The order thus stricken from the files was in conflict with the agreement of counsel on the argument, made in the presence of the court, and the assertion by Mr. Shearman, "that the restoration of those affidavits was absolute, and the whole question disposed of," is incorrect. When the application was made to restore the suppressed affidavits, the respondents, so far as they were concerned, waived any objection upon condition that my affidavit of September 30, 1870, should also be placed before the court. By the production of this last affidavit (which was the one referred to in Mr. Shearman's suppressed affidavit and the contents of which, in part, he purported to state), his reckless manner of swearing was shown, and the entire falsity of his charge proven, and, provided it should be placed before the court, I was willing to waive any personal objection to the suppressed affidavits, and leave the question of their propriety, where I conceive it belonged, between Mr. Shearman and the court. The general term thereupon considered the question whether the affidavits stricken out by Justice Rosekrans were scandalous and impertinent, and adjudged that Mr. Shearman's affidavit was objectionable on both grounds, and, therefore, affirmed the order of Justice Rosekrans on that point. So far from Mr Shearman being deprived of an opportunity to be heard on the merits, the printed argument handed up by him fully discussed the question. Complaint is also made by Mr. Shearman that Judge Emott came up in the same car with him from New York, on the evening before our application to strike his order from the files, and that no intimation of the application was given him. Until I met Judge Emott in Albany, on the 13th, he had no intimation whatever that any such application was to be made. I met him there (not pursuant to any appointment), and then, for the first time, suggested that an order should be made in the matter according to the fact. Mr. Shearman finds ground for congratulation in the fact that I have undertaken to discuss this question. He misconceives the object of my communication. It was simply to set right the false report procured to be widely circulated, based on his unauthorized order that Justice Rosekrans' order had been reversed. We have no desire to discuss this matter (a very improper proceeding, as shown by Mr. Shearman's communication) pending the appeal. We are entirely satisfied with the adjudications. My conviction as to the unfortunate affair set forth in Mr. Shearman's suppressed affidavit has not been shaken by any evidence which Mr. Shearman has yet adduced, and probably will not be shaken by any evidence he can adduce, if of the same nature as that already brought forward. The general term affirmed the order of Justice Rosekrans in every respect. The decision and order, as well as my affidavit of September 30th, are on file in the clerk's office in the city where your journal is published. I would have particularly called your attention to this decision before had I not inferred, from a conversation with your New York correspondent, that it would cer tainly be published in your journal. I presume you have not seen the decision and order, or they would have been published with Mr. Shearman's communication. Should their publication be longer delayed? Yours respectfully, FRANK THOMPSON. As the decisions of the general term judges are retained by them, and only reach us through our regular correspondents and reporters, Mr. Thompson was correct in presuming that we had not seen the opinion referred to. We shall, in due time, give an abstract of it, as of the other opinions, but whether we ever publish it, as Mr. Thompson seems to expect, must depend entirely upon its interest and importance. Although of little moment, it may be well enough to add that our New York correspondent informed Mr. Thompson, in the conversation alluded to, that the third judicial department was out of his province, but that, as a general term decision of interest, he supposed the opinion would be published. Both sides of this controversy having been presented, we must decline the further use of our columns for its discussion.-ED. L. J. BOOK NOTICES. A Digest of all the Reported Cases decided in the Supreme Court of Errors and the Superior Court of the state of Connecticut, and in the United States courts for the District of Connecticut, down to those contained in Vol. XXXV, Connecticut Reports, and Vol. V, Blatchford's Circuit Court Reports, inclusive. By Simeon E. Baldwin, of the New Haven county bar, Lecturer on Conditional and Commercial Law in Yale College. Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1871. Royal octavo, pp. 694. There is about this digest something to make a New York lawyer sigh. While here eight mammoth volumes are scarcely sufficient to contain the gist of our state court decisions, in that land of steady habits the digest of both the state and federal court decisions find ample room between the covers of a single volume. This digest contains the decisions reported in fortythree volumes of State Reports, seven volumes of United States Circuit Court Reports, besides cases reported in the American Law Reporter, the American Law Register, and the American Law Review. The regular reports digested are the following: Kirby's Reports, 1 volume; Root's Reports, 2 volumes; Day's Reports, 5 volumes; Connecticut Reports, 35 volumes; Paine's Circuit Court Reports, 2 volumes; and Blatchford's Circuit Court Reports, 5 volumes. The essential virtues of a digest are method and fidelity; and both these virtues, if we mistake not, the work before us may justly claim. The arrangement is clear, logical and perspicuous. The titles and cross references are numerous, and the "catch words," or paragraph headings, brief and to the point. Of the fidelity with which the abstracts have been prepared we cannot, of course, speak with so much certainty, as the only sure test of a digest in this regard is practical use; but so far as our examination has extended-and we have compared several of the abstracts with the reported cases we have found the work done with unusual care and discrimination. There is one feature of this digest that is novel, so far as we can remember: a note in each case where the court was not unanimous, showing the number of dissentient judges. It would also have been well to indicate the date of the decision. We commend the book as one of more than ordinary merit. To the profession of Connecticut it will be indispensable, while to the practicing lawyers of the other states it will often be found useful. The typographical execution deserves great praise. Law Magazine and Law Review. February, 1871. London: Butterworths. Besides the usual notes of Scotch decisions, notices of new books, events of the quarter, etc., the contents of this number are: "The Game Laws Jurisprudentially Considered;" "Early English Codes," reprinted in our last number; "The late Sir Frederick Pollock;" "The Judges and Judicature of England;" "On the Universal and Necessary Relation of Church and State;" "The Lord Chancellors of Ireland;" "The Church Building Acts;""Records of Counties;" "American Legal Notes;" New Books on Roman Law;" "The Law of Compensa tion for Closed Church-yards;" "The Case of the ExNawab of Tonk." The "American Legal Notes" purports to have been written by an American lawyer, and are made up of some comments on our code of procedure - adversely to it, of course; the Bankrupt act; the Reports; and an examination of a few cases reported in 62 Penn. Rep. Of an "American Lawyer" we should have expected somewhat clearer and more accurate statements than are here and there found in this article. For example, he says that "each state has its regular official reports of, on an average, three or four volumes a year, which are limited to cases decided in the highest state tribunal." Now the fact is, that the average is considerably less than two vol. umes a year. Again he says: "The decisions of the lower courts are also frequently reported, and in the large cities these local reports accumulated in unexampled numbers. Thus Barbone's (sic) Reports of one district court in New York number fifty-six, all published since 1848." The "Barbone's" was undoubtedly a typographical error for Barbour's; but the idea conveyed that Barbour's reports were confined to one district court in the city of New York is a very gross error of the writer. For the information of our transatlantic cousins-in-law, we may add that Barbour's Reports are confined to the decisions of no "district court," but solely to the decisions of the supreme court of the state of New York, having original and appellate jurisdiction over 47,000 square miles of territory, and nearly 4,400,000 population. The article on "Records of Counties" contains some curious information-curious, certainly, to a resident of this country, where every document, from a deed to a mortgage of chattels, is required to be recorded in recording offices. The most recent available evidence, the writer tells us, of the condition of the county records, was the report of a select committee of the house of commons, made in 1800. Some of the items of this report show an extraordinary state of affairs, and which, we fear, has not greatly improved since. For instance, in Cambridgeshire, the public documents, etc., were kept in a private house; those prior to 1793 being in sacks. "Of the Worcestershire rolls some were in old, broken boxes in an unceiled room, some in militia store rooms, and