by Paul S. Gillies, Esq. RUMINATIONS John H. Senter: A Crusty World View


On the front wall of the Washington County Courthouse in Montpelier, over on the left, is a portrait of a red-haired, bristly- mustached man looking adamant and very serious, ready for a fight. Meet John H. Senter, one of the city’s greatest lawyers, and a man with ambition and spunk. Born in Cabot in 1848, Senter attend- ed school in Cabot and graduated from high school in Concord, New Hampshire. He taught school in Maine, then returned to Montpelier and on to Warren, where he continued teaching. He said he taught for- ty-three terms in his career, but he was not satisfied with life, so as he reached thirty, he read the law in the office of Clarence H. Pitkin in Montpelier and was admitted to practice in 1879.1


in Warren, where for the next six years he served the needs of the valley.2


He opened an office In 1885, he


returned to Montpelier and joined Harlan Kemp in a partnership that lasted six years. He later formed a partnership with his son Clarence, as Senter and Senter, with their offices at the corner of Winter and Summer Streets in Montpelier.3 He was busy, and he had a sense of pub-


lic duty. He served as attorney, director, and officer of the Union Mutual Fire Insur- ance Company for most of his career in Montpelier.4


He was secretary to the Mont-


pelier Board of Trade, and Montpelier’s fourth mayor in 1898 and 1899. He was state’s attorney for two years, 1903-1904. In 1906, he served as town representative in the legislature, and as a member of the State Tax Commission.


Politically he was a Democrat, in a state


that was pure Republican. For thirty years he served as secretary or assistant secre- tary of the Democratic Party, attended many national conventions, and ran unsuc- cessfully as the party’s candidate for gov- ernor in 1900. President Grover Cleveland appointed him National Bank Examiner (1885-1889) and United States District At- torney (1893-1897). He was named Com- missioner of the U.S. Circuit Court for Ver- mont by Judge Wheeler in 1886.5 His office, while he was half of Senter & Kemp, was located at 47 State Street, on the corner of State and Elm Streets, across Elm from the Washington County Court- house. In advertising for his firm, Senter & Kemp explained they were lawyers, agents for fire, life and accident insurance, and for Remington typewriters, as well as law re- porters for the Vermont Supreme Court for the Atlantic Reporter.6


Senter married Ad- 6


die Martin of Warren in 1873, and they had five children. They resided, and later Senter ran his office out of their home, at 12 Win- ter Street. At 10,000 volumes, Senter had the largest law library in Vermont.7 That’s the biography. Consider his tem- perament. Frank Fish, who compiled the bi- ographies of the judges, justices, and law- yers of Vermont, was clerk to Chief Judge Loveland Munson. He remembers John H. Senter:


Once I was sent by [the Chief Judge] from the Supreme Court chamber to summon John H. Senter, of Montpe- lier, to argue a case that day that had been assigned for the next. Mr. Sent- er was a brilliant man of high ideals in his profession, but very rough. He didn’t want to argue the case that day and told me that he would not do so in terms that would not bear printing. I delivered his exact words to the Chief Judge, but instead of anger on his part was met with this further instruction, made in the most kindly manner: “You go to Mr. Senter again and tell him that I want him to come to-day.” Mr. Senter returned to court with me this time and began his argument immediately.8


Senter had a capacity to put himself in the center of things. He is named as a prin- cipal in the case of Downing v. Lyon (1885).9 Downing’s personal property, including a butter-tub machine, was sold at auction on execution to Senter for $125. Lyford, the


THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • SPRING 2012


deputy sheriff, was prohibited by law from bidding, as he conducted the sale, and Downing claimed Senter was simply a front for Lyford. This case was tried in the court of chancery, and a master made findings of fact for consideration by Chancellor Russell Taft. Those facts concluded that Lyford and Senter had done just as Downing had said. Taft disposed of the matter succinctly, in a single paragraph, leaving no question that he disapproved of the practice, and voided the sale.


When John Senter was mayor of Mont-


pelier, at March meeting in 1898, the char- ter prohibited compensation for that office. That November the legislature amended the charter to provide for a salary of $300. The mayor was paid the salary before he took office, as were the aldermen, who each were paid $150. The following year, the city sued Senter to recover the money. At trial Senter prevailed, but the Vermont Supreme Court reversed the judgment in 1900, in City of Montpelier v. Senter.10 Judge John Rowell wrote the opinion, ad- dressing the question of whether the char- ter amendment justified payment of sala- ries to the officials. Recognizing that the law disfavored retrospective


legislation,


Rowell split the baby and required Sent- er to repay the city for a pro rata share of the salary, allowing him to keep the portion from the date of the act’s passage to the end of his term. Senter represented himself before the Court.


Senter clearly had a mercurial relation- ship with his city. He represented East Montpelier in a suit against the Town of Montpelier for lease rents in 1893.11 We can get a sense of his courtroom


style in Foss v. Smith (1907). The case re- ports what happened at trial:


Mr. Senter, counsel for the defendant, in his argument to the jury, under ob- jection and exception of the plain- tiff, said: “Mr. Redmond said to you, gentlemen of the jury, ‘granted that he, Foss, is a knave,’ and I guess it is generally granted.” Immediately af- ter an exception was interposed to this remark of Mr. Senter and excep- tion noted, Mr. Senter continued, un- der the objection and exception of the plaintiff: “And I repeat, gentlemen, Mr. Redmond says, ‘Granted Ernest Foss is a knave,’ and I don’t dispute it.”12


Judge John Rowell wrote the decision www.vtbar.org


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40