Mower County, Minnesota - Chapter 10: Bench and Bar, 1911

Chapter 10: Bench and Bar

Judicial History of Mower County - Judges Who Have Presided in the Courts of This District - Their Life, Ability and Characteristics - The Men Who Have Made Up the Bar of the County - Notable Cases That Have Been Tried Here - By Attorney Lafayette French.

Nearly forty years ago there came to this county a young lawyer, just starting his career, who at once took an active part in the stirring events which for so many years made Slower county the maelstrom of political and legal conflicts. He has continued to remain here, has filled various offices, and has always stood for clean, vigoroiis manhood in public and private life. As an attorney he is particularly gifted, having a thorough knowledge of the law, forensic abilities, acute perceptions and keen mind. Few lawyers in the state have tried as many cases before the higher courts, and none have won a higher percentage of important suits. In securing such a man to write of the Bench and Bar, the publishers of this work are especially fortunate, for aside from his other equipment, he came here only sixteen years after the arrival of the first Mower county attorney, and has since been in active practice. Therefore the following article by the Hon. Lafayette French will not only be of deepest interest at the present time, but will also be a valuable work of reference tlirougbout the coming years.

The Bench

By an act of the legislature passed ]\Iarch 1, 1858, the county of Mower was declared to be an organized county. Commissioners were appointed lo establish llie (-(tunty s(>at. and later it was made a pari ol' Hie liflh .judiciiil district, lion. N. M. Donaldson was elected the first judge of the fifth judicial district, and the first term of court held in Mower county was September, 1858. "When the fifth judicial district was organized there were but six judicial districts in this state. Judge Donaldson presided over the fifth judicial district until January 1, 1872, when his successor, the Hon. Samuel Lord, ofificiated. At the time of his retirement Judge Donaldson was a man well along in years. He possessed a good deal of dignity, candor and fairness. There was little business during his term of office to transact in this county, and the suits involved were chiefly those for money demand. He resided at Owatonna, and died a few years after he ceased to be judge. Judge Samuel Lord, who was elected as Judge Donaldson's successor, lived at Mantorville, Dodge county, Minnesota, and held but two terms of court in this county. He was a fair judge and gave general satisfaction. In the winter of 1872 a new judicial district was created composed of the counties of Houston, Fillmore, Mower, Freeborn, and at fall election the Hon. Sherman Page was elected judge of the newly created district. Judge Page held office during the term of six years. He was a man of marked ability and possessed of an analytical mind of large perception, and was quick to dispatch business, but he was too much of a partisan to be a judge. Naturally combative, quick to form conclusions, he took sides on every matter that came before him. He was a man of strong feelings, but when he did not allow his judgment to be warped by prejudice against the attorneys of parties of the cause before him he was a very able judge. In the fall of 1878 the lower house of the legislature prepared articles of impeachment and he was put upon his trial in May. 1878, before the senate sitting as a court of impeachment. The prosecution lacked the requisite number of votes to convict him and he was acquitted. The charges consisted largely of allegations of" wrongful, malicious and oppressive conduct, while judge." After his impeachment trial he again was a candidate for election, but was defeated by Hon. J. Q. Farmer, of Spring Valley, Fillmore county. Judge Farmer continued to preside over the district for thirteen years, when he voluntarily and of his own motion retired from office. "While Judge Farmer was not a student, he possessed a judicial mind, and was eminently fair. Jurors, suitors and attorneys in his court felt instinctively that they had been dealt with in all fairness. He was loved and esteemed by both the laity and the bar of his district. He was one of the most conscientious and fairminded men that presided over the courts of this state. He was not a learned lawyer, did not profess to be, but he had a judicial mind with rugged common sense and a love of justice that iiiado him almost an ideal judge. There are few judges that were more universally loved and esteemed by the people of his judicial district than he. Judge Farmer, refusing to serve longer upon the bench, was succeeded by the election of the Hon. John Whytock, of Albert -Lea, Freeborn ccTunty. He acted as judge for the full term of his office, six years, and at the November election he was re-elected. In November, 1897, while holding court at Preston, Fillmore county, he was taken ill and a few weeks after died at his home in Albert Lea. Judge Whytock was a good lawyer and had many qualifications that fitted him for a jiidge, but he was hard of hearing, and considerably more so than he realized. There was some difficulty in transacting business before him. He did not hear all of the testimony and hence in ruling upon questions of the admissibility of evidence appeared to disadvantage, but he w^as a good man, intended to be fair, and aside from the defect of hearing, made a good judge. Governor Clough appointed as his successor the Hon. Nathan Kingsley, of Austin, Mower county, and he has been re-elected judge of this district without opposition to the present time. He has served with entire satisfaction to the bar and the people of this district. He is peculiarly fitted and qualified for a good judge. He has, in a marked degree, a judicial mind. He is studious, painstaking and careful and above all he possesses that candor and fairness which is becoming to a judge. Industrious, he is diligent in his search for the right, and his sense of justice is tempered by his mild and humane manner. Patience, studious^ ness and the love of justice are some of his distinctive characteristics. He is still the presiding judge. Judge Kingsley is also a prominent Mason, and is Grand High Priest of the Grand Chapter, R. A. M.