some in the deputy clerk of the peace's private house." Private houses and private cupboards seem to have been the usual repositories of the public books and documents. The editors of the Magazine and Review have certainly the ability and the "knack" to make it interesting and useful without making it heavy. A CURIOUS CASE. — A singular instance of the operation of the internal revenue laws is given in the New York Journal of Commerce's Washington correspondence. A cargo of tobacco shipped some time ago from Baltimore for Europe, was lost at sea. Bonds in double the amount of the tax had been given to insure the actual export of the goods, and the revenue officers demanded payment of the tax on the goods named in the export invoice. The shipper refused to pay, and carried the case to court. The court decided that the law requires the production of a certificate of landing in a foreign country before the cancellation of the indemnity bond. It was evident that no one at the bottom of the ocean had power to give such a certificate; the shipper failed to produce one, and judgment was given in favor of the government. The shipper was actually obliged to pay tax on goods lost at sea. An agent was sent to Washington, but could get no redress at present, though members of congress in charge of such matters are willing to pass an act for the prevention of such injustice in future, but as they had agreed not to touch the tobacco laws this session, they decided that it would be better to wait till next session, and then incorporate a paragraph in the bill to be proposed, which would cover this fault, and many others that are complained of. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. — It is by no means necessary or proper for counsel to rise to crossexamine with the belief that the witness has been lying, in whole or in part. Very far from him be such a derogatory and insulting assumption; yet with counsel of a low and vulgar nature this is too often the case. He proceeds at once to exhibit himself in his true colors before a scornful bar and an indignant public; to forfeit, if, indeed, he ever possessed any, the slightest, pretensions to the character of a gentleman. He, therefore, at once begins to browbeat, to bully, to try to confuse, mislead and irritate the witness, who may really have given his or her evidence in chief with the most commendable simplicity, straightforwardness and truthfulness. Such vile conduct, however, always recoils on its exhibitant, exposing him to indignation and disgust, and attracting to the insulted and outraged witness the sympathies of every body present. - Warren's Law Studies. TERMS OF COURT FOR MARCH. SPECIAL TERMS AND CIRCUITS. 4th Monday, special term, White Plains, Gilbert. 4th Monday, circuit and oyer and terminer, Yates, Johnson. 4th Monday, circuit and oyer and terminer, Herkimer. 4th Monday, special term, Erie, Talcott. Last Monday, circuit and oyer and terminer, Tompkins, Murray. Last Monday, special term, Monroe, Dwight. LEGAL NEWS. A bill to abolish capital punishment has been defeated in the Massachusetts senate. Jubal A. Early was admitted to practice in the circuit court of Richmond on Wednesday. The United States senate has confirmed Walter H. Smith as assistant attorney-general of the United States. The Boston Post, says that there are eight hundred lawyers in that city. Hon. E. W. Nesbitt, a former Georgia judge of the supreme court, member of congress in 1838-1840, and a confederate congressman, died at Macon, Ga., last week. The act passed by the Kansas legislature rendering the death warrant of a criminal inoperative until signed by the governor did not become a law, it having failed for want of the governor's signature. The supreme court of Pennsylvania has decided that, where the plaintiff had taken from the defendants a policy of insurance against fire, containing a stipulation that it should be void if assigned without the company's consent, and said plaintiff did so assign it, he cannot recover on it, although the company had accepted premiums from him since the assignment, but without knowledge of the facts. An interesting question has come up for solution in Nevada. Three mail robbers, who plundered a train on the Central Pacific road some months since, were convicted, and are now in the state prison, serving out sentences of about twenty years each. This was deemed an adequate punishment under the laws of the state, but the federal statutes affix the penalty of death to mail robbing by force or intimidation, and for this offense the robbers have been indicted by a United States grand jury, and, on the 7th inst., United States Marshal Lammon, on motion of District Attorney Seely, and under instructions of the court, made a demand for the possession