Judge Pratt bought this band from Mr. Durham.

Ever after, in the Judge's estimation, there were no cattle in all that valley the equal of his Durham cattle.

"My Durham cattle" was the subject of Judge Pratt's conversation at all times and in all places, and his continual talk proved such an effective advertisement that he soon found a purchaser at a fair price.

This purchaser was led to believe that he was the owner of a band of blooded stock, but when he looked for the first time upon a specimen of his long horned purchase, his anger at Judge Pratt was terrible.

I feel assured that had the profane utterances of that man been wafted on friendly zephyrs to the ears of the judge in his far off California home, it would have profoundly disturbed the serenity of his repose.

Passing over a few years Chief Justice Nelson appeared upon the scene.

He was a man of pleasing manners, fair legal attainments, but inclined to be irritable.

He prided himself upon his literary attainments, and yet to save his neck he could not pronounce the title of his appellate tribunal correctly. He invariably said "sperm cort."

An incident occurred in the court presided over by Judge Nelson I deem worthy of recital. A case of importance was on trial. The lawyers engaged were of the first order of talents, in fact, the giants of the bar. To name them simply is sufficient: Delazon Smith, James K. Kelly, LaFayette Grover, and, if I recollect correctly, Colonel W. H. Farrar.

Colonel Kelly was engaged in addressing the court and therein referring to quite a number of reports, reading and commenting thereon at great length. Counsel had repeatedly informed the speaker that they agreed with him on the proposition of law he was endeavoring to establish. His Honor had also informed the speaker that the Court was with him upon the point, but the stream of talk continued, and volume after volume was consulted and introduced until the chief justice very testily informed Colonel Kelly that he would hear nothing more from him on that point and he must desist. At this juncture the speaker apologized for his persistence in the

following convincing and satisfactory language: "But, your Honor, I have not talked one hundred and fifty dollars worth yet."

My opinion is, that if this Bar Association had been in control, the gentleman would have been allowed to have continued his speech until in his judgment he had fully earned his fee according

to contract.

It was about this time a record entry was made in a justice's docket, said to have been prepared by an attorney of standing, I think too good to be lost.

That the descendants of the chief actors therein may have no cause of complaint, I will borrow a few names. The occurrence, however, was real. The docket entry run about as follows:

TERRITORY OF OREGON vs. JOHN THOMAS.

Now on this 18th day of May, 1853, comes John Jones and makes oath that said defendant stole a hog, said hog was of white color, weighed about two hundred pounds and was in J. B. McClane's mark.

Warrant issued for the arrest of defendant and placed in the hands of George Ray for service.

May 19.- Now comes George Ray and makes return on said warrant and says that he arrested the defendant and as they came by the Mission Mills the nigger escaped in the brush, and there this suit ended.

the bench

On the 2d day of March, 1853, the Territory of Washington was created by an act of congress, and from that time until admission into the union as a state- a period of thirty-six years was occupied by twelve chief justices and twenty associate justices. Nearly all of these were personally known to me.

With two of them, to wit., Hon. Joseph R. Lewis and Hon. James E. Wyche, I was more intimately acquainted.

In all Eastern Washington only two places were designated at which terms of court were held at Walla Walla and Fort Colville. A few years later a court was established at Yakima City.

To reach Fort Colville, a distance of two hundred and ten miles from Walla Walla, the judge and lawyers were compelled to provide their own conveyance, cooking apparatus and sleeping appliances.

This trip had to be taken once each year, in midsummer, and usually required five days.

With Judges Wyche and Lewis many times I traversed these weary miles. I imagine that a better opportunity for testing true manhood, than a journey across the dreary waste stretching itself out between the points named could scarcely be afforded.

Heat, dust and thirst were our undesired yet constant companions, and an occasional furious storm of wind, accompanied by heavy rains, was thrown in to break the monotony.

Judge Wyche was patient and sullen, while Judge Lewis was jolly and full of humor under the most trying circumstances.

I have often wondered whether Judge Lewis had forgotten the tearing away of his tent by the furious wind just north of Big Lake.

That wind had no regard for the court nor of the proprieties of the occasion.

Judge Wyche was tall and angular, a good scholar, and exhibited all the traits of character possessed by a Tennessee gentleman.

He was a good judge of law, and perfectly fearless in its administration. With him there was one governing principle of which, never for a moment, while occupying the bench, did he lose the sight, and this he frequently mentioned in delivering his opinions. He denominated it "substantial justice.'

Judge Lewis was more robust, equally as well informed, a better lawyer and equally as courageous. Judge Lewis always aimed to give litigants the clean law, and having superior opportunities to know, I say pointedly that he was eminently just, and while he could exhibit the arrogance of a prince, he yet possessed the tenderheartedness of a child. He was unflinching in his devotion to his friends, but inclined to be implacable towards his foes.

The companionship of Judge Lewis in our forced travels and the many favors received at his hands remain in cherished remembrance.

One little episode which occurred at Yakima City I must not omit. So-called Christian Indians were furnished me as witnesses by whom it was hoped that men engaged in the traffic of spiritous liquors with the Indians might be brought before the court for trial.

For four days I, as acting United States attorney, labored before the grand jury to worm out of these Indian witnesses the name of the naughty white man guilty of this offense.

Having failed in this important particular, in my despair, I prevailed upon Judge Lewis to interview an Indian by the name of Saluskin. I hoped he might prove in his efforts more successful than myself. But after a long siege he was compelled to admit. that there was one secret an Indian would not venture in the keeping of another.

To name, describe and speak of the lawyers who appeared at the bar from March, 1853, to January, 1873, and to speak of them as their merits deserve as I recognized them, would swell this paper to undue proportions if I even possessed the proper qualifications

for such a task.

This I once did in a volume I projected entitled "Reminiscences," but the great conflagration of August 3, 1895, saved my literary reputation by the destruction of the manuscript before it reached the hands of the printer.

A few, however, of my brethren of the bar will find the opinion I entertain of them in "Gilbert's History."

To all the present practitioners of the state I have this to say, if you care for my good opinion, before I shall express myself favorably of you, I shall expect a united effort upon your part to blot out our cumbersome, ill-advised and disjointed code of civil procedure.

Then, and not until then, need you expect panegyrics from my pen.

PROBATE LAW AND PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON.

JUDGE EMMETT N. PARKER, OF TACOMA.

It has seemed to me that the importance of this branch of the law is underestimated, particularly here in the west, where we are inclined to measure the usefulness of the legal profession by the ability of its members to champion the client's cause through intricacies of contentious litigation and disentangle his interests from the complications, which perchance for the want of timely legal advice, they have gotten into.

There is quite a prevalent view, not only among laymen, but with many of the bar, among which are some of its most talented members, that to be proficient in probate law and practice means but little more than to be acquainted with a few stereotyped forms and a little statute law, and that such work can be safely left to clerks and students and those who are not sufficiently skilled to enter the field of litigation; still we not unfrequently witness the spectacle of counsel of exceptional learning committing error in probate practice which would be greatly to their shame in any other field of jurisprudence. This is to be accounted for largely by the fact of the newness of our state, for the importance of a perfect record, leading up to and including the decree of distribution in a probate matter, will become much more apparent as time goes on, when every chain of title will contain one or more links based on such proceedings.

Our probate practice is too often conducted in such manner as to invite litigation, rather than prevent it, as its real object should be. Now I can hardly conceive of an administration of any consequence, and especially where real property is involved, that does not need the services of learned counsel to advise the administrator and see that each step in the administration is taken in its proper order and in strict compliance with law, for upon the record of such a case depends the rights of more parties than are usually in