The Bar

The first attorney to establish himself in the law business at Austin was Ormanzo Allen, who came from Wisconsin, July 2, 1856. He continued to reside here until his death a few years ago. He was engaged in the trial of but few cases. He Avas an office lawyer and confined his labors to conveyancing and giving advice. He was an exemplary citizen, and at one time was considered quite wealthy, but in later years lost the l)ulk of his property in speculation.

The second lawyer lo ('stal)]isli liiiiiscll' in Austin was Aaron S. p]verest. He came from High Forest in Augu.st, 1856, and was formerly, it is believed, a resident of the state of New York, His education was limited, but he possessed a good deal of native al)ility and was naturally a good lawyer. He was quite active in ]in]iti('s while lie resided in tliis cnnnty. In ISTO lie rcnioved to Athison, Kansas, where, in connection with his partnei", j\Ir. Wagner, he built up a large and lucrative business. He died some seven or eight years ago at Atchison, Kansas.

Another lawyer of considerable note was D. B. Johnson, Jr. He came to Austin in 1856. He engaged in surveying and merchandising until the term of court held in September, 1858, when he was admitted to the bar. Like most lawyers he was engaged in politics, and held the offices of justice of peace, county attorney one term, and county auditor one term. In August, 1871, he was appointed one of the associate justices of the territory of New Mexico, but resigned in 1872. From 1858 until 1871 he was associated in the practice of laAv under the firm name of Cameron & Johnson. After his retirement from the bench in 1872 he was in practice alone until 1888, when he formed a partnership with S. D. Catherwood. Later in the eighties he was elected county attorney, and after his retirement from office moved to Portland, Oregon, where he died twelve or fifteen years ago. Judge Johnson was a man of more than the ordinary ability. He was possessed of a fair education and was quite studions. He possessed a quick and logical mind, and would have been a splendid trial laAvyer if he had been more aggressive and possessed of confidence in his own ability. He was regarded as one of the ablest trial lawyers in the county.

C. J. Short came to Minnesota in 1856 and settled in Northfield, where he engaged in surveying. He was educated- in the Vermont State University, where he graduated in 1855. He commenced the study of law in 1857, with Bachelor & Buckam, of Faribault, and in 1858 was admitted to practice. In the spring of 1859 he removed to Austin and formed a partnership with Ormanzo Allen, which continued for several years. He was elected county attorney in 1860 and held that office in 1860-61- 62-63-65-66-69 and 70. He then moved to the town of Dexter, in this county, where he engaged in farming for six years. In 1881 he returned to Austin, where he resided until his death. He lacked the force and energy necessary to make him a successful lawyer. He was studious, and was reputed, in his day, to be the most scholarly lawyer at the bar.

George M. Cameron came to Austin, November 27, 1856. He was a Canadian by birth and educated in the district school and at the State University at Madison, "Wisconsin. In 1858 he was admitted to the bar at Austin to practice in the courts of jNIinnesota. He always enjoyed a good practice while he lived and was in practice. He was elected to the office of probate judgf in 1860 and was again elected in 1876 and 1878. He was the first mayor of the city of Austin. He wa.s honorable in his profession and ranked high as a trial lawyer. When not serving as probate judge he was constantly in active practice nntil he retired in 1887. He possessed a logical mind and a keen perception of what a controversy in question was about. He was looked upon as an able and honest lawyer. The fact of his being repeatedly chosen to important offices testifies as to his popularity as a man and recognition of his worth as a citizen. He was engaged as chief or associate counsel in all of the important eases that were tried in this county while he was in active practice. He was kind and benevolent to the poor. His charges for his services were reasonable and just. In 1887 his mind gave way, and he remained on his farm near Brownsdale in this county until the time of his death.

In 1866 Sherman Page and E. 0. Wheeler came to Austin and formed a partnership in the practice of law. Mr. AVheeler coming direct, it is believed, from New York, which was his home, Mr. Page coming from Decorah, Iowa. Prior to that he had been at Lancaster, "Wisconsin, for a number of years engaged as superintendent of the schools of both Decorah and Lancaster. Mr. Page was originally from Vermont. The firm of Page & AVheeler continued until the election of Mr. Page as judge of this district in 1872. They did a large commercial business and also dealt largely in real estate. Mr. Wheeler was a tine office lawyer, as well as a good counselor. After Mr. Page was elected judge Mr. Wheeler continued the practice of law either alone or in partnership with his brother, R. B. Wheeler, until 1879, when he moved to Auburn, New York, to engage in the practice of his profession with Judge Howland of that city. Judge Page remained upon the bench until his term of office expired January 1, 1880. He practiced until 1882, when he removed to California. Judge Page was a forcible and pleasant speaker. As a trial lawyer he had few equals, if any, in the state.