of the prisoners. Under the advice of AttorneyGeneral Buckner, the warden declined to comply with the demand, and thus at present rests the matter. The Albany Law Journal. ALBANY, APRIL 1, 1871. STUDIES IN LEGAL BIOGRAPHY. LAW AND LOVE. At first thought there does not seem to be much in common between justice and love. There is one point of resemblance, however they are both blind. Their blindness, it is true, proceeds from different impulses; justice is blind because she ought not to see, and does not; love is blind because he ought to see, but will not. Why justice is represented as feminine, and love as masculine, passes imagination, unless it is designed as a satire and an illustration of the law of contraries, for certainly justice is not a feminine characteristic, and love is not a masculine trait. But our purpose is not to be metaphysical, but to make a biographical study of the great lawyers in respect to their love affairs. Big wigs do not seem to have been effectual in warding off the darts of Cupid. On the contrary our profession seem always to have been peculiarly impressible in this way, and the story of the "lovers of the lawyers," as told by Jeaffreson, and as traced in Lord Campbell's Lives, and other legal biographies, is full of tragic and comic interest. Full also of moral lessons, for it exhibits an amount of frailty, to use no harsher expression, that would be noticeable in common men; how much more in ermined magistrates! One writer on law, at least, endeavored to coat the pill of legal education with the sugar of love. Martial d'Auvergne, of France, in 1500, published a book entitled "Declarations, Proceedings, and Degrees of Love, pronounced in the court and at the Bar of Cupid, in the case of different disputes heard before that magistrate." It was a grave law treatise, but applied to fictitious and amusing cases, as, for instance, "Process between two lovers wooing the same lady," or "Concerning a kiss taken by force by a lover, against which the lady appealed," or "An action brought by a lover against his mistress to compel her to take down a cage containing a quail, which kept up a continual noise whenever it saw him at the door of the lady." This seems a sensible idea, for we are generally in love at the period when we are reading law. To give an idea of the gallantry of the lawyers of that century, we may recall the story of Pasquier and the flea. Pasquier was a great lawyer, a man of wit and learning, "the Jekyll of his day." While attending the assizes at Poictiers, he called on Madame des Roches, and her daughter Catherine. The latter had another visitor in the shape of a flea, that invaded her fair bosom. The great advocate made a witty allusion to the insect's excellent taste in the selection of a situation. The young lady jestingly answered, and quite a contest of wit ensued. Finally it was agreed that they should compose and exchange epigrams on the incident. This was done, and the verses created great amusement among the bar. The fame of the incident spread all over France. De Harley, president of the court, complimented Pasquier in an epigram; De Soulfour, president of parliament, and Brisson, and others, composed verses on the subject, some in Latin, some in French. Pasquier collected all these verses in a small volume called "The Flea." Rapier made a Latin epigram at the expense of the lawyers engaged in this trifling, which may be thus translated: The court is sure of watchful lawyers now, Because a gnat is buzzing round each brow. Perhaps, while we are about it, we may as well translate the concluding lines of Pasquier's poem Since thou mock'st the prettiest things, Since thou hast a pair of wings, So resembling Cupid fair, I will make to thee one prayer, That my girl, through bites by thee, In the love affairs of Sir Thomas More, the great man showed his magnanimity. Mr. John Colt, of Essex, had two daughters, "whose honest and sweet conversation and virtuous education, enticed Sir Thomas not a little." His affection inclined him to the younger and better-favored, but, because he thought it would be a grief to the elder to have the younger preferred before her, the good man married the elder. They lived happily, and had four children, and then she died. Then he married a hard-favored, practical widow, who, when he was shut up in the tower, counseled him to yield to the king, and regain his "right fair house at Chelsea." Sir Thomas' reply is fragrant after three centuries: "Is not this house as near heaven as my own?" When one is told that Coke despised science and literature, and made but one joke, and that a poor one, in the whole course of his life, it really does one good to learn that he had a termagant wife. She was the widow of Sir William Hatton, daughter of Sir