Ruminations
that I have no sympathy with any class
of men, who make war upon this statute, or any other law of the state, in a
spirit of preconceived reproach, of opprobium, and hypercriticism, of which
character I have felt compelled to regard, most of the former attacks upon
this law, and while I would cheerfully and gladly uphold this law, and all
laws, against any and all such attacks,
with the tittle of zeal and strength accorded to me, I cannot but regard it as
altogether unadvised and ill-judged,
to push the defence of a statute, and
especially a statute upon the subject
of sumptuary law, a subject so rife
with jealousy and suspicion, in all periods of the history of civilized states;
to push the defence of such a statute
any further than we can fairly justify our
course, by just construction, and sound
and sensible exposition, seems to me
doing an essential disservice to the
cause of legal administration, in general, and upon this exciting subject, in
particular ... It has been therefore with
less regret, since the obnoxious provisions no longer exist, and the decision
will not therefore be regarded as of
much practical importance, that I have
felt compelled to the conclusion, that
the provisions in this twelfth section, as
it originally stood, in regard to proof
are characterized by a degree of onesidedness, so to speak, which would
never have been attempted, upon any
other subject, and is absolutely indefensible upon all subjects.27
Here for a third time Redfield reveals his biloquist skill, condemning the majority while
writing the majority decision. He confesses
his great doubts about the wisdom of the
decision and is relieved no future court will
follow it.
In Hyde v. Jamaica (1855), Bennett reversed the trial court and declared the town
not liable for the death of a man who, finding a bridge swept away in a storm, had
used a fordway, and been drowned. Judge
Pierpoint Isham wrote a concurring opinion, agreeing with the ruling on slightly different grounds. Redfield dissented wryly. “I
feel no disposition to enter into any labored
argument in vindication of my opinion,” he
wrote. “It is not probable the decision, being by a divided court, will be regarded as
establishing any important principles in the
law, upon matters hitherto controverted.”
Where most dissents up to this time began with a s