eager; slow, but not torpid; steady, but not unyielding; comprehensive, and at the same time cautious; patient in inquiry, forcible in conception, clear in reasoning. He was by original temperament, mild, conciliating, and candid; and yet was remarkable for an uncompromising firmness. Of him it may be truly said, that the fear of man never fell upon him; it never entered into his thoughts, much less was it seen in his actions. In him the love of justice was the ruling passion,-it was the master-spring of all his conduct. He made it a matter of conscience to discharge every duty with scrupulous fidelity, and scrupulous zeal. It mattered not, whether the duty were small or great, witnessed by the world, or performed in private, every where the same diligence, watchfulness, and pervading sense of justice were seen. There was about him a tenderness of giving offence, and yet a fearlessness of consequences in his official character, which I scarcely know how to portray. It was a rare combination, which added much to the dignity of the bench, and made justice itself, even when most severe, soften into the moderation of mercy. It gained confidence, when it seemed least to seek it. It repressed arrogance by overawing or confounding it.

To say, that as a judge he was wise, impartial, and honest, is but to attribute to him those qualifications, without which the honors of the bench are but the means of public disgrace or contempt. His honesty was a deep vital principle, not measured out by worldly rules. His impartiality was a virtue of his nature, disciplined and instructed by constant reflection upon the infirmity and accountability of man. His wisdom was the wisdom of the law, chastened and refined and invigorated by study, guided by experience, dwelling little on theory, but constantly enlarging itself by a close survey of principles.

He was a learned judge. I do not mean by this, that every day learning, which may be gathered up by a hasty reading of books and cases. But that, which is the result of long continued, laborious services, and comprehensive studies. He read to learn, and not to quote; to digest and master, and not merely to display. He was not easily satisfied. If he was not as profound as some, he was more exact than most men. But the value of his learning was, that it was the key-stone of all his judgments. He indulged not the rash desire to fashion the law to his own views; but to follow out its precepts with a sincere good faith and simplicity. Hence he possessed the happy faculty of yielding just the proper weight to authority, neither on the one hand surrendering himself blindfold to the dictates of other judges, nor on the other hand overruling settled doctrines upon his own private notion of policy or justice.

In short, as a magistrate, he was exemplary and able, one whom all may reverence, and but few may hope to equal.

But after all, it is as a man, that those who knew him best, will most love to contemplate him. There was a daily beauty in his life, which won every heart. He was benevolent, charitable, affectionate, and liberal in the best sense of the terms. He was a Christian, full of religious sensibility, and religious humility. Attached to the Episcopal church by education and choice, he was one of its most sincere, but unostentatious friends. He was as free from bigotry, as any man; and at the same time that he claimed the right to think for himself, he admitted without reserve the same right in others. He was, therefore, indulgent even to what he deemed errors in doctrine, and abhorred all persecution for conscience' sake. But what made religion most attractive in him, and gave it occasionally even a sublime expression, was its tranquil, cheerful, unobtrusive, meek, and gentle character. There was a mingling of Christian graces in him, which showed that the habit of his thoughts was fashioned for another and a better world. Of his particular opinions on doctrinal points, it is not my intention to speak. Such as they were, though good men may differ, as to their correctness, all must agree, that they breathed the spirit of an inquisitive Christian.

He was a real lover of the Constitution of the United States; one of those who assisted in its adoption, and steadily and uniformly supported it through every change of its fortunes. He was good old-fashioned federalist, of the school of the days of Washington. He never lost his confidence in the political principles, which he first embraced. He was always distinguished for moderation in the days of their prosperity, and for fidelity to them in the days of their adversity.

He

I have not said too much, then, in saying that such a man is a public loss. We are not, indeed, called to mourn over him, as one who is cut off prematurely in the vigor of manhood. was ripe in honors, and in virtues. But the departure of such a man severs so many ties, interrupts so many delights, withdraws so many confidences, and leaves such an aching void in the hearts of friends, and such a sense of desolation among associates, that while we bow to the decree of Providence, our griefs cannot but pour themselves out in sincere lamentations.

Trial of a Deaf and Dumb Person.

S.

[The following account of this curious trial is translated from 'Hitzigs, Zeitschrift für deutsche und ausländische CriminalRechts-Pflege. Berlin, 1828.' Some notice of this trial has already appeared in this country, but it is believed that the present is more full and detailed than any which has been hitherto published among us.]

A young man named Filleron was brought before the Court of

Assize, at Paris, in August, 1827, charged with housebreaking and petty theft. Deaf and dumb from his birth, he had never enjoyed the advantages of education, and had neither kindred, friends, nor any regular occupation. Abandoned by his parents, he was received into the Orphans' Asylum, and afterwards transferred to the Bicètre, from which he ran away. Since that time he has lived in Paris entirely isolated, without a home or any means of support, except what he received from the sympathy of some other deaf and dumb persons. M. Paulmier, the successor of De l'Epée and Sicard in the direction of the Institution for the Deaf and Dumb at Paris, was employed as interpreter, and it was surprising, with what ease he made himself understood by the prisoner, without the assistance of the signs adopted in the Institution. He also understood and explained the meaning of the prisoner with great facility Filleron entered the hall with a wrinkled brow and a vacant countenance, and having thrown a careless glance around the assembly, he remained motionless. The president, with the assistance of M. Paulmier, asked him -his name. This is the only word of which he knows the letters. He answered by signs that he was called Filleron, and signified with his fingers that he was nineteen years of age. The president desired that he might be asked where he was born. M. Paulmier, by motions and gestures, endeavored to convey to him the idea of a child in the cradle and at the breast. Filleron made signs that he had come from a great distance, and that his father was a mason; and raised and lowered his hands several times to imitate the motion of the waves. M. Paulmier explained his meaning to be, that he was born on the sea-coast. M. Paulmier then inquired of him his place of abode, by laying his head on his hand as if asleep. For answer, Filleron scratched his hand as if afflicted with a certain cutaneous disorder; by this, M. Paulmier understood him to mean, that he lived in the Bicètre. The bill of complaint was then read, which charged, that Filleron, (after he had run away from the Bicètre and had come to Paris,) by creeping under a door and breaking a pane of glass, had effected an entrance into the Orphans' Asylum in which he was educated, and had stolen the clothes of one of the young men; that three days after he again entered the Asylum by jumping over the wall, and after having eaten in the kitchen, had purloined a coal-scuttle, three copper stew-pans, and an apron. These articles were delivered by him to one Letertre, a well known deaf and dumb cook, who invites customers by blowing a trumpet. Letertre had deposited the articles with a wine merchant, who, having his suspicions awakened, caused Filleron to be arrested. The president desired M. Paulmier to make Filleron understand that he was accused of theft and housebreaking. M. Paulmier imitated the motions of a person who takes away a coat and runs

