had been committed in Grant County. A person charged with the crime and supposd to be guilty had been arrested, examined and committed to await the sitting of the grand jury. Judge Dunn admitted him to bail on a writ of habeas corpus brought for that purpose. The inhabitants in the neighborhood of the murder were greatly incensed that the accused should be enlarged. They arose en masse, and the accused and his bail fled to avoid lynching. The mob, in which were many prominent and reputable citizens, then passed a resolution, a copy of which they sent to Judge Dunn, that if he attempted to hold another court in that county it would be at the risk of his life. On the first day of the next term in this county, the Judge entered the court room, calm, undisturbed, as if ignorant of the threats of the mob. Many of its members and leaders were in the court room. He pioneer bar and the following generation of lawyers Judge Dunn was always endeared. Always courteous and considerate, helpful to the younger members, and as indulgent as he could be compatibly with the interests of justice, and a most charming and entertaining companion in the social circle, he was honored and beloved. An incident is told to show his natural dignity and the respect that he deemed due to his judicial character. On one occasion he was out with companions on a hunting expedition. In the rude camp he was engaged in skinning a magnificent buck he had shot; as he shared in all the labors of the camp, and, like the western gentlemen of his time, he deemed the dressing of his game a knightly accomplishment. One of the party, with whom he was but little acquainted, wishing to speak to him, called out from a distance, "Dunn, Dunn." The Judge turned on him, with sleeves rolled up, and knife in hand, but with a look in his face that bespoke the chief justice, and said, "Judge Dunn, if you please, sir." The crestfallen mess-mate, utterly dumbfounded by this rebuff, indulged in no more familiarity. CHARLES DUNN. spoke to no one of his danger, brought no escort, but it was noticed that he took to his seat upon the bench his saddle-bags, and placed them by his side. They contained an arsenal of pistols. In his usual quiet and dignified manner he directed the sheriff to open court. In his calmness and his resolute manner the bystanders saw that it would be a serious business to interfere with him; and the court was held undisturbed; and all thoughts of mob violence were dispelled; and admiration for the intrepid judge took their place. To the The district to which Judge Dunn was assigned was signed was the southwestern part of the State, including the mining region. He, as a Kentucky gentleman fond of sport and with no prejudices against a good article of whiskey, was in touch with all the surroundings. He enjoyed the rude life of the frontier, and supreme court in 1860, but being in the minority party and sturdy in his political con died at Belmont, April 7, 1872. He was regarded by all the members of the bar who knew him as "a great man in private station." would adjourn court to attend a wolf-hunt, join in the sport, be hale-fellow-well-met in customary conviviality, but under all circum-victions, he had no thought of election. He stances he was the dignified judge, urbane and gracious, but tolerating no familiarity. Judge Dunn gained the unpleasant notoriety of a mention in Dickens's "American Notes." In 1842, during a session of the legislative council, high words arose between Charles C. P. Arndt and James R. Vineyard, two of the members, over an executive nomination. Arndt approached Vineyard in a threatening manner. The president called order, and, before bystanders could part the combatants, Vineyard drew pistol and shot Arndt dead. This event created intense excitement, for it was as shocking to the prevailing sentiment in Wisconsin as such a tragedy would have been in the Boston State-house. Vineyard, the homicide, was soon after brought before Judge Dunn on habeas corpus, to be granted bail. After a careful examination into the facts of the case the Judge admitted him to bail, and he was subsequently tried and acquitted on the ground that he acted in selfdefense. This event Dickens seized upon, and published newspaper items in his "Notes" to convey the idea that, in Wisconsin, life was so cheap that one legislator could shoot another in session for words spoken in debate and be discharged by Judge Dunn on bail. After the organization of the State courts he retired to private practice, and a large clientage thronged to his country seat at Belmont, where he kept his office. His professional education had been very thorough for a western man. He was an excellent classical scholar. He was, however, too modest and too dignified to seek civil office or push himself forward in candidacy. He served in the constitutional convention which framed the organic law, as chairman of the judiciary committee, and exercised a commanding influence over that body. He was State senator from 1853 to 1856. He “ran” for Congress in 1858, and for justice of the Edward G. Ryan says of him: "He ranked the superior of most and the equal of any of his contemporaries. He might have ennobled many positions filled by them; none could have ennobled him; for, truly, he was a great man in private station. While his intellect was calm, it was solid; while it was not brilliant, it was comprehensive and far reaching. It was deliberate, discriminating, clear, wise and just. His character was solid, strong and resolute, but not stern or harsh. His stronger qualities were softened by great sense of humor and great kindness of heart. His temper was singularly genial. He was generous and trustful