ments prescribed in former laws;—as whipping upon the naked back, standing in the pillory or on the gallows, cropping the ear, branding with a hot iron, the wearing of significant letters upon the outer garment in open view, indicating the crime for which the party had been convicted, &c., and had substituted therefor fines and imprisonment. Among the later changes are the creation of degrees in murder; the simplification of indictments for murder and manslaughter, forgery or counterfeiting, larceny, and some other offenses, and of criminal proceedings generally by the act of 1870, which provides for amendment of formal defects, &c. The allowance of limited peremptory challenges of jurors in behalf of the state, and the license accorded to the prisoner on trial to testify in his own behalf, are important changes.

It must be with a kind of regret that the old lawyer whose reputation for success in defense was won by his superior acuteness in discerning and skill in taking advantage of technical defects in an indictment, or other pleading, who has once and again saved his rascal from state's prison by virtue of a misnomer, or a variance, by an omission to state time and place in laying the offence charged, the use of an impossible date, or the like, now sees his past successes turned to a laughing stock, by these changes in the law and in practice. He will be apt to say that this tampering with the old law is only a concession to the want of learning and of skill in prosecuting officers, offering a premium upon dullness, and that you have deprived a trial of half the pleasure of the game. The state might answer that it cannot afford to make its trials mere games of skill for the amusement or profit of the legal profession, or as an educational scheme for sharpening the wits of such, when the consequence is likely to be a general jail deliv

ery for the guilty; that prosecuting officers are such of the young men of the bar as the people of the counties see fit to elect, and that to require of them highest technical and formal skill in matters of no substantial importance would be to ensure failure. It is essential to the public good that no offense charged should fail of conviction and punishment except for want of due proof, on trial. Any thing nicely artificial in the pleadings, or forms and modes of proceeding, not necessary for the protection of the innocence of the accused, or for securing him a fair trial of the issue, guilty or not guilty, only affords a a loop-hole for the escape of the guilty without trial of the question of his guilt, or notwithstanding proof of his guilt. If every man whose guilt can be made manifest upon a fair trial by full proof, should be impelled by the hand of the law unerringly to conviction and punishment, this certainty of consequence would greatly deter from the commission of crime. In securing this end, the state may justify itself in seeing to it that it is not outwitted.

The changes in the law to which I have referred have been changes in legislation. There has been also in the administration of the law by courts a corresponding disposition manifested to take less account of the mint, annis and cummin as compared with the weightier matters of the law; and this not so much by an aggressive breaking down of purely technical rules, or disregard of them when insisted upon, as by a liberality in allowing amendments of discovered defects at almost any stage of the trial.

If you ask me to institute a comparison between the conduct of trials in court thirty to fifty years ago and those of this day, I should be forced to say that the ancient lawyer had better learned his Chitty, paid closer attention to his pleadings, and

was more vigilantly watched by his adversary than the present; that trials were conducted with stricter attention to the strict rules of a trial than now ;-as, in the matter of the admissibility of evidence; the order of its admission; the mode of examination and cross-examination of witnesses; of taking objections, &c. The judges of those days were not accustomed to. let a case drift at will, but were themselves apt to interpose to cut off interminable questioning and iteration, to check the putting of leading or impertinent questions; the repetition of the answer of the witness for the sake of emphasis, or its repetition, with artful variation, with purpose to pervert; the keeping up, by counsel, of a running commentary upon the testimony as given in, and other like departures from rule or decorum. One result was, that cases were tried in much less time than now, and, as I think, with stricter professional art than now, but whether with results more consonant with the true merits and substantial justice of the particular case, I will not say. Indeed I may have said too much already for modern ears, and so brought myself within the proverb, applied to one who has outstayed his day, hinting of age and decay-laudator temporis acti.

It remains for the members of the bar, younger than myself, to take up and perfect such further reforms in the law and its administration as the changes of society and the better spirit of the times may from time to time demand; to which end this association commends itself to the bar and the people of Vermont, as an instrumentality of great power for good.

CHARLES N. DAVENPORT.

PAPER BY KITTREDGE HASKINS.

MR. PRESIDENT:

Each succeeding year brings the invisible hand of death nearer and nearer to all of us. Each individual life must have its conclusion, while society will continue to move on in perpetual process or endless chain. Whether worn by toil, or chastened by disappointments and afflictions, or having lived through the world and profited by all its leading ideas and suggestions, and having gained its wealth, attained to its distinctions, and won its honors, every man grows weary at last and longs for rest-that eternal rest, where is found peace, hope, life. That invisible hand has gathered to the “unseen world" some of those our brethren-who were with us at our annual meeting one year ago.

From a voice, now forever silent, came first the words of encouragement and counsel that led me to adopt the profession of the law as a life pursuit, and has gained for me a place in this association. Feeling, therefore, a sense of gratitude for the kindness of that friend, as well as a sincere regard for the man, I cheerfully comply with your request to prepare a brief biographical sketch of our deceased brother-Charles N. Davenport, to be read on this occasion.

It was my fortune to enjoy the acquaintance of Mr. Davenport--and I feel deeply conscious, even some portion of his

friendly regard-for a longer period, probably, than any other member of the bar of this state. I first became acquainted with him during the year 1850, through an elder brother of mine, between whom and the deceased there had for several years existed relations of the closest intimacy. In October, 1854, I became a student in his office, and upon my admission to the bar in April, 1858, I became his partner, and remained with him until April 1, 1861.

Charles Newton Davenport was the eldest son of Calvin N. and Lucy W. Davenport, and was born at Leyden, in the county of Franklin and state of Massachusetts, October 20, 1830. He was educated in the common schools of his native town, at the Shelburne Falls (Mass.) Academy, and at the Melrose Seminary, in West Brattleboro. He entered the office of the Hon. Oscar L. Shafter of Wilmington, Vt., as a student of the law, March 10, 1851, and was admitted as an attorney at the April term, 1854, of the Windham county court. Immediately upon his admission to the bar, he formed a copartnership with Mr. Shafter, which continued until Nov. 10, 1855, when it was dissolved, in consequence of the decision of Mr. Shafter to permanently remain in California, where he had been since October, 1854, in the employment of the law firm of Halleck, Park, Peachey & Billings. Mr. Davenport remained at Wilmington in the active practice of his profession until his removal to Brattleboro in March, 1868, where he ever after resided. Here he found a wider field, and more important causes were intrusted to his care, entailing upon him a correspondingly larger amount of labor. In June, 1875, desiring to be relieved of a portion of his largely increased and increasing business and responsibilities, which even then were overtasking his powers, both mental and physical, he took into partnership with him