L. Beauregard practiced law for a short time in Austin. He was a law student in the office of Aaron S. Everest and was admitted to the bar under his tutelage. He was elected county attorney, but subsequently had to resign the office, and he removed to ITtali and from there to New ]\Iexico.

In 1871 John J\I. Greenman came to Austin. He was a native of New York, but when a young man removed to the state of Wisconsin. He formed a partnership with I. N. Hawkins and llic fii-in (-(mtinued initil 1873. Tii 18D() he formed a partnership witli R. J. Dowdall. He has served as county attorney, city attorney and judge of probate. Except while holding the office of judge of probate IMr. Greenman has been in active practice and one of the prominent attorneys of this county. He is a pleasant gentleman and a good lawyer.

solution of the firm of Greenmau & Hawkins. He served as city attorney, and in 1873 was a candidate for senator but was defeated for that office. His defeat was due to the Grange movement, which swept the entire state, except that the Republicans elected their candidate for governor. Mr. Hawkins was suffering from a wound, which he had received in the civil war. He was a pleasant and amiable gentleman, and was a man possessed of considerable means. He removed from the state shortly after his defeat for the legislature.

In the early fall of 1871 Lafayette French came to Austin, and at the September term of court of that year was admitted to the bar. January 1, 1872, he formed a partnership with W. H. Crandall in the practice of law. In 1878 the firm was dissolved, Mr. Crandall retiring for the purpose of going into the insurance business. Mr. Crandall was a fair lawyer, but the turmoil and strife of an active life in the legal profession was distasteful to him. Mr. French has continued in the practice of his profession until the present time.

In 1870, Eugene B. Crane opened an office and commenced the practice of law. He soon engaged in the real estate business. He remained in Austin for several years and afterwards removed to Minneapolis, Minnesota, where he is engaged in his profession.

W. H. jMerrick studied law with his father in ]\Iilwaukee, Wisconsin. He came to Austin and engaged in merchandise. Some years later he was admitted to the bar and practiced four or five years. In 1882 he removed to Portland, Oregon, where he now resides.

In 1875 or 1876 C. C. Kinsman came to Austin and opened an office for the practice of law. In the fall of 1878 he was nominated and elected county attorney. In January, 1880, he declined a renomination and was elected court commissioner. In 1881 he moved to Cumberland. Wisconsin, where he continued in practice until his death. He was a well read lawyer, but lacked force and aggressiveness. He was a gentleman of splendid habits and a good citizen.

In 1882 James D. Sheedy was admitted to the bar of this county. He served as justice of the peace and was in the office of Lafayette French about four and a half years, but the profession of the law was not lucrative enough and so, finally, he drifted into real estate and became connected with the Alliance Fire and Hail Insurance Company and afterwards became president of that company. The law was not to his taste. In his chosen field of labor he has been very successful and is a prominent worthy citizen.

In 1883 R. B. Wheeler, who succeeded the firm (^f E. O. Wheeler and R. B. Wheeler, removed to St. Paul. The tinn of Richardson & Day succeeded to his business.

Richardson & Day -were young men who had graduated at our high school in Austin. They did a commercial and real estate business similar to that of R. B. Wheeler. They associated with them L. A. Pierce, who came from Auburn, New York, in 1887. Mr. Pierce was an able lawyer, but his desire for office and extravagant habits prevented him from succeeding as a lawyer. In the fall of 1887 AV. E. Richardson and F. A. Day removed to Duluth in this state, where they continued to follow the law and real estate business.

In 1887 Arthur AV. AVright and LaFayette French bought out the business of Richardson & Day and formed a co-partnership under the firm name of French & Wright, Mr. Wright looking after the real estate and loans of the office and Mr. French seemg to the law business of the firm. Tliey continued in business until 1898, when the lirm dissolved by mutual consent, ]\Ir. Wright succeeding to the business and Air. French continuing the practice of law alone. Since then Mr. AVright has had a large business in commercial law and real estate. He was elected county attorney and re-elected without opposition for eight years, when he voluntarily withdrew as a candidate for that office. Perhaps the cou-aty was never more fortunate than in the selection of Colonel AVriiz:lit for county attorney. For honesty, efficiency and ability the county has been well served. He is still in active practice, with many years of usefulness before him. He served as major in the Spanish-Amei-ican war and is one of the prominent men at the bar in this coiinty. His correct life and high sense of lionor and clean habits make him justly an ornament to the bar.

