attorney did by a civil request in a letter to the plaintiffs attorney in another part of the State, who was the person above referred to as having been blackballed. That person wrote to Porter a letter so full of expressions of a desire to oblige Judge Doe and avoid putting him to any trouble, etc., etc., that the inexperienced young lawyer understood it to be an assent to the desired extension, and was aroused from his error only on re ceiving notice of taxation of costs and entry of judgment. The judgment was for sev eral hundred dollars. In his mortification and despair, Porter considered himself ru ined, and felt unable to acquaint Judge Doe with what had happened, in order to obtain the needed affidavit for opening the default. After a night's reflection he took a shorter course. Going to his father, he succeeded in raising the money, and paid the judgment. John K. Porter never needed to learn any lesson twice; and it was observable through out his life, that he was especially careful about the regularity of such important mat ters as extensions of time to answer, etc. He began to travel the Circuit early, and at once took rank with the most eminent and experienced of his associates. He was a lawyer and an advocate by his very consti tution; and people familiar with his early career say that his first forensic work was equal to his best. To take sides vehemently, and yet to keep wary and cool; to discrim inate, and in the midst of controversy to shape or change a course in the face of his adversary, and yet to hide all this from that adversary; to contend strenuously and un compromisingly, taking every point and ev ery advantage, yet keeping strictly to the standard of uprightness, and to the ethical code of the profession in every situation, — those things were as natural to him as his breath. He was for a short time a partner of Deodatus Wright, an accomplished jurist, association with whom was doubtless very useful. When that connection ended, he went into partnership with Nicholas Hill and Peter Cagger at Albany. Such is the

evanescence of a great lawyer's fame, that some of your readers may not have heard of Nicholas Hill. But most lawyers still hear, through the reports at least, the echoings of a fame like that of his contemporary in this State, Charles O'Connor, or like that of men like Pinckney, Wirt, Jeremiah Mason, and Horace Binney, in earlier times, in other States. A young friend informs me that at Columbia Law School it was the practice of Professor Dwight to refer students to briefs of Nicholas Hill, as furnishing the perfect model of professional work. The brief in Silsbury v. McCoon, 3 N. Y. Rep. 380, may be named as an example. In Olcott v. Tioga R. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 210, will be found another, which is often cited to stu dents as a model in the art of brief-making; and it may be interesting to know the modus operandi by which briefs like these were built up. During the existence of the firm of Hill, Cagger, & Porter, it was the practice of Mr. Hill to argue all cases in the Court of Ap peals, and of Porter to try all cases at the Circuit, and argue appeals in the General Term; a practice, by the way, of which Porter did not approve. Lawyers through out the State had a practice of sending cases to prominent lawyers at Albany for argu ment, not only of motions, but final hear ings. At one time Mr. Hill was said to hold retainers in a large proportion of all the cases on the docket of the Court of Ap peals, at each term. Usually he wrote his own briefs, not rely ing upon those of attorneys or other coun sel. The preparation of those briefs gener ally resulted from preliminary arguments conducted at night, after the day's work was over, between Porter and Hill, in which they contended and struggled over every point in the case. These consultations often began by Mr. Hill's calling from his room : "Porter, what do you think of the authority of ' Smith v. Jones '? " or " What have you to say upon this proposition? " etc. The query, fre quently addressed to the younger man when