Thomas Cecil, granddaughter of Lord Burleigh, and cousin of Francis Bacon, who, by the way, was Coke's rival for her hand. The nuptials were privately celebrated, without license or publication, and all the parties escaped excommunication only by begging pardon and pleading ignorance. Their married life was a perpetual squabble, in public and in private. The wife lived in great state and revelry in the palace, which was Sir Christopher Hatton's, and Coke pleaded causes and wrote books. To quote Dixon's language: "He is penurious, she profuse. He loves folios and a farthing candle; she lights and revels, masques and plays. By day and night, a rout of fiddlers, dancers, wizards, lovers and magicians pour through the galleries of her great mansion, looking on the Fleet. Coke shrinks in shame from the sight of all this devilry to his den in Sergeants' Inn. Their misery makes the sport of wits and gallants." Finally Coke falls into disgrace at court, and is deposed from the bench. His wife "packs up her furniture and plate, leaps into her coach, and leaves him in his loneliness and rage." Afterward she entertained the king and queen at Hatton House, and expressly forbade her husband to be present. As if they had not enough capital for misery in themselves, they must quarrel over their child, Frances, whose beauty Jonson thus celebrated: "Though your either cheek discloses Coke wanted to sell this beauty and heiress to old Sir John Villiers, whose brother, Buckingham, was to restore the disgraced judge to royal favor. Lady Hatton steals away the child, in a coach, at the dead of night, and hides in the house of a friend in the country. Coke pursues, and, with an armed force, and without warrant, breaks in the door and carries off the child. The child is taken from him by the court, and he is cited before the star-chamber, but matters are finally patched up after a fashion. Fortunately Coke's reputation for wisdom does not rest on the choice of a wife, nor on his conduct toward her. had written a little treatise in favor of polygamy. These extravagant assertions led an English wit to represent Voltaire as maintaining that the custodian of the great seal was called lord keeper because he was permitted to keep as many wives as he pleased. He was married twice, and ought to have been three times. The chancellor's brother, Spencer, was the subject of a most tragic love affair. Sarah Stout, a pretty Quaker girl, of an influential and respectable Hertford family, fell madly in love with him, and pursued him in public and private with speech and letters. He was unable to reciprocate her affection, for he was already incumbered by the lien of a wife. While attending circuit at Hertford, he and Sarah had an interview at evening in her mother's house, which did not terminate satisfactorily to Sarah, and next morning she was found drowned in a mill stream behind the house. The jury returned a verdict of suicide. But Spencer's tory enemies, and the Quakers, to save their sect from the stigma of suicide, brought him to trial, in 1699, on the charge of murdering the unfortunate Sir Matthew Hale's second wife was his own servant-maid, and Baxter says: "Some made it a scandal, but his wisdom chose it for his convenience, that in his age, he married a woman of no estate, to be to him a nurse.' Sir Matthew did not put it on this ground, but said: "There is no wisdom below the girdle." In his will he called his wife "a most dutiful, faithful and loving wife," made her an executor, and intrusted her with the education of his grand-girl to cover up the evidences of a criminal interchildren. On the whole, Sir Matthew was just to the sex, although, now and then, he executed one of them for witchcraft. - Jeffries, though not the purest or the most popular of judges, was a man of attractive person, of wit, a good story-teller, an excellent boon companion, and a great lady-killer. "Women declared him irresistible. At court he had the ear"-perhaps more"of Nell Gwyn and the Dutchess of Portsmouth," which shows that he was not to be accused of sectarian bigotry, for the one was "the Protestant favorite, and the other the Catholic mistress." He had his romance, too. He was in love with an heiress, daughter of a rural squire, and had induced her to consent to elope with him if her father would not approve the match. "The old man was not agreeable," and the young lady sent a messenger to Jeffries to notify him that elopement was impossible, and union forbidden." The messenger, the daughter of a poor clergyman, having been the companion and quasi servant of Jeffries' mistress, had been turned out of doors by the father for aiding the lovers to meet, and had come to London for employment. She was pretty, needy, and in distress, and Jeffries' fell in