grow dignity in its practice. Those who do not respect themselves and the public posi tion they occupy are less likely to attain a successful administration of their office. He has made a close study of the habits and customs that prevail in other and foreign courts, and has observed the ease and com fort of some English courts, such as arise from the single daily session, and the use of the gown. As regards the latter, if not the former, I do not doubt that his associates during the long, heated terms of the law court in hot weather, would often gladly agree with him to adopt them. He is social and agreeable, fond of his friends and "their adoption tried," and pleasant in his manners while presiding on the bench. He never shows temper. His rulings in the progress of a trial are prompt and fearless. His charges to the jury are clear and ample, the issues well denned, and the jury are unerr ingly brought to the point at issue between the parties without intrenching upon their province to find the facts. It must not be supposed, however, that he is devoid of feel ing or interest, for nothing escapes his obser vation. Holding the scales of justice evenly balanced, it is his calm judgment and reason that are his sole guides. He is commended by able lawyers with extensive jury practice for his method of addressing the jury, which he has adopted after much reflection and in flexibly adheres to. Hence exceptions to his rulings and directions to the jury embody only legal propositions for revision by the full bench. Believing the law is a science he is a dili gent reader of all that pertains to it. While administering the " whole learning of the law," he does not hesitate to favor its reform when his judgment and his experience con cur in the change. Some of his best service to the State, before going upon the bench, was his advocating the act giving the court full equity powers. That service he has since supplemented by sitting as chancel lor and in his written opinions in equity
causes, reference to which are made be low. He never indulges in levity or repartee on the bench. With him the trial of a case is serious business, requiring thoughtful atten tion of all concerned, — himself attending only to the " trepidations of the balance," that " justice to the parties shall be admin istered freely and without sale, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay." When occasion calls for reproof it is generally in the form of a suggestion; when addressed to the whole bar it is more pointed and direct. In a recent term at Auburn, while hearing petitions for divorce, and which he does not grant without good and sufficient cause, he remarked to the bar: "You can't expect much from me on the ground of failure to support. You better prove desertion." The court was no false prophet. Only one attorney relied on that clause, and he didn't get his client untied. During the proceedings the Judge com plained that they didn't have witnesses enough. " I see you have gotten into the habit of bringing only one witness," he re marked to the assemblage of lawyers. " Well," said one, " different judges differ. We have usually had two." " Well," said Judge Em ery, " put me down for three." It is universally admitted that Judge Em ery writes good opinions. His reputation as a jurist might safely be measured by this part of his work, for he has certainly done his full share. They cover a wide field, em bracing many and different branches of law and equity. His style is simple and natural, readily understood, and the process of rea soning easily followed. He begins with a comprehensive summary of the facts, then follows the statement of the issues, and lastly his conclusions and the reasons for them. His statement of the case rarely leaves any thing for the reporter of decisions to do in the preparation of the case for the book be yond the head-note. He does not cite many decisions, and frequently none at all.
