That he had held courts, for the transaction of Probate business, at times and places other than those authorized by law;

That he had taken illegal fees of office; That he had acted as counsel and received fees in cases pending iron

is own court, before himself, as judge. The twelfth article was as follows:

That  ‘he, in June, 1815, at Framingham, in said county of Middlesex, one Alpheus Ware, who before had been, and then was guardian of one Jotham Breck, a person non compos mentis, being about to present his account of his guardianship of his said ward for allowance, and thereupon a controversy having arisen between the said Ware and one Nathan Grout, who, as one of the overseers of the poor of the town, in which said Breck had his settlement, attended said court to examine said accounts, respecting some property belonging to the ward of said Ware, and thereupon the Said Prescott, overhearing the conversation between the said Ware and the said Grout, respecting said ward’s estate, proposed to advise and instruct them therein; and thereupon the said Prescott, being then and there judge as aforesaid, did advise with and direct the said Ware and Grout, concerning the settlement of the account aforesaid, and the interest and estate of the said ward, and the guardianship of the aforesaid Ware, and the said account thereafter, on the day aforesaid, was sworn to by the said Ware, and was examined, and, with the consent of said Grout, was allowed by the said judge; and the said Prescott then and there first demanded of said Grout, as fees for advice and counsel as aforesaid, the sum of five dollars, and upon the refusal of said Grout to pay the same, the said Prescott demanded the same of the said Ware; and the said Ware objecting to the payment thereof, the said Prescott then and there proposed to the said Ware, that if he would pay the said sum of five dollars, he would, in his said office of judge, insert and allow the same to the said Ware, in his said account of guardianship, then before sworn to, and with the consent of said Grout, allowed by the said judge. And the said Ware then and there still objecting thereto, because the said account, as allowed, had been consented to by the aforenamed Grout, acting as overseer to the poor as aforesaid; the said Prescott insisted on the payment thereof, and to overcome the objection of said Ware thereto, stated to the said Ware, that’ the overseers of the poor need know nothing about it.’ And the said Ware then and there, upon the urgent and repeated demands of the said Prescott, and upon his proposition to insert the same charge in the guardianship account aforesaid, and to allow the same without the knowledge of the said Grout, did pay to the said Prescott the said sum of five dollars. And thereupon the said Prescott did insert, by interlineation, a charge of five dollars, for the money so paid to him as aforesaid, in the guardianship account of said Ware, and did pay and allow the same accordingly.’

Mr. Webster’s observations on this article, together with the exordium and peroration of his speech, are inserted.—Compiler.”

Reference Data:

Eloquence of the United States, Vol. 4, 1827, pages 487-8