love with her and married her. Let us hope he used her well, so that he may have one apologist in Heaven. On one Chief Justice Holt had a shrewish wife. occasion she fell very sick, whereupon his lordship was encouraged to hope for a release from his torments. The lady, with her ruling passion strong in death, called in Dr. Radcliffe, with whom her husband was at bitter enmity. He, probably out of spite to his enemy, exerted himself so effectually that he cured his patient, who lived to worry her husband for a space, and then to bury him. William Cowper had been wild in his youth, and in consequence of some of the irregular associations of his boyish days, the charge of bigamy, or worse, was brought against him, even after his elevation to the chancellorship. In the "Philosophical Dictionary," Voltaire accused him of having two wives, "who lived together in his house with a singular amity that did honor to all three." He added that the chancellor 66 course. The charge was not sustained by any legal testimony, and he was acquitted. He rose to be judge of the common pleas, and, in trials for murder, was ever cautious and mercifully inclined, remembering the great peril which he himself had undergone." Would it not be beneficial to some of our own judges, who seem to consider themselves a sort of assistant to the district attorney, to subject them to a similar ordeal? Lord Chancellor Thurlow, although vigorous in his enforcement of the laws of man, seems to have had little regard for those of God. He was very profane. He lived publicly with a mistress, by whom he had several illegitimate children, and, in the mansion where he kept this left-handed family, he was visited by deans and bishops, who came, not to expostulate, but to solicit favors. His illegitimate daughters moved unquestioned in the best society, and formed good matches. His lordship was never turned out of any drawing-room in London. We are not informed that his mistress participated in these social advantages, but why not we cannot conceive. It is certainly no worse to be a lord chancellor's mistress than to be that lord chancellor. Speaking of Thurlow's intercourse with Mrs. Hervey, Lord Campbell observes: "When I first knew the profession it would not have been endured that any one in a judicial situation should have had such a domestic establishment as that of Thurlow's; but a majority of judges had married their mistresses. The understanding then was, that a man elevated to the bench, if he had a mistress, must either marry her or put her away. For many years there has been no necessity for such an alternative." The famous black letter lawyer, Sergeant Hill, who was very absent-minded, committed an error on the morning of his marriage to Miss Medlycott, that perhaps lay at the bottom of a good deal of subsequent domestic unhappiness; he became absorbed in business with some clients, and failed to put in an appearance until the bride had been waiting for him an hour. The law chamber seemed to have more fascination for him than the bridal chamber, too, for he went back to the consultation immediately after the ceremony. After this we don't blame madam for keeping her own name, which she was authorized by act of parliament to do, nor for making the sergeant go in and out by the kitchen steps, so that he might not soil the pipe-clayed front steps. Mrs. Medlycott was not singular in using her own name after marriage. Lady Hatton never dropped her own name after her marriage with Coke. Lord Campbell married Baroness Strathedon, who always carried her own name. This once caused a curious misapprehension. During an official journey with her husband, she once slept at lodgings which he had frequently occupied when he was upon the circuit. The next morning the landlady sought him, and thus expostulated: "Sir John, I am a lone widow, and live by my good name. It is not in my humble place to be too curious about the ladies brought to my lodgings by my patrons. It is not in me to make remarks if a counselor's lady changes her complexion and the color of her eyes every assizes. But, Sir John, a gentleman ought not to bring a lady to a lone widow's lodgings, unless, so long as he okkipies the apartments, he makes all honorable professions that the lady is his wife, and, as such, gives her the use of his name." The profession, under the law of marriage prevailing in this state, would be wary of adopting such a course, even to soothe a landlady's feelings. When Jack Scott ran away with pretty Bessie Surtess, a Newcastle infant, he probably did not foresee that he was destined to be lord chancellor and ex officio guardian of all the infants of England. Bessie's parents, who were of good degree and wealth, designed the girl for an old patrician, who sought her