Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/255

 226

with unusual warmth, denouncing with great bitterness those who entertained opinions different from his own. The case was argued before Judge Benjamin Tappan, who held against Goodenow, from which a bitter controversy between Tappan and Goode now arose, resulting in an action for slander brought by Goodenow against Tappan, re ported in i Ohio, 61. The point of differ ence in the case was as to whether the com mon law in relation to the punishment of crimes was ever in force in the State, Goode now maintaining that it was not, while Judge Tappan held that it was, and was in the wrong. Judge Tappan set out fully his views in his opinion in Tappan's Reports, Ohio v. Lafferty, p. 113, claiming that the common law was in force, as there was no statute prescribing the forms of procedure, arguing at great length. Judge Goodenow was so incensed and wrought up over the matter that he wrote and published a book entitled, " Historical Sketches of the Princi ples and Maxims of American Jurisprudence, in Contrast with the Doctrines of the English Common-Law, on the Subject of Crimes and Punishments." The object and purpose of the book was to show that we have no com mon law crimes in Ohio. This was so held in Mitchell v. State, 42 O. S. 386. There has been a great desire on the part of members of the bar to see this volume written by Judge Goodenow, but it seems impossible to find a copy. The same quarrelsome disposition fol lowed him when he became judge in his new home in Cincinnati, and differed with his associates as to the appointment of a clerk, which finally resulted in his resigna tion from the bench. He frequently came in contact with Samuel Culbertson of Zanesville, who held the verdicts of juries in his hand. They were matched against each other on one occasion in a slander case. Goodenow had a plain case for the plaintiff. Culbertson made a pathetic appeal to the jury, and concluded by turning to Goode

now, who was walking back and forth with his hands behind him,, and exclaiming: "But, gentlemen, you must prepare for a storm. I see the dark clouds rising, and there is Goodenow sucking wind! " Goode now started as if stung by a serpent, made a loose, disconnected address, and secured a verdict for one dollar damages. Goodenow was a man of great energy, with a hasty and irascible temper. He would at times unbend and make himself sportive and playful, though it was unnat ural. His temper lacked the coolness and self-command essential to a skillful use of those formidable but double-edged weapons — satire and irony. He submitted without a murmur to what is supposed by some to be the fate of a good lawyer — to work hard, live well, and die poor. Henry Brush came to Ohio from New York in 1803, engaging in practice at Chillicothe for twenty years. It was said that he did not rank high in ability. He was prosecuting attorney in 1808 and 1809; a member of the Legislature in 18 10, of the Ohio Senate in 18 14, and of Congress from 1 8 19 to 182 1, and afterwards a member of the Supreme Court. In 1838 he abandoned the practice of the law, and took up farming. He died in Madison County in 1860 at the age of eighty years. Reuben Wood was born in Vermont in 1792. Served in the war of 18 12. Emi grated to Ohio in 18 18, settling in Cleve land. When he landed at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River, he found only a hamlet of huts. Mr. Wood was compelled to apply to the Supreme Court then in session at Ravenna, for authority to practice law, and on account of his poverty took the journey from Cleveland to Ravenna on foot. Though his possessions, when he first settled, con sisted of his wife, daughter, and a silver quarter of a dollar, he soon stepped into a lucrative practice. In 1825 he was elected state senator, and