Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/696

 THADDEUS STEVENS dropped, joining heartily in the laugh evoked at his own expense. He was quick to discern when he caught a Tartar. He once won a close case by making an important witness against him, a very plain Amishman, admit on the witness stand that he was a ' ' horse-jockey " — a term which he used with telling effect upon a jury of farmers. In his defense, in the Adams County Court, of Taylor, tried for the murder of Bluebaugh, the principal witness for the Commonwealth swore to the declaration, made by the accused at the time of the shooting, "By G—d, I have shot him." Mr. Stevens succeeded in getting the wit ness to state that the words might have been "My God, I have shot him," with all the force an exclamation of surprise and regret would have, in contrast with one of malicious acknowledgment and satisfaction; and thus Mr. Stevens acquitted his client. When Mr. Stevens returned from Con gress in 1853, after two terms of rather con spicuous service, he reasonably expected1 no further official experience. Not only was rotation the rule, but he had not yet become a controlling factor in local politics. The enlargement of his practice, the restoration of his fortune, and the redemption of his property had much to do with his change of purpose; but the organization of the Re publican party, its aggressive attitude against the extension of slavery, and the increasing arrogance of the South opened the path to his reelection in 1858. That year saw his last recorded appearance in the Supreme Court, and thereafter his docket shows but desultory attention to the business of his office. His last notable case in the local court was at the January Oyer and Terminer of 1860, in Lancaster County, when he ap peared with David Paul Brown, of Phila delphia; William Darlington and J. Smith Futhey, of Chester County, in the defense of Sylvester McPhillen (so indicted, other wise "McFillen"), charged with murder. The case was one of the most famous and

655

the trial one of the most exciting in the annals of the Lancaster Bar. The parties resided on the extreme eastern border of Lancaster County, and the homicide oc curred along, if not across, the Chester County line. McFillen was indicted for the murder of Thomas G. Henderson. There was a long standing feud between the two families, who represented respectively the old aristocratic and more pretentious Eng lish element of the community and the rougher and more popular Irish class. They met on August u, 1859, at a "picnic," a semi-public function rather of the charac ter of a harvest home. Three Henderson brothers were there and two of the McFillens, with attendant partisan friends. There was a series of altercations; one of the incidents was McFillen hurling a goodsized stone, which struck Thomas G. Hen derson on the back of the head. At first he was not supposed to have been seriously injured, but he died four days later. Each party to the controversy had its adherents, and for months preceding the trial there was a rancorous feud, which gradually involved almost the entire neigh borhood. The late Col. Emlen Franklin was district attorney, but the manuscript indictment is in the handwriting of one of his colleagues; Hon. Isaac E. Hiester, one of Stevens' political antagonists, the late Col. William B. Fordney and Hon. 0. J. Dickey, all eminent lawyers of their day, having been specially retained to prosecute the defendant to the utmost. The indict ment was found at the November term, but there was a plea "against the jurisdiction of the court," it having been contended either that the stone was thrown or that its victim was struck on the Chester County side of the line. The plea was overruled. At that time the new provisions of the Criminal Code of March 31, 1860, providing for the trial of offenses committed near the boundaries of counties, had not yet been adopted. In the report on the Penal Code, the new 48th and 49th sections (which pro