In 1886 or 1887 Nathan Kingsley and R. E. Shepherd moved over from Chatfield, Alinnesota, to Austin. They opened an office under the firm name of Kingsley & Shepherd. The firm continued until Governor Clou<i:h, about t^^'elve years ago, appointed Air. Kingsley judge of the tenth judicial district. Both gentlemen were possessed of a higli sense of honor and were leading attorneys here until the dissolution of the firm. The firm was continuously engaged on one side or the other of important litigation in this and adjoining counties. The firm did a successful business. Air. Kingsley })eing especially strong as a trial lawyer. Upon the dissolution of the firm Air. Shepherd was alone some two weeks and was succeeded by tlie firm of Shepherd & Catlierwood. Air. Slicplni'd was ch'clcd county jittorncy for two oi- three terms and made ;i good and efficient oriiccr. lie was a good lawyer and an enterprising citizen. Ue ])ossesse{l a lovable nature. conil)i]u^d with Avit ami lininor. that made him wry popular with his brother lawyei-s. Some four or five years ago tlie firm was dissolved and he removed to liillings, Alontana, where he engaged in tlie real estate Mud liankiu''- business, which was moi'c congenial to his taste than the practice of law. His partner, S. D. Catherwood, succeeded to the business of the firm. Mr. Catherwood spent most of his life in Austin or in the adjoining county of Freeborn. Pie is a graduate of the State University and not only possesses a good academic education, but is Avell grounded in the law. He was admitted to the bar in 1888, and has since been engaged in the practice at the city of Austin. He has been county attorney for tlu-ee terms, and that is the only office he has aspired to. He has not engaged in any other business except the practice of law. He stands high in the rank of lawyers in southern Minnesota, and in the state. His life demonstrates what a young man who has fair ability, with industry and close attention to business can accomplish in a lifetime. ]\Ir. Catherwood is in the prime of life and enjoys a lucrative business. He is a good all around lawyer. One year ago he formed a co-partnership with J. N. Nicholsen, and the firm promises to be one of the strongest in the southern part of the state.

Mr. Nicholsen is a graduate of the Austin high school, read law in the office of Kingsley & Shepherd, and attended the law school at Ann Arbor, Michigan. He was thoroughly equipped for the practice of his profession when he was admitted to the bar in 3902. Shortly after his admission he formed a partnership with Frank E. Putnam at Blue Earth, under the firm name of Putnam & Nicholsen. The firm continued until 1909, when it was dissolved, j\Ir. Nicholsen coming to Austin and forming a partnership with S. D. Catherwood. Tlie firm lias a Avide and extensive practice.

W. W. Ranney is a graduate of the law department in the State University of Iowa, in 1876. In 1878 he located at Grand Meadow in this county, where he practiced his profession for a number of years. He then removed to Austin, where he was elected to the office of probate judge. He has been more of an office than a trial lawyer. He is a good citizen and highly respected by all who know him.

In 1882 Lyman D. Baird was admitted to the bar. He was city attorney of Austin in 1884. Since 1885 he has confined himself chiefiy to the real estate business, in which he has been a decided success. Mr. Baird is considered a shrewd man of business and an enterprising and public spirited citizen, and one of the most progressive young men in the city of Austin.

In April, 1884, L. F. Clausen moved from Blooming Prairie to Austin, opened an office and engaged in the practice of law until about 1902, when he removed to North Dakota, where he is still engaged in the practice of his profes.sion. Mr. Clausen was elected county attorney of this county a short time after moving here. He was born in Mitchell countv, Iowa, in 1856, and is a son of

Rev. C. L. Clausen, the founder of the Lutheran church at Austin, and one of the earliest ministers of that denomination in Austin, ^Minnesota.

In 1896 R. J. Dowdall, a Canadian by birth, came to Austin and formed a partnership with J. M. Greenman for the practice of law. Mr. Dowdall was a gentleman of fine ability and came from a family of some prominence in Canada. He continiu-d in the practice of law at Austin some five or six years, when he removed to the northern part of the state. He was a strong trial lawyer, but was not discriminating enough and often appeared on the wrong side of a ease.

Ten years ago T. H. Pridham came to Austin and engaged in the practice of law until the summer of 1910. Mr. Pridham was industrious and painstaking in the business entrusted to his care. He was city attorney for six or eight years and resigned that office when he removed to Helena, Montana. He is a young man of good habits and cpiite promising in his profession.

In 1900 Fay W. Greenman was admitted to the bar. He is a son of J. M. Greenman and upon his admission became a member of the firm of Greenman & Dowdall, the name being changed to Greenman, Dowdall & Greenman. "When the firm was dissolved and his father elected to the office of judge of probate, he practiced his profession alone. He graduated from the high school of Austin with honors. He is a young man of good habits, studious and industrious. In his social relations he is a most agreeable young man. In the ten years that he has been in practice he has built up a good business for a young man. He has tried a good many cases and many with credit to himself.

In 1909 Frank G. Sasse came to Austin from Fairmont, IMinnesota, and formed a co-partnership with LaFayette French. Mr. Sasse graduated from the academic departnu^ut of the State University witli honor in 1898 and from the law department of that institution in 1900. He practiced his profession at St. Charles, ^Minnesota, for two or three years, when he removed to Fairmont where lie formed a partnership under the name of Mathwig & Sasse. In the fall of 1908 he was elected county attorney of .Martin cuiuity, but resigned the office when he moved to Austin to become associated with ^Ir. French. He is very studious and has all the qualifications for making a successful lawyer.

