Samuel G. Opdycke was a young man of promise. Thanks to the Opdycke Genealogy<\/em>, we have a description of what he looked like, and, even better, we have a portrait:<\/p>\n As mentioned before, Samuel G. Opdycke was the son of John R. Opdycke and Rebecca McAtee, and the grandson of James McAtee and Grace Thatcher. This grandmother, Grace McAtee, survived her husband by about 35 years, and wrote her will on May 7, 1826, when she was 60 years old,<\/p>\n \u201a\u00c4\u00fabeing sick and weak in body but of sound disposing mind and memory and considering the certainty of death and the uncertainty of the time thereof, and to the end I may be the better prepared whenever it shall please God to call me hence\u201a\u00c4\u00f92<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n To her son, James McAtee she left one feather bed, bedding and bedstead. All the rest of her personal estate was to be sold to pay her just debts and funeral expenses. She left her mortgaged farm in Kingwood where she was then living to Robert Welts, on condition that the rents and profits of the farm for the first year after her death be paid to son James McAtee. She also stipulated that if her personal property was insufficient to pay her debts, then Robert Welts and her other heirs were to pay the difference. This provision was to get them all into trouble later on.<\/p>\n Once the debts were paid, Robert Welts was to pay the profits of her farm to son James McAtee and daughter Rebecca Opdycke in equal shares. After the death of Rebecca, the farm was to be divided in half, with one half going to Rebecca\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s children, excluding her son (and Grace\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s grandson) Samuel G. Opdycke. The other half was to go to son James and his heirs.<\/p>\n Twice Grace McAtee stipulated that her grandson Samuel G. Opdycke was not to be included among the rest of the heirs in receiving this bequest. It sounds as if she had no good feeling toward her grandson, but in fact, she named him as her sole executor. Perhaps she gave Samuel some support prior to writing her will. It is clear, though, that she had faith in him to carry out her wishes. Grace McAtee died in Kingwood Township on May 28, 1826. On June 29, 1826, her executor, Samuel G. Opdycke held a sale of her personal property, as instructed in the will.3<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n While managing his grandmother\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s estate, Samuel G. Opdycke continued practicing law in Flemington. One of his big cases, in July 1826, was that of Gershom Lambert v. Jacob, Hannah & Tunison Coryell and Asher Lambert in the N.J. Chancery Court. Opdycke was solicitor for Gershom Lambert.4<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n In 1827, Opdycke continued to administer his grandmother\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s estate, and on January 10th<\/sup> advertised that all notes payable to the estate should be settled as soon as possible. In May, Opdycke appeared as a witness in the trial of Thomas Reading. Opdycke was one of several witnesses against Reading; the others were George Holcombe, Watson Heath, George Rea Esq., David Anderson, Abram Gulick, Nathaniel Saxton Esq. and Nathan Price. Reading was found guilty, but the court minutes do not say what he was charged with.5<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Opdycke\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s appearances in court were not always as a lawyer for plaintiffs and defendants. Sometimes he was the defendant. He was still being sued for debts, this time in the N.J. Supreme Court by Charles Bonnell and John Mattison.6<\/a><\/sup> Financial challenges may have obliged Opdycke to move his office to a less expensive location. In September 1827, he published a notice of his change of address:<\/p>\n I have removed my Office to the room immediately over the office of the Hunterdon Gazette, one door above Mr. Smick’s <\/b>hotel. \u201a\u00c4\u00ec Entrance by the stairs on the outside of the building. S. G. Opdycke. Flemington, Sept. 1, 1827.7<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mr. Smick\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s hotel was located where the Post Office now stands. It was owned by Charles Bonnell, but the hotel and tavern were run by Peter Smick for many years. It was an important location, and probably helped Samuel Opdycke\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s business. But at the end of the day (literally), the place to be was at Neal Hart\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s Hotel, opposite the Court House. As Charles W. Opdycke explains:<\/p>\n Those were the days when the Hunterdon Co. lawyers, during “court-week” at Flemington, used to meet every evening at Neal Hart’s hotel and sit together till after midnight, joking, telling stories and making speeches. These convivial unions were a great temptation to a young man straining every nerve in keen contests with men so much his seniors, and were probably not without an injurious effect upon the young lawyer’s strength and habits. 