Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1867-02-22
Value of hard Study:

Chief Justice Parsons. at the c,Usp Of tho
last century, had the credit nf being the
most learned lawyer in New England, and
the promptness with which he met new
points. and answered them by an appeal to
authorities. Occa>ioncd universal surprise
Bat when ust beginning practice. he had
access to the law library of Judge TrO-
bridge, the best in New England, and lit
orally mastered it. making briefs of tho
most important caser. enough to fill vol
ums in manuscript. This gave him at once
Il brilliant reputation and s1tcess. His son
gives two instances to illustrate:
"Mv father went TO Hartford, Conn.,, re-
tanned by the State Hf Connecticut. to meet
Alexander Hamilton in Il case to be tried
before Chief Justice Ellsworth, Alter the
trial. he dned at Mr.. Wndsworth's, who
had invited tn" leading members Of the
court and bar then at Hartford At dinner
Hamilton said, "Air. Parsons. pray let me
ask You one thing. The point madc.'
describing iD "was suggested to me after
much study of the case and then almost
by accident, hut thonsht it VERY strong.
l'cu We're fully prepared for it. and gather
cd and exhibited the authorities ut oncc
and prevailed. and must; hut was a
good deal surprised at ii; and what want
to know is. whether yen had anticipated
that point :" Not in the least" WAS the
answer; "but so long ago as when | was
studying with Judge Trowbridgc the qucs
ton was suggested to me. and 1 made a
brief OF the authorities which l happened
to have brought with NE. and 4 found the
books in Judge Ellsworih's library"
The other is told hy himself. 'While I
was studying in Byti,ld. Judge Trcwbridse
said to me that he thought the practice Of
the English common law courts, I'm rpqnir-
ing pro0t of will devising real estate,
wherever it was to be uscd in those courts
in support "f titlc should not be held as
applicable here. because, from the nature
ana practice OF our coGrts OF probate, and
their relation to other courts, the original
proof i'll probate ousht ia Ne sufficient and
conclusive. and ii the will were subscqucn-
tly wanted as evidence in another com: I,
record os the judgement ard decree of pro.
bate shoaid be cnoush, and indeed all that
could be there received, hccaus those in.
quiries which precede probate belong here
rexclusivey to Il court of probate, Accord
iu.ly examined this aacsticn, and made
my brief, and filed it away.
almost the first case Rad in court
presented thia QUESTION: | was junior
counsrl, and my senior was one of the
leading lawyers Of the day. We needed t."
use will which had received probate ; but
the witnesses by whom we could prove it
anew, i'll the Englisl fashion. were unex-
p 'ctediy absent. ! eUssestcd to luy senior
that this new prdos Has Unnecessary. Non.
srns',' said he, Il shall make no such
point as that May then , said |. Yes.
hut on your own responsibility. ! made,
the point. The court said the practice was
uniformly against me. here as well as in
England, they had no doubt about it, bus
if wished to he heard in support OF any
new views. they woald hero me. Where
upon argued from my brief. and just n.
well as if had had II month "fprcparati, n
satisfied the count. succeeded in my paint
and gained a most undescrvcd reputation
for marvellous readiness aud universal
knowledge. And ! fonnd the effects II
this in the immediate Increase Of my busi-
ness"