In addition to the lawyers of Austin there have been several at LeRoy village. Grand Meadow village and the village of Rrownsdale. F. .M. Goodykoontz was the first lawyer at the village of LeRoy, coming there in 1867 from Iowa. He formed a co-partnership with J. M. AVykoff. AVhen the firm was dissolved he removed to Nora SpriYigs, and from there to Mason City, Iowa, and in 1884 he moved to South Dakota. He was a lawyer

Joseph McKnight Avas admitted to the bar at Austin in 1882. together with J. P. Trask, E. J. Kingsbury and J. S. Bish.op. They constituted the bar at LeRoy until about 1895.

G. W. W. Harden is a graduate of the law school of the State University, has been village attorney, and in 1901 was elected a member of the state legislature. He is a good lav/yer but his work is confined mostly to commercial business and real estate. He is still in practice at LeRoj^.

About 1878 George F. Goodwin opened an office at Grand Meadow. In 1880 or 1881 he was elected to the office of county attorjic}'. Ho prosecuted, while county attorney, the case of the state vs. John A. Riley for attempt to murder Judge Page. He was assisted in that case by Hon. J. M. Burlingame, of Owatonna; Minnesota. In 1884 he removed to North Dakota and was elected attorney geiieral of that state shortly after it -was admitted into the Union. He held the office one term and then moved to Salt Lake City, Utah. He is a studious, painstaking young lawyer, and since leaving this state has gained considerable prominence.

Capt. A. J. Hunt came to Brownsdale village in 1873. He was formerly from Wisconsin, He opened an office and was engaged in the practice of law and dealt in real estate until 1888, when he moved to Georgia.

Otto and Carl Baudler are graduates of tlie Austin liigh school, and from the law department of the State University. They commenced the practice of law three years ago at Blooming- Prairie, in Steele county. In 1909 they moved to Austin and opened an office. In the fall of 1910 Otto Baudler was elected county attorney of this county by a handsome vote. They are brothers and sons of William Baudler, who is one of the pioneers of Austin. They are clean, studious young men and they promise to be quite an acquisition to the bar. This comprises the lawyers who reside and practiced in ]Mower county.

In 1890 A. C. Page was admitted to the bar. since which time he has been in the office of L. D. Baird. He is a young man of exemplary habits and is given more to real estate and collections than to trial practice. At present he is alderman at large in the city of Austin.

attended the Summer Law School at Ann Arbor, Mich., for two years. After his admission to the bar he formed a partnership -with Lafayette French under the firm name of French & Kelly, which continued until 1905, when he removed to Carrington, N. D., where he is still engaged in the practice of law. Mr. Kelly is well equipped for the practice of his profession and from the time of his admission until the present time he has met with splendid success in his profession.

In 1907 Henry Weber, Jr., was admitted to practice law. He was located at Dexter, in this county, and continued in the practice until the fall of 1910, when he was elected probate judge of this county, which office he fills at the present time. ^Ir. Weber is an exemplary citizen and his honor and integrity are beyond question.

Civil And Criminal Cases

Tliis article would be incomplete Avithout stating some of tli'^ most important criminal and civil cases witli which the lawyers of this county were connected.

The first homicide ease was that of Chauncey Leverich. Leverieh was in a saloon in Austin in the month of August. 1856, and was killed by Horace Silver and "William Oliver. Silver and Oliver were arrested for assault and battery and Silver fined $20.00 and Oliver $10.00. The prosecution was conducted bj^ Jolm Tift and the defense "i)y Arron S. Everest and 0. Allen. When the defendants learned that Leverich would not recover, they paid their fines and left the country. Leverich died from the wounds he received a Aveek later. The county Avas ucav and this case illustrates the ci-ude Avay in Avliicli justice Avas administered in an early day.

In 1868 John and Oliver Potter and George and William Keni]) with others Avere arrested for killing Chauncey Knapp. C. J. Short appeared for the state and John Q. Farmer, of Fillmore county, Avho afterAvards became district judge of this district, and his brother, J. D. Farmer, appeared for the defendants. George and AVilliam Kemp were tried and acquitted. A change of A'enue was granted the Potters and the case sent to Fillmore county. Judge Donaldson Avas the presiding judge. None of the parties Avas ever punished for tliis foul murder.

In 187:3 the case of tlie State of ^Minnesota against OK' Bang, charged Avith homicide, Avas tried. Bang Avas convicted of manshiughter and sentenced for four years in the state prison. The prosecution Avas conducted ])y Vj. O. Wheeler, the then county Mflonicy. Till- (Icrcndaiit 's couscl was Sliei'mau Page, .ludge Saiiiurl Lord |)resi(ling.

