his term. He was offered a renomination, but he declined, preferring the duties of his profession to the cares of office.

Mr. Van Buren always enjoyed pleasantry, wit, and repartee. He could relate an anecdote with great piquancy, and relished a joke, even at his own expense.

A case once occurred which tested the manner in which he was a party to a laughable transaction.

One day, in returning home from his office, he stopped at his boot-maker's, put on a pair of new boots which had just been finished for him, wrapping the old ones in a piece of brown paper, and went his way with the boots under his arm. As he passed along, he observed a brace of fine chickens for sale. He purchased them, and they too were done up in a brown paper wrapper. With the boots and chickens under his arm he proceeded towards home. Presently he met a darkey whom he knew.

'Here, Sam," said he, "don't you want a pair of boots-pretty good ones, too?""

"Yes, sah," said the darkey, with a grin.

Handing the boots to the gentleman of color, he went on. In a few moments he met a friend, with whom he stopped to talk.

"What have you there, Judge?" said the friend. "A very nice pair of chickens, which I just now bought," was the reply.

"Chickens," said his friend, taking hold of the bundle; "queer chickens, I should think."

"Yes," said the judge, "they are very large and nice ones."

"They are not chickens."

"What in the world are they?" was the reply.

Upon that remark, the judge, who began to feel somewhat astonished at the remark of his friend, opened the bundle, when, lo, he was still in possession of the old boots, and the darkey had gone away rejoicing with the chickens.

"Well," said the judge, "I am a pair of chickens the poorer, but the darkey has gained what I have lost."

In the language of another, "Judge Van Buren is always the kind, large-hearted, and hospitable gentleman, and in his intercourse with the world, frank, friendly, and sociable. In the enjoyment of a liberal competence, derived from a successful but laborious professional career, we trust there are many years of happiness and usefulness remaining for him, and that his days may be extended to the longest possible limit."

DUDLEY MARVIN.

Scene in the Court Room at Batavia in 1827.-Dudley Marvin and John W. Hurlbert, -Description of them.-Their Persons and Characters as Lawyers.--Marvin's Birth and Parentage.-A Student at Colchester Academy.-His Taste and Abilities.-Amusing Anecdote.-In Danger of Expulsion.-The Imprisoned Professor. --Marvin before the Faculty as a Culprit.-The Defense.-The Witty Turn.-The Discharge.- Marvin Refuses to Declaim. Interesting Conversation with Dr. Hawks, regarding the Choice of a Profession.-Marvin visits Canandaigua.Enters the Office of Howell & Gregg as a Law Student.-His Admission to the Bar.-His First Case.-Manner at the Bar.-Remark of B. Davis Noxon.-His Manner of Cross-examining a Witness illustrated in the Trial of the People v. Newman. -Interesting and Amusing Cross-examination of a Lady.-The Case of the People v. Bostwick-Amusing Incident.-Result of the Trial.—Marvin Elected to Congress.-His Career in Congress.-His Dislike for Public Speaking. - His Reception at a Convention in Canandaigua.-The Vote of Thanks.-Amusing Speech of a Constituent.-Marvin is Compelled to make a Speech.-Has an Application for a Law Student.-Rare Qualifications of the Proposed Student.— Doubting Scene between J. C. Spencer and Marvin.-Doubt if you Dare.-Spencer Prosecuted.-Marvin Retained as his Counsel.-The Trial.-Extract from Marvin's Speech.-The Result.-Marvin again in Congress.- His Report on Manufactures. - Celebrated Case of the People v. Gray.-Marvin Appointed by the Governor to assist the District-Attorney.-Prisoners apply to him to defend them.-The Short but Prophetic Reply.-The Trial.-Its Singular Result.-Hosmer's Remarks Concerning it.-Marvin's Connection with the Anti-Masonic Trials.-Trial of Ganson.-Examination of the Stage Driver.-His Final Answer True.-Marvin Removes to Chautauque County.-Attempted Assassination of Lowrey.-Marvin Engaged in the Great Trial of the People v. Newman. The Trial. The last important Case in which he is Engaged.-Retires from the Bar.His Habits.-Elected to Congress.- His personal appearance more fully described. His Characteristics.-Mark H. Sibley.-Amusing Business Transaction between him and Marvin.-Death of Marvin.