off; he then pointed with his finger to the accused and to the officers of the court. Filleron made a sign in the affirmative. M. Paulmier repeated his gestures, and at the same time imitated the movements of a cook, who shakes a stew-pan over the fire. Filleron signified, by lively gestures, that he understood him, repeated the motions, and expressed with his fingers, that he had stolen three stew-pans and a utensil managed with both hands. He was then asked how he had effected an entrance into the Asylum. He now by attitudes and motions signified, that he had crept under a door; broken a pane of glass with his knife, and having passed through a long passage, got into the kitchen; that having eaten, he had taken three stew-pans from the nails on which they were hung; and, after wrapping them in a cloth, had made his escape.

President. Ask him where he was educated.

M. Paulmier lowered his hands, in order to convey the idea of a small child, and raised them gradually, to represent its growth. Filleron placed his hand on the collar of his jacket, to signify that he was educated in the Orphans' Asylum, where the children wear grey jackets with red collars.

President. He was sent away from the Asylum for bad conduct; ask him why he went away.

Filleron answered this question, by signifying that he had assumed a sulky mien. He then scratched his hand, to express the idea, that he had been sent to the Bicètre.

President. Ask him if he has been employed as a tailor.

M. Paulmier imitated the motions of a person who is sewing. Filleron made a sign in the negative, and folded his arms, in order to signify that had no occupation. He then stretched them out, as if he were pushing violently; by this he intended to express the idea, that he had worked at a well, and had turned the wheel. President. Ask him why he ran away the second time.

Filleron expressed, by very intelligible signs, that he was tired and had been beaten. He then made a wry face, and turned his pocket wrong side outwards, to signify that he had not been well paid.

President. How has he lived since he ran away from the Bicètre?

M. Paulmier drew a large circle, to represent the city of Paris, and imitated the motions of a man who is eating and sleeping. Filleron understood this at once, and placed himself in an attitude as if he were blowing a trumpet, and then pretended to eat, to signify that he had lived with Letertre.

President. Ask him, whether some days previous to his arrest he did not give five francs to one of the orphan boys who was sweeping before the gate of the Orphans' Asylum.

M. Paulmier showed him five francs, and endeavored to con

vey to him the idea of a boy who is sweeping, to whom something is given. Filleroń made a sign in the affirmative, and expressed by signs, that he had obtained the money by working at the well.

President.

Ask him why he committed the theft.

It was very difficult for M. Paulmier to make this understood. When Filleron at last comprehended his meaning, he expressed by signs, that he was large, subject to hunger and thirst, and that he must have a pinch of snuff.

President. Ask him if he knows that it is unlawful to steal. M. Paulmier acted as if he would have Filleron to take away his jacket, pointed to the gens-d'armes and the officers of the court, repeated the same signs pointing to himself, and then placed himself in a position, as if he were seizing a thief, and binding his hands. To all this, Filleron answered by imitating the motions of a man who acts eagerly, to signify that he was forced by hunger to steal.

According to the statement of the Commissary of Police, before whom Filleron was first brought, when the stolen clothes which he had on were taken from him, he evinced signs of the greatest despair, and attempted to seize the sabre of one of the gens-d'armes; and it became necessary to bind him. He then made signs as if in mockery, and as if he wished to throw himself into the water, or cut his throat. After this, he bent his head down and wept bitterly, and then remained motionless, and as if sunk in the deepest despondency.

To the question, whether he had broken into the Asylum, Filleron answered by signs, that he had broken a pane of glass; but that it had been broken before, and he earnestly insisted on this last circumstance. When the stolen articles were shown to him, he recognised them as such, and made signs that he was hungry. M. Paulmier asked him if he was sorry. Filleron again expressed by signs, that he was hungry and had nothing to eat; and then placed himself in an attitude, as if some one were pushing him and pointing out to him some object. M. Paulmier explained his meaning to be that he was instigated by some other deaf and dumb persons to commit the theft. On motion of the AdvocatGénéral he was asked, whether he had not been already punished in the Asylum for theft. To this he answered by signs, that he was then very small, that he was allowed but a very small portion of bread and was hungry. He then assumed the fixed posture of a soldier, to signify that he had been punished in that manner. President. Ask him if he has any idea of religion.

M. Paulmier pointed to the heavens, placed himself in an attitude of supplication, and struck himself on the breast, in sign of guilt. Filleron did not appear to understand him; but signified that it had been attempted to teach him to read and write. M.