Page:The Granite Monthly Volume 5.djvu/310

 28o THE GRANITE MONTHLY.

by the full bench, and another trial is likely to ensue. He is lead- ing counsel for defendant in the National Bank of Newbury (Vt.) 7's\ The Penacook Savings Bank, an important case now pending before the law term, involving some $12,000. He is engaged for the defense in what are known as the Chamberlain cases, now pending in the Grafton court, involving tide to a large amount of land in Littleton and Lisbon, and in which he is credited with having marie some of the best legal arguments produced during his entire ca- reer. He is also of counsel for defendants in the suits recently entered in the United States Circuit Court, by the New Hampshire Laivl Campany against Henry L. Tilton, William J. Bellows, J. I']. Henry, and others, involving title to a large portion of the territory of what is known as New Bethlehem, including many thousand acres of valuable timberland. He has been retained as counsel for the town of Littleton in all legal controversies for a long series of years, and in this relation has effectively served its interests in various important suits, the most noted being that of Sirgent 7'^-. Littleton — a suit f jr damages in the sum of $30,000, for injuries from a fall upon the sidewalk, which was tried and strongly contested, and resulted in a disagreement of the jury. But the various suits in equity, brought at different times in the Supreme Court, generally known as the Concord Railroad cases, and which have excited great interest in the state during the last twelve years or more, have probably afforded greater scope for his powers, and brought him more distinc- tion than any other in which he has been engaged. His arguments an 1 briefs in these cases have been master-pieces of legal research and acumen, fully es- tablishing his rank among tlie first lawyers of New England.

Some time before his death the late Chief Jusdce Perley, than whom no man was better qualified to form a correct estimate of the abilities of New Hampshire lawyers, expressed the opinion that there was no other man at the bar in the state who, when suddenly called upon to deal with an intricate cjuestion of law, or to sustain a position with- out authorities at command, could so readily master the situation from his own resources, upon the basis of principle and analogy, as could Mr. Bing- ham.

For the first six years of his professional career he wis without a partner. In July, 1852, his brother, George A., who had been in practice some three or four years at Lyndon, Vt., came to Littleton, and the two formed a copartner- shi]) which continued under the style of H. & G. .\. Bingham until 1S59, when the firm of Woods & Binghams was constituted, ex Chief Justice Woods, of Bath, and his son, Edward, being associated with them in practice, the firm maintaining offices in both places, Harry Bingham remaining at Litdeton, and Edward Woods taking George A. Bingham's place in the office, while the latter went to Bath with Judge Woods. It may also be stated, in passing, that, for a time, during the last Congressional term of Hon. Harry Hibbard, in 1854-55, the Messrs. Bingham had an arrangement with him by which they looked after his law practice, and Harry Bingham spent a portion of the time in his office in Bath. The copartnership of Woods tS: Binghams continued about three years, when it was dissolved, and that of H. & G. A. Bingham renewed, George A. Bingham returning to Littleton, and Edward Woods, to Bath. This firm continued until 1870, when it was dissolved by mutual agree- ment. In April, 1875, John M. Mitchell, who had studied law in his office, became a partner with Mr. Bingham in practice, the firm being known as Eingham & M'tchell. In July, 1879, Albert S. Batchellor was admitted to the firm, the style being changed to Bingham, Mitchell & Batchellor. In July, 1 88 1, William H. Mitchell, a brother of John M., who had also pursued his studies in the office, was taken into the partnership, which has subsequently

�� �