a science, yet an ever-moving science. No man is more glad of the to-morrow than Judge Doe. He welcomes changed condi tions of things, and is ready to meet them with his strong, clear reason. " Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Judge Doe is the combination of mental qualities not often found in the same person. He unites extra ordinary quickness of perception with great power of patient and thorough research. He dissects at once each case brought before him, discerning, as if by intuition, the vital legal point on which it turns." " Although familiar with legal literature, and having a keen scent for authorities, he has also a rare power of finding the true legal path in cases where there are no authorities to serve as guides. . . . He is fully capable of original investigation." To those who would know the legal origi nality and ability of Chief-Justice Doe, I commend the following cases, — Boardman v. Woodman, 47 N. H., and State v. Pike, 49 N. H. In these opinions are thoughts that come pretty near the genius line. In the Church Case (Holt v. Downes, 58 N. H.) he dissents from the famous decisions of Parker and Shaw in Massachusetts. In Orr v. Quimby, 54 N. H., Judge Doe does not agree with his court. Darling v. West moreland, 52 N. H., is highly interesting as bearing on collateral issues in evidence. Hoit v. Stratton Mills, 54 N. H., shows his independence of reasoning; also in Brown v. Whipple, 58 N. H. He discusses the point as to whether sharing profits consti tutes partnership in Eastman v. Clark, 53 N. H. In Burke v. R. R., 61 N. H., Judge Doe lays down his ideas of the Powers of Corporations under a Charter. In Wooster v. Plymouth, 62 N. H., the Chief-Justice presents his views on Jury trials. Taxation is considered in State v. United States and Canada Express Co., 60 N. H.; while in 62 N. H., a will case (Sanborn v. Sanborn), we have a masterpiece both of legal learning and judicial rhetoric. In Wells v. Foster, 64 N. H., Judge Doe delivers an opinion in six lines.
When the vacancy on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, caused by the death of Nathan Clifford, was to be filled, Chief-Justice Doe was urged for that position; and among the recommendations at that time was one by Gov. Charles H. Bell, which illustrates the esteem with which the New Hampshire jurist is held. To His Excellency the President : I respectfully recommend Charles Doe, pres ent Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, for appointment to the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the place of the late Judge Clifford. I regard Judge Doe as one of the ablest jurists of the country. He is a man of marked indi viduality, of decided convictions, a careful stu dent, but not a mere book lawyer, being thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the law, and not afraid to overrule a clearly erroneous opinion of whatever standing. I should regret extremely to lose Judge Doe from New Hampshire; but if he should be trans ferred to the National Court, the country would be the gainer. Charles H. Bell. Exeter, N. H., Oct. 14, 1881. While presiding at the law term, Judges Allen, Clark, and Carpenter sit at the right of the Chief; at his left are Judges Smith, Blodgett, and Bingham, each having his place assigned according to the date of his appoint ment. William H. H. Allen is the senior justice, having come upon the bench at the establishment of the court. He is a man of strong and tenacious mind, a deep and per sistent student, and in all things a hard worker. Before his promotion to the bench, Judge Allen had been registrar of bank ruptcy, and brought to his new position a wide knowledge of that branch of jurispru dence. Other mental pursuits find their way to Judge Allen's leisure hours, for he has never neglected those college studies that brought him such high rank in the classes of his Alma Mater. Cavendish and Allen are intimate acquaintances.