The most important criminal case was tried at the March term of the district court in 1881, the State of Minnesota vs. John A. Riley. Riley was charged with an attempt to assassinate Judge Sherman Page. George P. Goodwin was the then prosecuting attorney, and he was ably assisted by J. M. Burlingame, Esq., an able attorney from Owatonna. The defendant was represented by Lafayette French, G. M. Cameron, of this city, and W. W. Erwin, of St. Paul. Judge Daniel A. Dickenson, who was then district judge at Mankato and later one of the associate justices of tlie Supreme Bench, was called by Judge Farmer to preside in his place. The case was an important one. It probably created as much talk and newspaper comment as any case tried in the county. Judge Page, whom Riley was charged with attempt to assassinate, was a prominent person. Riley was brought by Pinkerton's detective from the neighboring state of Wisconsin into Minnesota to answer to the charge. He was confined in a jail outside the county. The sentiment in favor of and against Page was intensely partisan. There was a great deal of feeling displayed during the trial by the atto"rneys and parties interested in t]ie case. After a lengthy trial the jury brought in a verdict of "not guilty" and Riley was discharged from custody. The case Avas ably handled by the attorneys for the state. Mr. Erwin made (he closing argument for the defense. He was then in his prime, forty or forty-five years of age, and had a great reputation as a criminal lawyer. Probably his argument was the finest ever made to a jury in this county. Two years ago he died in Florida.

In January, 1874, was tried the case of the State of Minnesota vs. AV. D. Jaynes. The defendant was indicted on the charge of rape. The immediate parties stood high in social circles and the arrest of Jaynes created a great sensation in this county. The state was represented by LaFayette French, the county attornej^, and Colonel Kerr, of St. Paul, and the defendant by E. 0. Wheeler and Gordon E. Cole, of Faribault. Judge Page was presiding judge. The first trial resulted in the conviction of Jaynes, but a new trial was granted on the ground that the prisoner was not present in court but was confined in the county jail at the time the jury returned the verdict. The case was afterwards tried twice. The second time the jury disagreed and the third time Jaynes was acquitted. In the last two trials the state was represented by Lafayette French and M. J. Severance, of Mankato, and the defendant by Wheeler and Cole. During the trial there was an immense crowd, and only about half of the curious ones could get into the court house. i\[. J. Severance closed for the -state and Gordon E. Cole for the defendant. They were both able lawyers and had a state wide reputation.

Williams was tried. "Williams was charged with the murder of one Flymi. Williams' mother kept a hotel in the city of Austin. Flyun and "Williams had been drinking one evening, and while engaged in conversation with t\A'o girls who worked for ^Irs. Williams, ]\Ii]t shot Flynn. Williams was a young man, twentysix years of age, who had been petted and humored by his mother. He was mixed up in several fights before this one. The state was represented by S. D. Catherwood, who was then county attorney, and Lafayette French. Greenman & Dowdall represented thu defendant. Judge Whitoek was the presiding judge. The trial lasted for several days. There was a good deal of excitement during the trial. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment. Afterwards W. W. Erwin was called into the ease and a motion made for a new trial and argued and the same denied by the court. An application to the pardoning board was made in behalf of Williams and Erwin succeeded in getting Williams' sentence commuted from murder in the first degree to murder in the second degree, and he was sentenced to the penitentiary for life. He and Iris counsel stipulated that no further pardon or commutation of his sentence would be asked for. Too much credit cannot be given to Mr. Catherwood, the then county attorney, in his management of the case. Flynn 's body had been shipped to Buti'alo within a day or two after the shooting and without Mr. Catherwood 's knowledge. There were several things in the prosecution that would have prevented the conviction had it not been for the skill and industry displayed by the county attorney. The conviction of Williams, who had an unsavory reputation, Avas due to the efforts of Mr. Catherwood.

Jn 1900 John B. Anderson was indicted, charged with the crime of murder. Anderson was a farmer living in the town of ^larshall, and had a wife and several small children. He killed his wife by beating her brains out with a flat-iron. When the neighbors discovered her she was lying on the floor in a pool of blood. A nursing child who had attempted to reach its mother's breast to nurse had crawled through tliis blood. Anderson was found concealed in a straw stack. It was a horrible crime and the community was very much wrought up. On his arraignment he entered a plea of not guilty. The state was represented by R. E. Sheperd, the then county attorney of this county, and the defendant by Lafayette French, who had consented to appear for Anderson through the entreaties of his friends. After a thorougli investigation of the matter, the defendant's counsel became convinced that Anderson was insane at the time he committed the crime. He had fallen from a mast of a ship years before, receiving an injury to his head, from which he suffei'ed thereafter. This injury to the brain, liis counsel l)elievod. had affected his mind to sucli an extent that he was not responsible for the act, but that he was a man that onght not to be turned loose, and for the protection of society ought to be confined in some safe place. After mature deliberation and a conference witli the attorney general, it was deemed advisable to have him withdraw his plea of not guilty and to enter a plea of guilty of murder in the second degree. The action of the court and the counsel in the disposition of this case was generally commended throughout the county.

