and the covenant relied on in the action was the one of general warranty. As an illustration of his being a sound legal adviser, I recall the fact, as he told me, that he discountenanced bringing actions for slander and libel. He would not bring such a suit for a merchant unless he could prove special damages or injury, such as those which affected his financial credit. He came to the bench of the Supreme Judicial Court, April 20, 1854, by appoint ment of Governor Crosby, who recognized his eminent fitness for the position without the aid of petitions or other written recom mendations, and he served for the term of twenty-one years, consisting of three several appointments of seven years each. He re mained in active performance of his judicial duties until the close, and as long as his bodily strength permitted him to enjoy its services. It is easy to see that he brought with him to the bench the training and mental endow ments that afterwards became conspicuous in him as a judge. He was a model judge, in the ease and simplicity with which he presided on the bench. There was not in him the slightest affectation or pretension, or undue official pride. He had the patience and gravity of bearing prescribed by Bacon in his essay on judicature, with " the happy medium of promptness and deliberation." Says an eminent judge, " He seemed able to shut himself up within the walls of a cause on trial, knowing and caring for nothing outside of it." This same thought was also expressed in these words by his college tutor after he became the great advocate, and spoke them in the Massachusetts Constitu tional Convention of 1853 : " He shall know nothing about the parties; everything about the case. He shall do everything for jus tice; nothing for himself; nothing for his patron; nothing for his sovereign. ... If Athens comes there to demand that the cup of hemlock be put to the lips of the wisest of men; and he believes that he has not
corrupted the youth, nor omitted to worship the gods of the city, nor introduced new divinities of his own, he must deliver him, although the thunder light on his unterrified brow." He was so careful and painstaking in his understanding the law and facts of a case, that his rulings were seldom wrong, and he was rarely overruled. While his bearing in a trial was that commended by Bacon, I do not think the Bar ever thought his dignity approached sternness, for he did not always suppress his wit and humor. At the close of a tedious pauper case that had lasted several days, turning on the pre cise day of the birth of the pauper, and on which question a large number of witnesses had been examined, a fresh witness was called just as the hour of adjournment for the day arrived. Counsel began the exam ination with several long preliminary ques tions, and as the Judge did not desire a night session, he stopped the proceeding with the remark: "I guess we won't have this baby born until the morning," and thereupon adjourned his court. On another similar occasion counsel recalled a witness, in rebuttal as he said, and began going over the facts again, already testified to on the chief examination. The witness was slow, the supper hour was passed, and counsel urged his witness along with the remark, "Go on, sir; go on," when the Judge turn ing to the witness said: "Yes, sir; go on and go off!" In Bryant v. Glidden, a famous suit in Lincoln County, which was a flowage case under the " Mill Act," he sat in the last trial. More than one hundred witnesses were called on each side. This was in 1854, according to the report of the case in 39 Maine, page 458, before the days of the stenographer. I have seen his report of the evidence written out in full, covering over three hundred pages. It is a marvel of beauty for its legibility and neatness. Days were consumed on the question of damages to the grass and the consequent deleterious effect upon the milk and butter
