" The witness wilted and admitted that his evidence had been different
upon a previous occasion.

   One of the early trials participated in by Mr. Kern was a litigation over a
red shawl—a suit in replevin—which originated in a justice of the peace court at
Russiaville, but which controversy, before it was concluded, cost the defeated
party several hundred dollars.

   Judge L. J. Kirkpatrick relates an amusing account of how Mr. Kern initiated
him into the practice. A young, struggling and ambitious attorney, he thought
well of Mr. Kern's proffer that he act in his stead in a case which Mr. Kern had
for trial at Miami. The judge went to the scene of the trial and found that Mr.
Kern's client was stark mad, a fact he learned afterward that Mr. Kern knew. The
crazy client had terrorized the town, but Judge Kirkpatrick was tactful enough
to get the man to understand that he was his friend and looking to his
interests, and kept the man quiet reasonably well, but made his escape from the
town as soon as possible to take Kern to task, who laughed with the young-lawyer
over his exciting experience.

KERN AND RAWSON VAILE.

   Early in his legal experience Mr. Kern encountered, at the Howard county bar,
Rawson Vaile, an editor of the Indianapolis Journal before the Civil war and
father of J. Fred Vaile, of Denver, Colorado, a schoolmate of Mr. Kern, and now
one of the best-known lawyers of the West. The elder Mr. Vaile wore a silk tile.
Kern was making an argument to the court, but his keenness for a joke get the
better of him for a moment. He brought his law books down on Mr. Vaile's plug
hat with a crash, mashing it completely. Attorney Vaile was livid with rage and
the court threatened Mr. Kern with a fine for contempt. With all the wit of
which he is the possessor, he begged the pardon of the injured lawyer and
implored the mercy of the court, pleading inadvertence during the heat of an
argument.

IS CHICKEN-HEARTED.

   It is said of Mr. Kern here that he was always "chicken-hearted" in the
matter of collecting fees. He was for several years a law partner of Judge B. F.
Harness. They tried a case in which they saved for a woman who was unable to
talk, for the lack of a palate, forty acres of land. When the case ended the
client, with her little boy, who did the talking for her, entered the office and
asked to know the fee expected. The lawyers talked the matter over and Kern
suggested $75. When the sum demanded had been made known to the woman she
proceeded to extract several greenbacks from her stocking, counting out $75 from
a roll afterward ascertained to contain $635. She remarked that she had brought
this sum along to pay over as a partial payment, expecting to pay the rest in
the fall when she sold her corn.

COOPER AND ROBINSON.

   Upon coming to Kokomo to engage in the practice of the law John W. Cooper
formed a partnership with James W. Robinson. Robinson was to receive
three-fourths of the fees and Cooper one-fourth. Fees ranged from two to ten
dollars in each case. Twenty-five dollars was considered a corpulant
compensation. Their first case netted them five dollars, of which amount Mr.
Cooper received one dollar and twenty-five cents. Finally Cooper started a law
office of his own. He soon did a good collection business. Collections were not
then sent to banks as now, but went to swell the volume of an attorney's
business. At this time—about 1861—available case precedents were few. Indiana
reports were not numerous.

   The business of lawyers mostly concerned probate and collection matters.
Rules of practice were not well defined. Injunction suits were rare and
considered as wonderful. One of his first cases was John Langley vs. the Chicago
and Great Eastern railroad for the killing of a colt. Cooper was greatly at a
loss whether or not to allege in his complaint that the cars were run purposely,
maliciously and willfully over, upon, and against the colt, whereby and
where-from it, the said colt, died from the said injuries then and there
inflicted in the manner aforesaid. Although he proved that there was no fence
where the colt was killed, instead of where it entered upon the track, he
received judgment for more than his client had paid for the animal.

   Mr. Cooper is slow in speech, deliberate in act, careful and sound in
thought, generally correct in his estimate of character, judicious in statement,
conversant with law, and thoroughly posted on the clerical branch of the practice.

COULDN'T OUTDO COLONEL RICHMOND.

   Colonel N. P. Richmond had talent as a lawyer far above the ordinary and when
he tried was a formidable and well-nigh invincible antagonist. He had a fine
legal judgment, but was an indifferent student. He was a man of well-balanced
powers, of good physique, popular as presiding officer of conventions, and the
possessor of a strong, clear, voice. When he was filled with zeal and exerted
his powers to the uttermost his opponents were driven to their wits' end to
outdo him, break the force of his appeals to the jury, and get the upper hand in
order to gain the ascendancy.

   Charles E. Hendry, sanguine in temperament, was easily depressed and
discouraged, and when he perceived defeat certain would abandon his case into
the hands of his associate counsel. He was a painstaking voluminous pleader and
partial to the prolix common law formulation. Facts he presented to the jury in
the best order and with comprehensive system.

