CARMAN VS. GLASSCOCK 147 of the river which he and John Hanks took when they floated down to New Orleans in 1831. The original, which is in Lincoln's hand and is still preserved, reads as follows: Ist Prove that River is declared navigable 2nd. That defendants obstructed it in Sangamon county and between mouth & meridian line 3rd. That plaintiffs had a boat load of corn on the river above the dam; that said boat ran on the dam, I Sprang leak - corn wet thereby - am't of damages 2 Could n't get off without unloading 3 Water falling & boat would break if not got off — 4 Did unload-corn got rained on & amount of damage thereby Amount of labor in unloading & reloading and the value of it. CHAPTER XII' Green vs. Green, Lincoln's first divorce case-His dislike for divorce suitsHis magnanimity in the trial of Samuel Rogers vs. Polly Rogers - His comment on the Miller vs. Miller petition - A pitiful story of marital discord - A slow collector - Rarely enforced collection of fees by suit - When in partnership with Logan brought one suit for fee - Retained by Illinois Central Railroad to enjoin McLean County from assessing road for taxation — Lincoln's letter to Brayman-Gains case in Supreme Court - Lincoln sues railroad company for his fee - History of transaction - Dividing fee with Herndon - One of Lincoln's first suits for personal injury - The Horological Cradle ease - The slander suit of McKibben os. Hart - Turning the fee over to his father — The Spink vs. Chiniquiy case settled by Lincoln - The Dungey vs. Spencer case as recalled by Lawrence Weldon — Fixing Lincoln's fee — Linder vs. Fleenor How Lincoln proved the marriage - Dorman os. Lane - Proposal by Lincoln to his associates that they join him and donate fees as a wedding present. ACCORDING to Herndon there was one kind of practice to which Mr. Lincoln as a lawyer was not favorably inclined, and that was suits for divorce; in fact, whenever practicable, he tried to discourage that sort of ligitation. Of course he sometimes appeared in divorce proceedings, but it was always with more or less reluctance. The first action brought by him to dissolve the "marriage bond," as he termed it, was that of Nancy Green vs. Aaron Green filed in the Sangamon Circuit Court September 4, 1837. Lincoln represented the wife, and succeeded in securing the divorce on the ground of desertion or abandonment for a given period. A year later, in the same court, he appeared in another case, that of Samuel Rogers vs. Polly Rogers, but this time in behalf of the husband. An affidavit executed by Lincoln in connection with the case indicates to what extent he could be chivalrous or forbearing when his professional duty required him to espouse the cause of a man in a contest with his wife. Following is a HIS DIVORCE CASES 149 copy of the original document which has been preserved: State of Illinois Sangamon County A. Lincoln being first duly sworn says that he was employed as counsel in the case of Samuel Rogers vs. Polly Rogers for a Divorce; that he, the affiant, drew up the complainant's bill; that said complainant at that time told this affiant that he could prove that the said defendant had been guilty of adultery with one William Short while she lived with said complainant; but that affiant advised said complainant not to make the charge in his bill as there was other sufficient grounds upon which to obtain a divorce, to-wit, absence of more than two years. A. LINCOLN Sworn to and subscribed before me this 20th day of October 1838 WM. BUTLER CLERK There is also in existence an affidavit by Samuel Rogers, the complainant, in which he recites that the charge of adultery was omitted from his bill at the instigation of his counsel, Mr. Lincoln, who opposed the allegation "for no other cause than through tenderness to defendant's character." One can hardly read Lincoln's affidavit in this case without wondering how many lawyers of this day and generation would, under like circumstances, be equally considerate and magnanimous. While on the subject of divorce suits I can hardly refrain from adverting to one that deeply impressed and awakened Lincoln's sympathetic interest. It was brought by him during the partnership with Judge Logan, entitled George Miller vs. Elizabeth Miller, and was tried in Menard County. When one has read the lament of the luck. less and discouraged husband he can doubtless account for Lincoln's sympathy, and appreciate the significance of the brief memorandum penned on the back of one of the pleadings prepared by him for his use in the suit: "A pitiful story of marital discord." In his petition, written by Lincoln, the husband recites that he and Elizabeth Miller were married in Bath County, Kentucky, in 1829; that after said marriage they continued to live together as man and wife, he doing and performing all the duties of an affectionate husband for two or three years when unhappy differences arose and without the fault of your orator she, the defendant, left the bed and board of your orator and went to her relatives; a short time passed and a reconciliation which your orator fondly but vainly hoped would be permanent took place between the defendant and him and she returned to his house; but in a short time she left again and after that frequent temporary reconciliations and separations occurred between them extending in time to the year 1834 when it was agreed between them that they would remove separately to Illinois, there meet, be finally reconciled and live together as man and wife; that they did so remove to Sangamon county, Illinois, where they soon met and, being encouraged by the defendant, your orator set about making preparation to live with her by procuring a house etc. when in a short time, without the fault of your orator, difficulties again arose extending in time up to the year 1836 when she, the defendant, announced to your orator her determination never to live with him again. Thus matters passed till the year 1841 when the defendant and your orator again met in Kentucky and at her instance agreed that on their return to Illinois they would meet and live in peace. Your orator further charges that he did in good faith endeavor to put said last named agreement into execution, but that on meeting the defendant in Menard county, Illinois, where she now resides and has resided since the formation of the county in the fall of 1841, she again announced to your orator her determination never to live with him again, since which time your orator has abandoned all hope of a reconciliation. And so your orator charges that the said defendant has wilfully deserted and absented herself from him |