hand, but Bessie did not coincide with them, and so, to-day, the visitor at Newcastle is pointed to a blue pane that marks the window from which Bessie descended to the arms of her lover. The use to which the lovers put it perhaps is no part of the doctrine of "ancient lights." In spite of the stories which Eldon used to tell, in his old age, about the privations of the young couple, we are informed that the respective parents speedily came together and to an agreement, and Bessie lived with her husband in New Inn Hall, Oxford. Here he read to the law students the lectures of Sir Robert Chambers, the Vinerian professor, who was also a judge in India, and, in spite of Sir Boyle Roche, who insisted that "no person except a bird can be in two places at once," he managed, by this agency, to draw two salaries. If we may believe Eldon which is doubtful - the first lecture happened to be on the old statute, "of young men running away with maidens," which caused much giggling among his auditors. The husband promised his wife his fees on retainers received during the last month of each year, for pocket-money; her share, during this first year, amounted to half a guinea, and the first eleven months brought the husband not a cent. Jack and Bessie agreed admirably all their lives, even to being excessively and morbidly stingy. Lady Eldon died before her husband, and, after her death, he could never be persuaded to revisit Newcastle. "How can I pass that bridge ?" he would say, and then, after a payse, "Poor Bessie! if ever there was an angel on earth, she was one. The only reparation which one man can make to another for running away with his Lord Eldon's brother, William, Lord Stowell, as prudent in pecuniary matters, was not so fortunate in his love affairs as the chancellor. A widower, at the age of sixty-nine, he met his doom in the person of the beautiful but high-tempered widow of the Marquis of Sligo, daughter of Admiral Howe. The place was the court room, the occasion the trial of her son, before Lord Ellenborough and Sir William, for enticing and pressing two of the king's seamen into his yacht. The accused was heavily fined and imprisoned, and, in addition, Sir William gave him a paternal lecture on the duties and responsibilities of men in high station. The marchioness, who had sat by her son throughout the trial, at its conclusion, wrote in pencil and sent up to Sir William a few words of thanks for his kindness and consideration toward her son, accompanied by the wish that the erring youth could always have the advantage of such wise counsel. This hint, with a smile from the bright eyes of the beautiful termagant, sealed Sir William's fate. Within four months he led her to the altar. The match so displeased his brother, Eldon, that he would not attend the wedding, doubtless thinking that, however prudent it may be to run away with a young woman, it is the height of folly to be run away with by an old one. No end of epigrams and other jokes were made on the occasion by Jekyll and the other jesters of the bar, and society was in a convulsion of merriment at the affair. The bride tormented the old man with ingenious malice. He was a most polished gentleman of the old school, and one of her favorite resorts to mortify him was to reproach him before company with his ill-breeding! At the end of five years death came to terminate his sufferings,-by taking his wife. The picture of the married life of Sir Samuel Romilly is one of the most delightful amity, and increases the respect and affection which we feel toward this pure, great, and high-minded advocate the model lawyer and the model husband. It was fitting that the loving and faithful pair should not be long separated, and so we read, hardly with surprise, although with tender regret, that three days after the death of his wife, Sir Samuel put an end to his own existence, in a fit of delirium caused by grief. We have not extended our researches on this subject to American lawyers, but one touching incident rests in our recollection of the life of William Wirt. In his younger days he was a victim to that passion for intoxicating drinks which seems peculiarly the bane of our profession. Affianced to a beautiful and accomplished young woman, he had made and broken repeated pledges of amendment, and she, after patiently and kindly enduring his disgraceful habit, had at length dismissed him, deeming him incorrigible. Their next meeting, after his dismissal, was in a public street of the city of Richmond. William Wirt lay drunk and asleep, on the sidewalk, on a hot summer day, the rays of the sun pouring down on his uncovered head, and the flies crawling over his swollen features. As the young lady approached in her walk, her attention was attracted by the spectacle, |