8<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is the genteel Victorian way of suggesting that Samuel Opdycke imbibed a little too much at these evening sessions, and suffered for it.<\/p>\n In November 1827, Samuel G. Opdycke put another notice in the Hunterdon Gazette, which was worded in his own peculiar style:<\/p>\n \u201a\u00c4\u00faNOTICE.\u00ac\u2020 The books of account of the late firm of Atkinson & Bonnell have been placed in my hands for collection. Repeated invitations have been heretofore publicly made to the debtors to that concern to pay off their respective accounts, and very little attention paid to them. This is the only public request which I am authorized to make: those persons therefore, who are still indebted to that firm, are earnestly solicited to make payment before the first of December next, or give some kind of security; because, after that date private invitations will be delivered by one clad in authority, without distinction or reserve.\u00ac\u2020 [signed]\u00ac\u2020 Samuel G. Opdycke. Nov. 21, 1827.\u201a\u00c4\u00f9<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Apparently Opdycke was still considered an up and coming attorney. In fact, according to the Opdycke Genealogy, the highly respected Garret D. Wall Esq. invited Opdycke to join him in his law practice in Mount Holly.9<\/a><\/sup> This move to Mt. Holly might have taken place in 1828. In September, Opdycke had trouble packing and inserted this plea into the Gazette:<\/p>\n \u00ac\u2020\u201a\u00c4\u00faWho has gotten my Portmanteau? \u201a\u00c4\u00ec The person who has it will oblige me by returning it.\u00ac\u2020 S. G. Opdycke.\u201a\u00c4\u00f910<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Adding to my suspicion that Opdycke was away from Flemington at this time, there were no other notices from him in 1828. In May 1829, Peter Smick and Nathan Price both applied for \u00ac\u2020tavern licenses. All the prominent Flemington attorneys signed their applications, but not Samuel G. Opdycke. Perhaps he was still in Burlington, but by July 4, 1829 he was back in Flemington, when he participated in the annual celebration by delivering this toast:<\/p>\n \u00ac\u2020\u201a\u00c4\u00faA wolf in sheep\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s clothing. \u201a\u00c4\u00ec The paramount slanderer, amenable to no law; who goes without punishment and yet most deserves it \u201a\u00c4\u00ec the man who with affected sanctity assumes your praise, and yet with most meritorious reserve, and black-hearted piety insinuates your ruin. From all such, good Lord deliver me.\u201a\u00c4\u00f911<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Who on earth was he talking about? I wish I knew. Presumably his fellow diners understood his reference, but there is nothing in the Gazette for this year to explain it. The answer might have been found in his papers, had they been saved and donated to the Historical Society the way Nathaniel Saxton\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s were, but there are none to be found there.12<\/a><\/sup> It appears that someone was spreading derogatory rumors about Samuel Opdycke, and they were probably hurting his business.<\/p>\n In April 1830, Samuel G. Opdycke had moved his office once again. He submitted this advertisement to the Gazette:<\/p>\n “Another Card\u201a\u00c4\u00ee P. S., Who has got my sitting chair and cushion? He, she or it that’s got them, if they consult my case and their duty, would do an act of equal justice to bring them back. This would be “doing as you would be done by:” a doctrine which appears to be little regarded in these cold water times; Samuel G. Opdycke.\u201a\u00c4\u00f913<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Opdycke had been unwillingly removed from his room in Smick\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s Hotel, and was now residing in a jail cell in the court house, basically in debtor\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s prison. On May 5, 1830, Opdycke published a notice to William Bishop and Bartholomew VanCamp, two of his creditors, of a hearing at the Court of Common Pleas to be held on June 19, 1830, \u201a\u00c4\u00fato hear what can be alleged for or against my liberation from confinement as an insolvent debtor.\u201a\u00c4\u00f9 [signed] Samuel G. Opdycke.14<\/a><\/sup>\u00ac\u2020Also in May, he posted notices in the Emporium and True American<\/em>, a Trenton newspaper, stating that the court would meet on June 19th\u00ac\u2020”to hear what can be alleged for and against my discharge from imprisonment for debt. –That\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s all!