Page images
PDF
EPUB

JOHN MCSWEENEY, OHIO.

(1824-1890.)

The greatest criminal lawyer the State of Ohio ever produced. Born at Black Rock, New York, August 30, 1824; died at Wooster,Ohio, January 22, 1890. aged fifty-five. He was of Irish descent-his mother being a sister of Daniel O'Connell. The cholera having swept away his parents in his infancy, he was educated, an orphan, at St. Xavier, Cincinnati, and Western Reserve colleges. He gained reputation for great proficiency in the classics. He read law with John Harris, of Canton, Ohio, located in Wooster in 1845, and about 1865 acquired National renown as a criminal lawyer, being engaged in nearly all the noted State cases, among others: Ohio v. Jeff. Bull; Ohio v. Long; Risser v. Parmley; Ohio v. J. R. and C. D. Mason; Ohio v. the Chesrowns; and the celebrated "Talley Sheet" cases, at Columbus, being opposed by Thurman, Mills, Huling, Nash and Holmes. He was also associated with Colonel Ingersoll in the defense of Stephen W. Dorsey, in the "Star Route" cases, at Washington, which resulted in an acquittal, His

fees during the latter years of his practice were large, and he became the wealthiest man in his county.

He was of magnificent physique, six feet two in height, expressive eyes, resonant and powerful voice, magnetic and dramatic manner. His language was the purest Saxon, adorned with poetic flowers and jolly Irish wit. He gormandized books, and was able with a single reading to almost reproduce a poem or a lecture. He was a master of cross-examination, which was never undertaken aimlessly. With the timid witness he was persuasive; with the willing, courteous; with the prevaricator, artful; with the brazen-cheeked, bold; with the impertinent, insolent; with the mendacious, terrible. During his fortyfive years' practice, no matter how dry the subject or uninteresting the theme, he invariably made spirited and exciting speeches-never falling to the level of mediocrity. In his last jury effort, he emp tied an opera house in defending a woman on penitentiary charges, so much more interesting was his argument. "In quality," says Wendell Phillips, "his arguments take rank with some of the great historic jury efforts,"

Speaking After John Van Buren, and the Latter's

Tribute To.

In the campaign of 1856 the Democrats held a great mass-meeting at Salem, Columbiana county, Ohio. John Van Buren, who was then at the zenith of his renown as a political orator, and in request everywhere, was secured for the occasion as the orator. When Mr. Van Buren had finished his speech, Mr. McSweeney, who was present and only thirty-two years of age, was induced to take the stand and gave them a short address. He had not spoken long when Mr. Van Buren turned to some one at his side and asked: "Who is that?" "That is John McSweeney, of Wooster," was the answer. "Why did you send to New York for a speaker when you have in Ohio such a speaker as McSweeney?" asked Mr. Van Buren.

His Last Criminal Case More Attractive Than a

Theater.

His last criminal case was the defense of a woman arraigned on penitentiary charges that appeared conclusive against her. He closed his argument after supper on the last day of the trial. Rain was falling heavily. At the City Hall opera house an attractive theatrical performance was being held. While Mr. McSweeney was talking to the jury, a crowd of people filled the court-room to its utmost capacity, while the theatrical company was playing

to an almost empty house. The jury brought in a verdict for his client of "not guilty."

Dowlin Versus Second National Bank of Cleveland.

"I remember the case in which he won his fame as an orator in Cleveland. It was the suit of Captain Thomas Dowlin v. The Second National Bank, to recover $10,000 worth of bonds deposited with the bank, and which had been stolen by a man who was formerly cashier. The case was tried three times. The first time the jury rendered a verdict of $24,000 for the plaintiff, the second time it disagreed, and finally at the May term, in 1872, a verdict of $13,000, in round numbers, was secured. McSweeney's speech was one of the best efforts of his life. He was well known for his play upon words, and in his speech at this trial said: 'When this old Captain came thundering at the doors of the bank for his bonds, he was given A Stone.' Amasa Stone was at the time connected with the bank. 'When the directors met,' said McSweeney, 'one of them arose and said, 'Let us pray,' only they spelled it with an 'e' at that bank.' Clasping his hands and closing his eyes, McSweeney offered up the alleged prayer, and it brought down the house. Judge Stephenson Burke was defending the case, and McSweeney drove many a hot shot at him during the course of the trial. His description of a directors' meeting was funny in the extreme, and he wound up by saying that they had got already to take the bonds when somebody suggested that there

member arose, 'Never mind,' Soon after he

might be some legal impediment. One and was asked where he was going. said he, 'I'll be back in a minute.' came into the room swinging his hat and saying, 'It's all right. I've been down to see Judge Burke, and he says as long as we are within the scope of the bank we are liable, but as soon as we get out of the scope into the scoop we are not liable.' ". -Reminiscences of a Cleveland lawyer, in a celebrated bank case.

Phillips' Reminiscence.

"While at Ottawa, Ohio, I heard McSweeney in a criminal case. It was a masterly effort. He laid down such a solid foundation in his opening, defining a jury's duty in criminal trials, and pressed his claim home so effectively on them, that I felt, if the case had the usual amount of conflicting testimony, he had won it without going further. This presentation of a jury's duty was as remarkable for what it did not claim, as for anything else. He kept so carefully within the lines, that every juryman felt not only what he asked was fair and reasonable, but was hardly up to what the cases he cited would allow him to claim. Then came the analysis of the connections, relations and bearing of three promissory notes -intricate and exceedingly difficult to disentangle. But it was done so clearly, briefly, and with such daylight distinctness, that the laziest juryman listened to every word, and the dullest one among them could not escape understanding and appreciating the im

« PreviousContinue »