   Arthur Bell died early in life. He was a lawyer who was thorough in
investigation and one that got at the kernal of the case. For the practical
things of life he entertained the highest regard and seemed to care for little
else. Considering his health, which was not vigorous, he applied himself to his
studies too closely. Criminal cases seldom engaged his attention as an attorney.
Apparently he loved best to deal with cold facts and it seemed to be his desire
to make the law apply to them as closely as paper fits to the wall.

   Jacob H. Kroh was an attorney who entered upon the trial of a cause hammer
and tonges style. He was a man of average speech, deep human sympathies and
effective, but limited in the practice of the law by a distrust of his own
powers. He had fine clerical abilities and in the later years of his life was an
unqualified success in the capacity of pension attorney.

CHARACTERISTICS OF DAN BENNETT.

   Illustrative of the characteristics of Dan H. Bennett as a lawyer at the
Howard county bar, the story told of him by John W. Kern, is apt, it being as
experience occurring during a trial before Justice Benjamin Moon, Mr. Kern being
the opposing attorney.

   "One Murphy was on trial for larceny in Moon's court. Bennett, who was then
editor of the Howard County Republican, had been subpoenaed as a witness.
Failing to respond, an attachment was issued and placed in the hands of Isaac
Dick, constable, who, after visiting Bennett, and serving the writ, brought back
a message from that gentleman to the justice, requesting him to go to h—. The
dignity of the court was all torn up, but while the trial was yet in progress,
Bennett appeared, testified, and was leaving the room, when Moon with a voice
pregnant with authority said: "Hold on, Mr. Bennett, there is an attachment here
against you for disobeying the process of this court." Bennett halted only long
enough to tell the court in language both profane and vulgar what he might do
with his attachment and again started to the door.

   "Mr. constable! Seize that man!" shouted the Justice. "Take him. Take him."
The constable taking in the mammoth proportions of the delinquent assured the
court of his inability to do so. "Then call the posse comitatus"—by the Eternal
call out the militia," yelled the now thoroughly frantic squire, but Bennett had
gone and further proceedings under the writ were never had.

   "There was a surety of peace trial by jury in Moon's court, in which Bennett
represented the defendant, a Mrs. VanHorn. In the course of his argument Bennett
abused my client, the prosecuting witness, most shamefully. The jury disagreed
and the case was set for retrial on the following day. Knowing of the strained
relations between the court and Bennett I concluded to stir up the monkeys and
have some fun.

   "So, before going into the second trial, I had a private interview with Moon
and pointed out to him the outrageous manner in which Bennett conducted himself
in the argument, assuring him that it would not be tolerated in any other court,
and succeeded in convincing him that Bennett carried on that way just to bring
his court into disrepute.

   "I got Moon thoroughly aroused and he assured me that if Bennett undertook to
repeat his abusive argument of the day before he would stop him at all hazards
and maintain the dignity of the court.

HOW THIS THING WORKED.

   "The old thing worked to a charm. In his argument Bennett fairly outdid
himself in the way of villification. I waited until he was at the very summit,
when I arose and asked the court to assert its authority and not only protect my
client from this frightful tirade, which was all outside the evidence, but at
the same time maintain a dignity which belonged to a court of justice.

   "The squire, with a great show of authority, informed Bennett that he had
tolerated that style of argument as long as he intended to and he would no
longer permit it. That if he proceeded it must be within the law and the evidence.

   "Talk about thundergusts and cyclones. I never heard of such a torrent of
abuse as Bennett let drive at the squire. 'I have a right,' said he, 'to be
heard upon behalf of my client. I speak under the authority of the constitution
and the laws of my country, and I allow no wooden-headed justice of the peace to
dictate to me what I shall say, or what I shall not say. You (turning to Moon)
undertake to dictate to me what I shall say. Don't you forget, sir, that I am
fully able to make my own argument for myself, and don't you think that I will
let a one-horse squire dictate to me. Not another word out of you, sir.'

   "These words rolled out like a tornado and were emphasized by Bennett's
violent gestures and flaring eyes. Moon was scared nearly to death and was the
picture of helplessness as the trial proceeded. Further along in his argument
Bennett said: 'Gentlemen of the jury: This sorrel-topped justice of the peace
may have the audacity to instruct you as to what the law is. If he does you will
pay no attention to what he may say. He knows no law, never did know any, and is
not presumed to know any. Why he should attempt to instruct men of intelligence,
like you, I don't know, but if he does, I repeat," it is your duty to disregard
his instructions entirely.' " The jury decided in Bennett's favor.

