Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/591

 548

Winkle and Mr. Stoughton of New York, and others in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Philadelphia and other places. It may be no exaggeration to say that a stronger array of legal talent was never engaged in a single case between private parties in this country, and at the head of all confessedly stood Daniel Webster. The case excited great interest, not only at Trenton, but throughout the State and in other parts of the country, especially in New York and the eastern cities, principally on account of its great importance to the India-rubber manufacturing interests. The distinguished counsel engaged at tracted members of the bar and many others from the localities named, the great est desire being to see and hear Mr. .Web ster. The Court opened in the State Supreme Court Rooms, at the State House, which were then used for holding the United States Court; but those rooms not being arranged for many spectators, when the hearing was begun, the Court adjourned to the County Court House, where the com modious Court Room would accommodate a large audience and it was densely packed during the trial. A rather amusing incident occurred be fore the hearing of the case was commenced. In some preliminary skirmishing on the part of the defense, a reply became neces sary on behalf of the complainant. His at torney and counsel named were sitting by the side of a long table, Mr. Dickerson in front nearest the Court, Mr. Brady behind him, and Mr. Webster back of the latter. Mr. Webster and Mr. Dickerson both rose simultaneously to speak, but Mr. Dickerson's voice was first heard. He had not seen Mr. Webster rise and Mr. Brady im mediately pulled him down and told him that Mr. Webster would reply. Mr. Dick erson apologized profusely to Mr. Webster, but the latter, who had become seated, was evidently angry at what he considered a

usurpation of his province by Mr. Dickerson, would not rise again, and the exhibition of anger he showed and the withering look he gave Mr. Dickerson, was beyond de scription and was doubtless remembered by the latter. Mr. Brady replied for his side, and probably smoothed the matter over, as during the progress of the trial afterwards harmony seemed to prevail and the incident apparently forgotten, or at least overlooked by the senior counsel. The argument of the four counsel occu pied eight days, each one consuming about two, Mr. Webster being slightly the shortest. Mr. Brady opened for the complainant (plaintiff) and presented that side of the case with his usual great ability. His argu ment showed that he was thoroughly famil iar with the facts appearing in the volumes of printed evidence containing in the aggre gate over 4000 pages; that he understood the law pertaining to patents and the points involved, in short, that he had thoroughly mastered the case, and was able to present it to the court in the most convincing man ner in behalf of his client. While referring to the testimony and commenting upon it, Judge Grier reminded him that he need only refer the court to such parts of the evidence as were important to determine the case, and said that the court could not be ex pected to read it all, as they would never have time to do it, but if counsel would call the attention of the court to the material points in it, and inform the court in about what part of the library it could be found, whether in the north, south, east or west side, they would endeavor to look it up during the summer and consider it. Mr. Brady was followed by Mr. Choate for the defendant. Owing to his position as a public man, his well-known ability as a lawyer, and his high reputation for elo quence and great command of language, by his facility to use and know when to apply all the words in the dictionary, he attracted more attention and curiosity to see and hear