the strongest advocates before a jury that the State has ever known. His speech was without ornamentation, he possessed none of the arts of oratory, but juries had unbounded confidence in all he said. As circuit judge, he only presided in the county courts, and it must be confessed that this was not his place. During his six years of service as circuit judge, and for several years after his election to the Supreme Court, it was a difficult matter to obtain the conviction of a respondent in any trial in which he presided. He always leaned in favor of the prisoner. In State v. Fitzsimmons, the respondent was indicted for the larceny of a barrel of molasses called "sugar house syrup." The owner of the molasses testified to the larceny of a barrel of mo lasses without stating the latter part of the description. There was no question upon the evidence as to the guilt of the respondent, and when the testimony of the State closed, the respondent's counsel moved for a verdict of acquittal upon the ground that the State had not shown that the mo lasses was called "sugar-house syrup." The State's attorney asked leave to recall the witness, stating that the trial had been a hurried one, that they had waited several hours for the witness to arrive upon the train, which had been blockaded in snow, and in the hurry he had forgotten to ask the question. This the court refused and or dered a verdict of acquittal. He was noted in this respect, and con tinued so until the trial of Henry Welcome for the larceny of a horse at Montpelier in September, 1868. It was said, at the time, that although Welcome was clearly guilty, his acquittal was the result of the cautions given the jury by the presiding judge. Welcome, after his discharge, at once went to Hinesburgh and in cold blood murdered one of Judge Peck's old friends, for which he suffered the death penalty. Judge Peck was visibly affected when the circumstances of the crime were stated to him, and ever
after, while he continued upon the Bench, it was as easy to obtain the conviction of a guilty respondent as it had been previously difficult to secure one. The prosecuting attorney said to me that a short time after the Russell murder, he secured the convic tion of sixteen respondents in that number of successive trials. A nisi prius trial was not the place for Judge Peck. It was said that if there was a woman in the case, old bachelor as he was, she was sure of a verdict, and the same was often said of him in any trial when the individual stood against a corporation. His instructions to the jury were clear and full. He discussed the evidence thoroughly, but had a way of giving special prominence to what favored the side that he deemed right, and not always discerning as to where the right lay, the result of the trial was in such cases often wrong. He was of unquestioned integrity and free from all wrong in thought or deed. He was slow in coming to a conclusion, but after having formed it, was rapid in his execution. He had no favorites at the Bar, was not liked as a judge by many of the prominent leaders, but took great pains to see that a young lawyer, not versed in prac tice nor well grounded in the principles of the law, did not lose his case either through his ignorance or stupidity. The Supreme Court was his place; his opinions are clear, they go direct to the matter in controversy, and as was said by one who practiced in his court for years, "They form an unbroken chain of logic throughout." In his discussions in the Supreme Court with his brethren, he at times took the side of a case which would, as he thought, work out justice, although not in accord with precedent; and it is said by one who sat with him during his whole term that never, but upon one occasion, when he differed with his brethren, did he ever change his views as the result of a discussion, although he seldom in those