In January, 1903, Frank W. Bell was indicted and charged with murder in the first degree. The state was represented by Col. A. W. Wright, the then county attorney, and S. D. Catherwood, and the defendant was represented by Lafayette French. Judge Kingsley was presiding judge. Bell was the station agent of the Chicago Great Western Railway Company at Elkton, in this county. A man by the name of Cole had shipped a car of lumber to Elkton to be unloaded and to be hauled by team near the village of Grand Meadow. Cole employed Nelson S. Green, with his team, to draw the lumber. The ear had been at Elkton for several days and there was some demurrage charges against it. Green came after the lumlier in the morning but Bell refused to break the seal and open the car until the demurrage charges were paid. Gr'^en was a large, muscular man, while Bell was a dinjinutlve, frail man. Green attempted to break the seal of the car and Bell tried to prevent him. Cole telephoned Green to break the seal and, if necessary, break Bell's head. Green picked up a piece of board for the purpose, it was claimed by the state, to l)reak tlie car seal, but defendant claimed that it was for the purpose of striking Bell. Bell drew a revolver and shot Green twice. Either shot would have proved fatal in time. Green died within a few hours afterwards. There was a great deal of feeling. Green being a prominent farmer, a Mason and a Grand Army man. It was almost impossible at the first trial to secure an impartial verdict. The jury rendered a verdict of giiilty within a few moments after retiring. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was granted, and a special term held in March. 1903. On a second trial the defendant was acquitted. The trial of this case illustrates how easily public sentiment can be changed by a knowledge of the facts. At the beginning of the first trial the people clamored for the defendant's conviction, but at the second trial public sentiment had changed and he was acquitted. Bell was a weak man physically and mentally. He was unbalanced, and shortly after the last trial lie became insane and was sent to an asylum in IMichigan.

county treasurer of the county for eight years. The system of bookkeeping in vogue in the several county offices was very lax and crude. Smith was considered an honest man hy people who knew him, but an accountant hired by the county to examine the books found that he was short about $42,000. Suit was brought by the county against Smith to recover this sum. Page & Wheeler and Bachelor & Buckham were attorneys for the county and Cameron & Johnson, Gordon E. Cole and R. A. Jones appeared as attorneys for Smith. The case was referred to three referees, whom the court appointed to hear and try the ease and report judgment. After a somewhat lengthy trial the referees so appointed found a judgment of about $20,000 against Smith. Smith appealed the case to the Supreme Court and the case was sent back for another hearing. Mr. Page in the meantime had been elected judge of the District Court, and having been of the counsel was ineligible to sit and try the case. The parties agreed and the court appointed three other referees. The case came on for second trial, and Lafayette French, the then county attorney, E. 0. Wheeler and Bachelor & Buckham appeared for the county, and Cameron & Johnson. Gordon E. Cole and R. A. Jones appeared for Mr. Smith. After a lengthy trial the referees reported judgment in favor of Mr. Smith. The county records were kept so imperfectly that it was impossible to tell whether Smith should be charged with the shortage or not. Smith was believed to be honest, and that the discrepancy of the books and shortage in his accounts were due to the loose manner of keeping the books and accounts.

In 1870 a complaint was sworn out against Sherman Page for tearing up a sidewalk. A warrant was issued and placed in the hands of Allan Mollison, the then sheriff, for service. He went to the office of Page & Wheeler to make the arrest late one afternoon. After a scuffle and words with the defendant, who refused to go, the curtains were pulled down and Page lit his lamps. The sheriff then stepped to the window and called his deputy, Colos Fenton, to a.ssist him. He found the door leading to the office locked, and after calling to Page to unlock the door and a refusal on his i)art to do .so, he knocked the door down and went in and arrested him. Mollison was sued by Page for false imprisonment, holding that as the charge was a mere misdemeanor he could not legally be arrested after dark. Fenton Avas sued for breaking the door and entering the office in an action of trespass. The case against Fenton cmiiic on for trial at the September term in 1871. Page & Wheilcr wci'c tlicir own attorneys and G. ^L Cameron and R. A. Jones, of Rochester, were attorneys for Fciitoii. The case came on for trial before Judge Donaldson and a jui'V. The case hinged largely upon llie point whether the ari-est was in the night time. Mr. Page summed up for the plaintiff and R. A. Jones for the defendant. It is a comment on the crude manner in which the courts were conducted in those days to note that all the counsel did in the summing up of the case was to abuse each other. The .jury after being charged returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $(500. Judgment was entered and later paid in full.