"WHO is that rather large, portly man, with such a fine eye and head, not far from Mr. Chandler, in the bar? He must be a lawyer, I think; at least he looks like one, and a good one, too."

This remark was addressed to a law student who sat next to the speaker in the court house at Batavia, one morning in June, 1827, during a session of the

Circuit Court. The business of the day had not yet commenced, though the lawyers, jurors, witnesses, and spectators had assembled.

"That is Dudley Marvin, of Canandaigua, one of the most eminent lawyers in the State; he is eloquent, witty, sarcastic or pathetic, as the occasion requires," said the student.

"And that is Dudley Marvin; I have often heard of him as a famous advocate, but I never saw him until now. Who is that small man, dressed in black, with dark eyes and hair, and such an expressive face; the one who is sitting by himself at the other end of the bar

"That is John W. Hurlbert, of Auburn; he is as gifted, though perhaps not as close a lawyer as Marvin. As a criminal lawyer, he has no equal in the State. I have heard him address juries on several occasions; at times his small form seemed looming up to the proportions of a giant, with the big glowing thoughts he uttered," was the reply.

"John W. Hurlbert? he is the lawyer who defended Medad McKay on his last trial, and he cleared the Indian chief who was tried at Bath for shooting Stephens, near Hornellsville. I have heard that he made everybody in the court house cry except the sheriff, and he was obliged to cough several times to keep on the stern look which he felt himself obliged to assume; and I believe Hurlbert defended Mary Green for murdering her own child, did he not?" asked the first speaker.

"Yes," replied the student, "I heard that trial. Heavens, what a talk he made to that jury! His language, his gestures, and his whole appearance were full of sincerity and candor, he spoke so touchingly of the poor girl's misfortune (he always calls crime a misfortune, when he is defending a criminal) that the hearts of the jury opened and let him in. When once there he remained. But when he came down upon the witnesses against her, who, as he contended, de

sired her conviction to subserve certain vile purposes of their own, I never listened to such terrible, such scathing language; it seemed as though his tongue was a two-edged sword, and the witnesses criminals on trial, instead of Mary Green. It was amusing to see them endeavor to brave it out, and appear unconcerned, but they might as well have undertaken to disregard the thunders of Jove."

"Well, what did the jury do?"

"What did the jury do?" said the student. “Why they acquitted the woman almost as soon as they were organized, though more than half of the community where she lives, believed her guilty, and they would like to hang little Hurlbert, as they call him, for saving her; but he did his duty I suppose, and no more.'

The conversation was here interrupted by the crier making the usual morning proclamation. It truthfully describes the appearance and the popularity of two eminent and highly distinguished lawyers of the past.

In many respects their minds were similar; both of them too often indulged in the pomp and glare of rhetoric-redundancy and excess of ornament. Both minds glowed with the fires of intellect and imagination; though perhaps they acquiesced too readily in first thoughts, and came to their conclusions by a rapid and penetrating glance, instead of verifying their impressions by a close and vigilant induction. Yet it was impossible not to be impressed with their rare qualities. Mr. Marvin, however, possessed the additional capacity of illustrating common thoughts and subjects, with beauty and interest, of explaining them with a grace which gave them new force, vigor, and vivacity; a rare quality in a speaker-the secret of success in a writer.

As deep, reasoning, logical, emotionless lawyers, neither Marvin, nor Hurlbert compared with John C. Spencer, Marcus T. Reynolds or Nicholas Hill, when before the court in banc; but before the jury, the former were the superiors.