Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 09.pdf/279

 248

solicitor nor his associate when they at tempted to protest against this unheard-of disposition of a criminal case, the refusal did not prevent the usual debate at " the tavern," frequented alike by the judge and the bar. Harry Hibbard, who possessed an unusual power of invective, walked up and down his large room, sympathizing with the solicitor and denouncing the act. All at once he stopped and exclaimed, " After all, there is a moral sublimity about that fellow's utter disregard of law which I must say commands my admiration." At the next term, when' the report came in, Judge Nesmith held the term. The county solicitor moved to reject the report and to proceed to trial, urging the illegality of the reference. Harry Bingham, who appeared for the respondents, followed. He was evidently hampered by his convictions and views of the law, but he made the best defense of the order that he could : that, under ordinary circumstances, an indictment could not be referred, but that, in this case, •it was the best thing that could be done for all concerned. Judge Nesmith was plainly embarrassed also. He finally said that, while he should have hesitated about making such an order, still the order was in the handwriting of Judge Doe, and it was a delicate matter to interfere with the orders of one of his brethren; he would make no ruling at all, but leave the case as he found it. "In short," he added, " I wash my hands of the whole matter." The result was probably beneficial to the school district, and is an example of what may be done by a judge whose doctrine is " substantial justice," pro vided proper discretion is always used. It should not be forgotten that, under the common law rule in New Hampshire, the State has no exception, and, as the result was satisfactory to the respondents, there was no way of correcting the error, if it be so considered, except by impeachment. The case has a sequel, which may as well

be told here. Judge Doe always strove to prevent a trial for murder, as will be sug gested later. At the trial of Palmer for murder, in Portsmouth, at the conclusion of the opening by the State, Gen. Gilman Marston, the counsel for the respondent, whose peculiarities were no less marked than were those of the presiding justice, was called to the bench. Judge Doe said, " You have heard the statement of the solicitor." "Yes," said General Marston. "Can he prove what he says he can?" "I suppose he can prove some of it." "Well," added Judge Doe, " clon't you think this is a case to settle?" "Settle," came the answer quickly and no longer in an undertone, " we can't settle, but you might refer it." In a divorce case, tried by the court in New Hampshire, a hearing was fixed before the Judge at his room in the hotel. Judge Doe, on coming out from dinner, saw some persons waiting whom he thought might be the petitioner and witnesses. Finding on inquiry that this was so, he invited them to his room, questioned them to his satisfaction, and then told them they would not be needed any "more and could go home. Shortly after, the counsel came in and apolo gized for his delay because he could not find his witnesses. "Oh," said Judge Doe, "I have seen them and granted the divorce." It is needless to add, perhaps, that there was no appearance for the defendant. At the close of a trial term in Merrimack County, when there had been one or two closely contested cases, in which the sym pathies of the judge pretty plainly appeared, there was a general going over of the docket. The day was well advanced and the gas was lighted. Judge Doe had caused an entire change in the arrangement of the furniture, and the room had assumed a guise which it never had before, nor since, and this may have contributed to the general vague sense of uneasiness. The usual hour of adjourn ment had arrived, but Judge Doe gave no