\u201a\u00c4\u00f9<\/p>\n Then on May 19, 1830 he published the wonderful notice (seen at the beginning of part one):<\/p>\n “Ascending! FINDING the room on the first floor of the Court House rather too much confined for an office, and the passage too much obstructed by lockage for the free ingress and egress of clients, I have selected, for a summer office, a beautiful airy chamber in the extreme front of the building. This pleasant apartment is situated immediately over the portico of this lofty edifice, and overlooks the main street of the village; After rising three inclined planes, clients will arrive at the summit level of my office; the door opens toward the east between two windows; No toll demanded until they arrive at the summit. – Passage back, free of expense; Samuel G. Opdycke, Flemington, May 19, 1830.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It appears that Opdycke had charmed the sheriff into allowing him a certain freedom of movement not commonly permitted to insolvent debtors.<\/p>\n During the special term on June 19, 1830, the court remanded the case and\u00ac\u2020Peter Smick \u201a\u00c4\u00faentered into stipulation\u201a\u00c4\u00f9 to pay 75 cents per week for Samuel G. Opdycke\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s support.15<\/a><\/sup> At first I thought this was some strange agreement between Opdycke and Smick, but as I read more about insolvency laws, I realized that this 75 cents went towards Opdycke\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s maintenance while he was in jail. Sheriffs collected fees for provisioning prisoners in the early 19th\u00ac\u2020century, but I did not realize they would collect them from a debtor’s creditor.\u00ac\u2020The court met again on June 21, 1830:<\/p>\n \u201a\u00c4\u00faMay Term. Hunterdon Pleas. Samuel G. Opdycke cometh before the court and saith that he ought\u00ac\u2020 against his creditors to be discharged out of custody for Debt because he saith that he hath become according to the force form & effect of an act of the Legislature entitled \u201a\u00c4\u00faan act for the relief of persons imprisoned for debt\u201a\u00c4\u00f9 passed the eighteenth day of March in the year of our Lord 1795 and within the true intent and meaning of such act, an insolvent debtor ; and he hath well and truly complied with the said act in all things on his part for the benefit and to the use of his creditors to wit on the 19th day of June in the year of our Lord 1830 at this township of Amwell in the county of Hunterdon whereby good right and full title by virtue of the said act hath accrued to him against his creditors to be discharged out of custody for Debt and this he is ready to verify Wherefor he prayeth Inopment{?} of discharge out of custody for Debt according to the force form and effect of the said act. Dated June 21, 1830. [signed] Samuel G. Opdycke.\u201a\u00c4\u00f916<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Peter Smick took issue with Opdycke\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s claims. In his filing with the Court, Smick stated that<\/p>\n he is not satisfied with the truth and honesty of the Declaration and confession of the said Debtor nor with the truth and fairness of the account and inventory exhibits to the court __ \u201a\u00c4\u00ec and the said Peter Smick doth hereby offer and undertake to the court to prove by the first day of the next term of this court that the said debtor has concealed and secreted some part of his Estate or property and has not fairly fully and honestly delivered up to the use and benefit of his creditors the whole of his estate real and personal \u201a\u00c4\u00ec and the said Peter Smick doth hereby agree in writing under his hand to allow and pay to and for the support of the said Debtor Samuel G. Opdycke the sum of seventy five cents per week, to be paid at such time or times and to such person or persons as the law directs. dated June 19th AD 1830 [signed] Peter Smick, George Rea.17<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Following this contretemps, Opdycke displayed more of his sense of humor in the face of adversity with another advertisement in the Gazette:<\/p>\n \u201a\u00c4\u00faStill Ascending.\u00ac\u2020 I had anticipated that after the 19th instant, I should have been reinstated with the power of locomotion. Owing however to a proposition made me by a particular friend of mine, thro\u201a\u00c4\u00f4 their honors the Judges &c. to add a weekly allowance of $1 or less towards my support, their honors considering that 75 cents per week in these cold water times would be weakly enough, decided that I should accept that sum. I have therefore made up my mind to remain within the limits prescribed, &c. upon the terms aforesaid, a while longer \u201a\u00c4\u00ec \u201a\u00c4\u00f4ca[u]se cant help it.\u201a\u00c4\u00f4\u00ac\u2020 S. G. Opdycke. June 23, 1830.<\/p>\n N. B. Office on the summit level yet.<\/p>\n P. S. \u201a\u00c4\u00ec One word about business. \u201a\u00c4\u00faThe subscriber returns his thanks to his customers for past favors, and desires a continuation of the same.\u201a\u00c4\u00f9 \u201a\u00c4\u00ec That\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s according to form now-a-days. But I don\u201a\u00c4\u00f4t want the same \u201a\u00c4\u00ec I want others of the same kind \u201a\u00c4\u00ec that\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s it.