HISTORY OF STEUBEN COUNTY, NEW YORK. 



67 



labors in the court-room ; there too John C. Spencer, Elisha 

 Williams, Samuel A. Talcott, John A. Collier, David Wood- 

 cock, and other eminent lawyers of the day, forgetting the 

 collisions of the bar, were entertained by Mr. Cruger and 

 his accomplished lady, while many an agreeable hour passed 

 by enlivened by pleasing and refined conversation. 



It was the custom in those days, when a presiding judge 

 arrived at a county-seat, to receive him with public honors ; 

 and when the hour for the session to open arrived, the sheriff, 

 in full uniform, attended by his assistants, carrying their 

 respective badges of ofiice, waited upon him at his lodgings 

 and escorted him to the court-house. In the court-room 

 everything was conducted in the same formal manner. 



In 1828, Gen. Cruger sustained an irreparable misfortune 

 in the death of his wife. In 1833 he married Mrs. Shep- 

 ard, a highly-respected widow lady, of Wheeling, W. Va., 

 where the general invested his property, and went to reside 

 shortly after. 



Early in June, 1843, while attending a meeting of the 

 directors of Wheeling Bank, he was stricken down with 

 apoplexy, and died within a few moments after the attack. 



JUDGE WELLES. 



Henry Welles w^as born in Kinderhook, N. Y., Oct. 13, 

 1794. His father was Dr. Benjamin Welles, who was an 

 eminent surgeon in the Revolutionary army. Henry re- 

 ceived his early education at the Kinderhook Seminary. 

 In 1814 he enlisted in a military company recruited in the 

 county of Steuben and commanded by Capt. John Ken- 

 nedy, of Bath. He was elected sergeant, and soon after, 

 for his knowledge of tactics and military drill, was promoted 

 to the rank of ensign. His company was attached to Col. 

 Hopkins' regiment of infantry, and, early in July, took 

 the field, at Black Rock. 



In September, 1814, the American army took possession 

 of Fort Erie. The British besieged the fort, keeping up a 

 constant fire for several days, and, at the same time, grad- 

 ually approaching with their parallels, so that the officer in 

 command congratulated himself that within a few short 

 hours he would re-enter with his victorious columns. But 

 on the morning of the 17th of September the Americans 

 suddenly moved from their works, fell like a thunder-clap 

 upon their besiegers, and, after a short but sanguinary 

 battle, drove them from their works to the plains of Chip- 

 pewa, with a heavy loss in killed, wounded, and prisoners. 



In that battle young Welles exhibited the cool intrepidity 

 of a veteran. As they were entering the works of the 

 enemy, a British soldier discharged his musket at him. 

 The bullet grazed his side and mortally wounded a young 

 soldier who stood partly in the rear. 



About the middle of November, 1814, he returned to 

 Bath, and entered the office of Vincent Matthews as a 

 student-at-law. His father had made the acquaintance of 

 this eminent lawyer in the city of New York while the 

 latter was pursuing his legal studies in the office of Col. 

 Troup, of that city. 



After remaining in the office of Gen. Matthews three 

 years, he was admitted to the bar, in October, 1817, with 

 Hon. John B. Skinner, of Buffiilo, who was also in the class 

 with him, three years later, when they were both admitted 



to the degree of counselor. Subsequently, they often met 

 at the bar as opponents, and were often associated in the 

 trial of the same causes. 



Immediately after his admission, Mr. Welles opened an 

 office in Bath and commenced practice. Applying himself 

 with untiring industry to his profession, he soon attained 

 a very extensive practice both in Steuben and the adjacent 

 counties. 



Among the lawyers practicing at the Steuben bar when 

 Mr. Welles commenced his career were Vincent Matthews, 

 William B. Rochester, Edward Howell, Daniel Cruger, 

 General Haight, and William Woods, — names which dis- 

 tinguish and adorn the bar. Soon after, Mr. Matthews 

 removed to Rochester. Early in 1823, Mr. Rochester was 

 appointed a circuit judge, and Mr. Cruger was in Congress. 

 Thus many formidable competitors were removed, leaving 

 Mr. Welles a more open field of labor. 



In October, 1824, he was appointed district attorney of 

 Steuben County, — an appointment which was highly com- 

 plimentary to him as a lawyer. His predecessor was Daniel 

 Cruger, who was distinguished throughout Western New 

 York as a lawyer and writer, eminent in Congress for his 

 legislative abilities of a high order, and a politician of in- 

 domitable energy and power. His life appears in another 

 part of this chapter. 



Soon after Mr. Welles was appointed district attorney, 

 a case occurred which called into action all his professional 

 and intellectual powers. It was the well-known case of the 

 People vs. Douglas. The defendant in that case was charged 

 with having murdered a citizen of Steuben County by the 

 name of Ives, under circumstances of great atrocity and 

 cruelty. The victim was found in a piece of woods mor- 

 tally wounded, in a speechless and dying condition. Who 

 the perpetrator of the foul crime was, remained for some 

 time unknown. At length suspicion pointed to Douglas ; 

 he was arrested, indicted, and in January, 1825, brought 

 to trial. The matters relied upon for convicting him were 

 merely circumstantial, but they pointed to him as the guilty 

 man. The prisoner had many friends and some means- 

 He prepared for a vigorous and determined defense. Hon. 

 Edward Howell, Ziba A. Leland, and Schuyler S. Strong, 

 Esqs., of Bath, were retained to defend him ; the prosecu- 

 tion being conducted by District Attorney Welles. The 

 trial occupied several days, and was exceedingly exciting. 

 Hon. William B. Rochester presided, assisted by Hon. 

 James Norton, then First Judge of Steuben County. Every 

 efi"ort was made to save Douglas which his eloquent and 

 able counsel could employ; many abstruse and difficult 

 questions of law arose and were discussed ; many thrilling 

 circumstances were developed, in all of which Mr. Welles 

 exhibited ability and learning equal to the occasion. The 

 accused was convicted ; but, on the trial, a circumstance oc- 

 curred which set aside the verdict of the jury, and gave 

 him a new hearing. While the trial was in progress, dur- 

 ing one of its recesses, the jury visited a place where spirit- 

 uous liquors were sold and partook of refreshments, some 

 of them drinking intoxicating liquors. The counsel for 

 Douglas alleged this act as a ground of error. The case 

 was carried to the general term of the Supreme Court, and 

 on the 25th of February, 1825, it came on for argument at 