to a fault. His foibles for like all born of woman he had them all arose from his generous character, the warmth of his heart and the kindness of his temper. Strong in character among the strongest; he was, in carriage and manner, gentle among the gentlest; eminently modest and unobtrusive in demeanor. His culture was of a high order, in and out of his profession; like himself, useful and thorough, not superficial or showy. His knowledge of men and things, of the world and its ways, was profound. It is little to say that he was the soul of honor. He could be nothing that is false or mean. He did not know what treason was. That which he believed, that which he loved, that to which he gave his faith, were part of himself. He could not desert faith, a friend, or duty without betraying his own life. Dishonor in him would have been moral suicide." These warm words of praise express the sentiment of all who knew Judge Dunn. It is seldom that a man is so endeared to his professional brethren as he was to the emi nent bar of lawyers who gathered in the territorial courts. DAVID IRVIN, who was judge of the additional district of Michigan Territory for the Counties of Brown, Crawford and Michilimackinac, and afterwards an associate justice of the supreme court of Wisconsin Territory, was born in Albemarle County, Virginia, about 1794, of Scotch-Irish parentage. His father was a Presbyterian minister and teacher of the ancient languages of much repute in Virginia. The son was educated as a lawyer and settled in the Shenandoah Valley. Not especially successful in practice there, he obtained from President Jackson, through the influence of William C. Rives, a judgeship of the then Michigan Territory, in 1832, and upon the organization of the Wisconsin territorial supreme court he was appointed associate justice. He was a man of southern tastes, a bachelor; and judicial duty and western society were distasteful to him. He spent most of his time in southern cities. Not a profound nor studious lawyer, he was regarded as a fair judge, his strong common sense and love of justice guiding his rulings. He had the keenest relish for field sports, and for his horse, dog and gun. It used to be said that the lawyer who praised his dog usually won his motion. His horse," Pedro," and his dog, "York," are fully described in the gossipy collections of the State Historical Society. The Judge is described as six feet in height, very erect and well formed, auburn hair, blue eyes, and narrow features. He was fond of hunting prairie chickens, and was a little whimsical. The gossip of the time said that he mended his own stockings and sewed on his own buttons. He was very frugal, detested vice, saved his pay and invested it in wild cotton-lands in Texas, which, later, made him rich. The Wisconsin soldiers during the Rebellion found him there on the Rio Guadalupe, and, it is said, were ordered to take him prisoner, but he prudently kept out of their way. He died in Texas, June 1, 1872, at the age of about seventy-six years. The kindness with which his contemporaries, members of the bar, speak of him, attests that he was upright, honest, fair and generally right. Among the traditions of Green County, where he sometimes held the term, it is remembered that he would adjourn court at a moment's notice to go shooting chickens. He used to say that "his horse Pedro had more sense than any lawyer in his court." He was in the habit of consulting Mr. Whiton before deciding a cause, to get an idea of what the law was. It is recorded that in 1841 he gave the following charge to a jury: "It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff and defendant in this action are brothers-in-law. On the Wabash River, in Indiana, they associated themselves together for the purpose of swindling their neighbors. Not content with that, they got to swindling each other, and I am like the woman who saw her husband and a bear fight. 'Fight husband, fight bear; I don't care which whips.' And, gentlemen of the jury, it is a matter of indifference to me how you bring in your verdict." utes after the jury had retired the sheriff was instructed to see if they had agreed. Informed that they had not, he immediately ordered in the jury and discharged it. Five min Another incident of him was told by Andrew E. Elmore, well known in the State for half a century as the "Sage of Mukwanago." In a speech in the legislature, to illustrate the uncertainty of the law, he said that he once had a case on trial before Judge Irvin. The case seemed very clear for him, and the jury brought in a verdict in his favor for the amount of the claim. Just then, as the winner of the suit sat in the bar with his counsel, "York" became annoyingly familiar, and he unluckily gave the dog a kick, which caused a yelp to reach the Judge's ears. The Judge's brow instantly grew dark and he set the verdict aside. Such are among the stories told by the gossips of his generation-probably in revenge for the Judge's ill-concealed dislike for Yankees. WILLIAM C. FRAZER, of Pennsylvania, was the other associate judge of the territorial supreme court appointed in 1836. He served but two years, and died in Milwaukee, October 18, 1838, when he was sixty-two years of age. He left but little mark on the jurisprudence of the State. His advanced age and intemperate habits unfitted him for a judicial position. A few anecdotes, more or less apocryphal, indicate that he was of average learning and fair ability, but that his usefulness was impaired by his confirmed convivial habits. He sat but once with the court in banc. In the "Transactions" of the Historical Society of the State are some reminiscences of his demeanor on the