In 1884 a fire occurred at Brownsdale in the saloon and clothing store of George E. Rolph. The insurance companies, three in number, under a pretext that they were investigating the facts, required that Rolph submit to an examination, before a justice of the peace at Grand Meadow. The examination disclosed nothing but what the loss was a legitimate one and ought to be paid by the insurance companies, but they refused to pay it. Proofs of loss had not been made or submitted to the companies. Later proofs of loss were made and served upon the companies. They were returned and rejected on the . ground that they were not made within the time required by the policies. Suit was then commenced against the companies to recover the insurance. The companies answered and claimed that Rolph had set fire and destroyed the property; that he had sworn falsely in his statement in regard to the amount of property he had; that proofs of loss were not furnished in time as provided in the policies, and that the policies were void because he had no license to sell intoxicating liquors at the time. The case against the insurance companies came on for trial before Judge Farmer and a jury. Lafayette French appeared for the plaintiff and Laing & Molyneaux appeared for the defendants. The plaintiff had to rely for the most part upon a waiver. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff in the three cases. One of the insurance companies, the Concordia, of Milwaukee, after the trial, paid up the amount recovered against that company. The other two companies, the Milwaukee Mechanics' Mutual and The German, of Freeport, made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and the cases were taken to the supreme court on appeal. "While the two civil suits against the companies were pending in the supreme court Rolph was arrested, charged with the crimes of arson and perjury. He had testified in the civil suits as to what property was in the building at the time of the fire and that he did not know how the fire took place. In the criminal cases of the state vs. Rolph, J. M. Greenman, the tlien county attorney, and J. W. Lusk, of St. Paul, appeared for t'.'c state and John A. Lovely and Lafayette French appeared for the defendant. The state claimed that Rolph fired the building, and that some of the property, a large anuiunt of liquor, was r('mi)V('<l l)y Rolph and l)uri('(l upon llie farm of one "Warren. Tlic insin-aiicc coinpanics had liircd Pinkerton de- tectives and they had found the liquor concealed on Warren's farm. Warren and his wife had made the confession to the detectives that they had assisted Rolph in concealing the liquor. Rolph was tried on the indictment charging him with perjury. Counsel for the state and for the defendant agreed to submit the case upon the evidence and the judge's charge, without argument, although it was well known that J. W. Lusk, who appeared for the state, was one of the most able and skillful jury advocates while John A. Lovely had a reputation for being a most eloquent and able advocate. The jury retired and returned a verdict of "Not guilty.'' The state dismissed the other indictments. The appeal cases of the insurance companies were likewise dismissed. The liquor, Avhich had been found on Warren's farm by the detectives, was turned over to the county attorney to lie used upon the trial of the ease against Rolph. After the termination of the criminal cases the court entered an order for the county attorney to turn over the liquor to his counsel, who had taken a bill of sale of the liquor from Rolph. After the arrest the liquor was safely kept in the cellar of the county attorney. When the liquor was opened and counsel were ready to dispose of it, they found that the liquor had been drawn out of the casks and water substituted in its place. While considerable fun was had at the expense of the county attorney, no one thought seriously that he was responsible for disposing of the liquor.

Probably the most important civil case that was ever tried in this county was the suit brought by Louis Rex Clay, by his guardian ad litem, Ida B. Clay vs. the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Company and Thomas H. Bennett, to recover damages, Avhich the plaintiff sustained at the village of Lyle, ^Minnesota, on December 7, 1905. The case came on for trial at the January term, 1907. On the first trial the jury disagreed and the second trial of the case came on a few weeks later. At both trials the plaintiflf, Louis Rex Clay, was unable to be present in court. On the suggestion of his counsel, the jury and the lawyers, clerk of court and the sheriff, as well as Judge Kingsley, who jircsidcd at the trial, adjourned to his father's residence and his testimony was given while l.ying in bed. He was paralyzed from his should(>rs down. He wa.s a mere skeleton and unable to use any part of his body from below his head, lint his iniiid iind intellect was as cb'ar as it ever was. He entered the ciniiloyinciit of liic compniiy in the fall of 1905 as a freight brakcman. He wa.s struck by an elevated jilatform at the station of Lyle and was thereby swept from the west side of a coal car lui whicli lie was hanging and Ihcreliy injured. Tlie plaintiff was ;i vdnnii' in;in nlinnt eighteen years ohl, bi'ight and intelligent.

His father was an old conductor in the employ of the {'Oiiipany. The negligence charged in the complaint was that the company constructed and maintained the elevated platform in question in too close proximity to passing cars; that without any advice or instruction or information as to the dangerous character of the platform, he was directed and ordered to ride upon a gondola car of unusual width by this platform. The second trial lasted several days, and when the ca.se was submitted to them the jury returned a verdict for $35,000 against the company. Eighteen days after the verdict the plaintiff died from his injuries. The company made a motion for a judgment, notwithstanding the verdict, and in case that was denied, for a neAv trial. Both motions were denied and the case was taken on appeal to the supreme court. Owing to the importance of the case the rule was suspended and counsel were allowed as much time as they wished for argument, and were unlimited as to the number of counsel who were to argue the case. The case was ably argued by counsel for the railroad company, but after due consideration by the court the case was affirmed. In the trial the plaintiff was represented by Lovely & Dunn and Lafayette French, and the defendant by S. D. Catherwood and M. B. AVebber, of Winona. On May 4, 1908, the company paid this verdict, which amounted to .$37,857.93, the largest verdict in a personal injury case that the supreme court of this state has ever affirmed.