IN JUDGE O'BRIEN'S COURT.

   We are now in Judge O'Brien's court. The trial of a writ of habeas corpus is
in progress. For the petitioner, John W. Kern. The defendant appears by
attorney, Dan H. Bennett, who administers a severe excoriation upon Kern's
client. Taking umbrage the client loses his temper, becomes hot headed, rolls up
his sleeves, displays fine muscles, as if preparing to whip Bennett. Kern and
others grasp the aggressor and calm him down. During the exciting scene Bennett
remains calm and unmoved, continues to address the Court and takes no notice of
the occurrence. Upon being asked afterwards about the incident, Bennett said:
"Did you see that chair in front of me? Had the whelp attacked me with a single
blow, I would have brained him upon the spot."

   During Judge O'Brien's administration upon the bench a new judicial circuit
was formed comprising Howard and Tipton counties. Thomas A. Hendricks was then
governor of the state, and he appointed to the bench Clark N. Pollard, March 12,
1873. The special election to choose a successor to Judge Pollard was set for
October, the same year.

   The campaign was a hard fought one. Judge N. R. Linsday was the Republican
party nominee, while Pollard, with the consent of his party, aspired to the
position as an independent. T. C. Philips fought Pollard through the columns of
the Tribune vigorously, while Pollard was supported ably by D. H. Bennett, then
conducting the Howard County Republican. The result of the election was the
defeat of Judge Linsday. Pollard served until November, 1879.

JUDGE POLLARD'S RECORD.

   While on the bench Judge Pollard made an unusual record, that of reversing
the Indiana supreme court, interpreting the law more accurately than the state
tribunal. A man by the name of Heck, who was a subject of Queen Victoria, and a
resident of Illinois, had bought timber on the railroad line north of Kokomo. He
cut the timber into wood, under a contract with the P. C. C. & St. L Railroad
Company, which company had agreed to purchase the wood. The wood was to be
hauled and ricked along the railway line, then to be measured and paid for by
the company. The wood was cut and ricked, according to contract, but the
railroad company refused and neglected to measure and receive it, for a long
period of time. In the fall of 1871, it being an excessively dry season, the
wood caught on fire, and was destroyed. Although it was insured, and the policy
paid by the insurance company, Heck sued the railroad company, to recover the
value of the wood. Pollard held that the measure of damages was the contract
price for the wood. The supreme court of the state, reversed the case, holding
that the measure of damages was the market value of the wood at the time and
place of its delivery. After this reversal by the supreme court, Mr. Heck
dismissed his case in the Howard circuit court and brought suit in the United
States court in Chicago. He was there successful, that court holding, as had
Pollard. Upon appeal to the United States supreme court by the railroad company,
the principle of 4aw laid down by Pollard was again sustained.

JUDGE OVERMAN WAS GENEROUS.

   Pollard was succeeded by Nathaniel R. Overman, of Tipton. He was a generous
man, who worked his way up from the bottom round of the ladder, a man who stood
by a friend to the last, and who was one of the people. One of the parties to a
divorce case which he was hearing in a side room and which was thought to smack
of collusion, was afflicted with a muscular trouble which caused him to contract
his eye lids frequently. Chancing to glance at this individual, Overman thought
he was winking at him for the purpose of influencing his decision. This made
Overman "red hot". And he passionately exclaimed, "D—n you, stop that winking at
me." Overman was one of Tipton's noted and public spirited citizens, whose
career was closely identified with its best history. While on the bench he
displayed an indefatigable industry, and he had a ceaseless desire to render
justice to all clients. Although the educational facilities of his youth were of
limited enjoyment, yet the position which, at the time of his death, his native
industry and intellect had won for him in the domain of literature and science
was to be pointed to with pride. His researches and contributions to scientific
and historical literature had rendered him almost if not quite as honored as his
judicial career and were monuments to his intellectual achievements.

   Judge Overman died in office and his unexpired term was filled by Judge
O'Brien, appointed to the vacancy by the governor of the state. At the ensuing
election Dan Waugh, of Tipton, was chosen judge by the people. Overman's
successor in office was Dan Waugh, of Tipton. Following him upon the bench was
L. J. Kirkpatrick. He in turn was followed by Judge Walter Mount and he by J. F.
Elliott, the successor of whom was Lee Nash, of Tipton.



Additional Comments:
From:

HISTORY OF HOWARD COUNTY INDIANA
BY
JACKSON MORROW, B. A.
ILLUSTRATED
VOL. I
B. F. BOWEN & COMPANY
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

(circa 1909)

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/in/howard/history/1909/historyo/benchand16ms.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/infiles/

File size: 93.5 Kb