bench when sitting in his district, which indicate that his appointment was not a judicious one, but, like many appointments to territorial judgeships, the subject of severe criticism. His was the only case in the territorial life of Wisconsin in which the appointments to judgeships were not excellent selections. An old story is current that once an affidavit was made for change of venue from Judge Frazer, on account of the prejudice of the Judge. The Judge heard the affidavit, remarked that he did not know the party, had never seen him, and desired him to stand up. Thereupon a very tough and unkempt specimen of mortality rose. The Judge took one look, and said, "All right. | The order is granted. After seeing the man I am convinced of a bias." The contributions in the Historical Society's collections tell that Judge Frazer would spend the night in high play at cards, enter the court room in the morning, and charge the grand jury to diligently inquire and true presentment make as to any gambling that might be going on in the Territory, which he char acterized as "a sin to cause heaven to shudder." One memorable trial in which Judge Frazer presided was that of Mau-ze-mon-eka (Iron-walker), a son of one of the chiefs (Whirling Thunder), of the Rock River band of Winnebagoes, for the murder of Pierre. Pouquette, a prominent Indian trader and interpreter, a French and Winnebago halfbreed. In October, 1837, Governor Dodge held a council with the Indians, at Portage, to induce them to sell their lands east of the Mississippi. Pouquette was interpreter and very desirous that the sale be consummated for twenty-one boxes of money ($21,000), which he claimed was due him from the Indians for goods and provisions he had advanced to them. Mau-ze-mon-e-ka stoutly opposed the terms of the sale, insisting upon a division among the bands, some of whom were not indebted to Pouquette. After the council, Pouquette, being in liquor, set upon Mau-ze-mon-e-ka and soundly whipped him. The Indian, smarting under the indignity, retired to his lodge. Pouquette went there the next day, still infuriated with drink, and told the young brave that he had come to whip him again. The Indian came out, gun in hand, and told Pouquette to come. no further; that he had beaten him the day before without cause, and if he advanced another step he was a dead man. Pouquette then put his hand to his breast and said, "Fire, if you are brave." He fired, shooting the trader through the heart. Mau-ze-mone-ka then was taken into custody. Supposing that he was to be killed, he sang his death song. He was taken to Green Bay and there tried. Pouquette was a very giant in strength, but when sober was a man of easy temper and very popular with the settlers and military, and was the interpreter in all councils with the Indians. His death was much regretted by all. His slayer was tried before Judge Frazer and sentenced to be hanged. The case was taken to the supreme court on writ of error, and there reversed for defects in the indictment. On a second trial he was acquitted, and lived many years afterwards. ANDREW GALBRAITH MILLER, of Pennsylvania, was appointed to succeed Judge Frazer, by President Van Buren, November 8th, 1838. He was born at Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, September 18, 1801, of Scotch Presbyterian stock. His mother's ancestors in this country came from England, and located in Penn's settlement at Philadelphia. The Millers settled in Pennsylvania, the grandfather when young purchasing a large tract from William Penn, the proprietary governor. The maternal grandfather, Andrew Galbraith, on coming of age, purchased a tract of land in Cumberland County, then still on the border. Upon hearing of the Declaration of Independence, Andrew Galbraith promptly ara campaign of 1814. The family, at one time holding a large landed estate, were greatly reduced in circumstances by the depression and pecuniary disaster following the war. The subject of this sketch was the eldest of ten children. After primary instruction in the best schools then available, he entered an academy in 1813. In 1815 he was in Dickinson College, Carlisle; after wards he studied at Washington College, at Washington, Pennsylvania, and graduated thence with honors in 1819. The same year he began the study of law in the office of Andrew Caruthers, Esq., a lawyer of high professional character and personal worth. In 1822, Miller was admitted to the bar, having resolved never to hold an office of profit outside of his profession. During sixteen years he practiced law in Cumberland County. His father dying about the time he came to the bar, young Miller became virtually the head of the family. In 1827 he married Caroline E. Kurtz, daughter of Benjamin Kurtz, of Harrisburg, a gentleman descended from one of the founders of the Lutheran Church in America. When twenty-one years of age, upon his admission to the bar, he became partner with his preceptor. He subsequently removed to Gettysburg, and there practiced his profession until his appointment to the vacant judgeship in Wisconsin. ANDREW G. MILLER. raised a company, and was commissioned major of his regiment. He participated in the gallant defense of Fort Washington on the Hudson, November 16, 1776, and being taken prisoner, was confined in the prison ships in New York Harbor. The horrors of this confinement fastened upon him a disease of which he died soon after peace was declared. The paternal ancestors of Judge Miller also shared in the perils and honors of the Revolution. His father was an officer of militia in the arduous, if not glorious, Niag On receiving the appointment, he came to Wisconsin, and, on the 10th day of De |