\u201a\u00c4\u00f918<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sadly, there was little ascending after this time\u201a\u00c4\u00eeonly more court appearances. In fact, this was the last time Opdycke published a personal notice in the Gazette. Peter Smick appealed the ruling, and Samuel G. Opdycke counter sued in August, by his attorney Charles Bartles. I cannot say exactly what the basis of the suit was, but probably it had to do with Smick\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s claim that Opdycke was hiding assets. A jury trial was held and the verdict went in Opdycke\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s favor. The court ordered judgment of discharge to be entered in favor of Samuel G. Opdycke and against Peter Smick with costs of 6 cents.19<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Smick was unsatisfied with the court\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s ruling and appealed the case to the N.J. Supreme Court, with Wm. Halsted as his attorney. The Court of Common Pleas in its August term, \u201a\u00c4\u00fain debt on certiorari to the court\u201a\u00c4\u00f9 ordered the clerk to \u201a\u00c4\u00fareturn to the Supreme Court all the proceedings had before this court,\u201a\u00c4\u00f9 on motion of Wm. Halsted, attorney for the defendant, who was Peter Smick.20<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The Supreme Court heard the case in September 1830 and granted a rule of certiorari allowing Smick to have the case reheard by the Court of Common Pleas with \u201a\u00c4\u00fafacts\u201a\u00c4\u00f9 that had not been included in the first trial. But no such trial took place.21<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n There was one final court case involving Samuel G. Opdycke. On February 12, 1831, in Chancery Court, Tunis Quick sued Opdycke as executor of Grace McAtee dec\u201a\u00c4\u00f4d and also one Robert Wells (Welts). Quick filed his bill \u201a\u00c4\u00fafor the foreclosure of the equity of redemption and sale of the mortgaged premises mentioned in said bill.\u201a\u00c4\u00f9 The notice stated that Robert Wells was absent from New Jersey, now living in New York. Grace McAtee had gotten a mortgage on her farm in June 1818 from\u00ac\u2020Elizabeth Olden of Middlesex Co. When Elizabeth Olden died, her estate was administered by Emley Olden, who assigned the mortgage to Tunis Quick of Hunterdon County. Quick went to court in February 1831 to recover the unpaid mortgage.<\/p>\n Unable to locate Robert Wells\/Welts, on April 12, 1831, the Court ruled in favor of Tunis Quick and ordered Sheriff Wilson Bray to sell Grace McAtee\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s property, a farm in Kingwood of 40.66 acres and a 15-acre woodlot, to recover a debt of $423.66 plus court costs of $65.27. The sale was held on August 19, 1831, at which time John Opdycke (Samuel G. Opdycke\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s father and one of those sued by Tunis Quick) bid $800. But he could not pay that amount, so he arranged to have the deed transferred to his son James Opdycke (who was only 21 years old), and the deed was recorded on December 27, 1831.22<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Perhaps this farm was the asset that Peter Smick claimed that Samuel G. Opdycke owned in 1830. But Opdycke was only the executor of the estate; he inherited nothing from his grandmother\u201a\u00c4\u00f4s will.<\/p>\n None of the notices related to this case stated whether or not Samuel G. Opdycke was alive or deceased.\u00ac\u2020On April 1, 1831, the Gazette noted that a letter for Samuel G. Opdycke was waiting at the Flemington Post Office. I doubt that it was ever collected. We have come to the end of his story.\u00ac\u2020Charles W. Opdycke wrote:<\/p>\n But, when all were predicting the most brilliant future for him, Samuel G. Opdycke was cut down in 1829, at the age of 26, by an attack of choler morbus. He was buried in Burlington, N.J.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n![\"OpdyckeSG-2\"](\"https:\/\/goodspeedhistories.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/08\/OpdyckeSG-2-816x1024.png\")
<\/a>\u201a\u00c4\u00faSamuel G. was of medium height; and of remarkably amiable disposition. His portrait has passed down from the keeping of his eldest brother to a nephew who has recently died without children, and by the consent of the family it has now come into the possession of the author of the Genealogy. It is on wood, and represents Samuel in the full dress of his time, with a handsome intellectual face, and with features which might be considered perhaps the pure Opdycke (and Updike) type.”1<\/a><\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\nDeath of Grace Thatcher McAtee<\/h3>\n
Difficulties<\/h3>\n
In the Court House<\/h3>\n
\nAnd Sammy, what shall Sammy do, But notify the public too?
\nHAVING been put in possession of the south-west room on the first floor
\nof the Hunterdon Court House, (for which favor my bosom is not dangerously swollen with gratitude,) I crave permission to inform my friends and the public,
\nthat I have converted that apartment into an Office;
\nNO MISTAKE about finding me at home.<\/p>\n