Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 09.pdf/281

 250

no more was heard of the dissenting opin ion. Of Judge Doe's personal peculiarities much has been said. He was indifferent as to his dress, regarding such trifles as polished boots as matters of no consequence. He was apparently annoyed by forms, preferring to say at the close of a session, "We will take a recess till to-morrow morning," rather than have the sheriff adjourn the court. As has been said, he often presided at trials for murder. He evidently disliked the morbid curiosity which crowded the court room on such occasions and always endeavored to secure such a disposal of the case as would render a trial unnecessary. Just before the trial of Hodgman for kill ing his wife at Greenville, Judge Doe, who was to sit as one of the two judges, called on Hon. Charles H. Burns, who was for the defense, and told him that his client was in great danger of being convicted for murder in the first degree, and that he had investi gated the case and thought this ought not to be, and urged a plea of guilty in the second degree. Mr. Burns replied that his client was an intelligent man, and that his father was present and he would consult them. The young man explained to them the circumstances and claimed that the gun which caused the death of the wife, went off by accident, and refused to admit that he shot her by design, even to save his life. Mr. Burns was convinced of the truth of his statement, which need not be further ex plained, and told Judge Doe that his client would not assent to the proposition. In the meantime, Judge Doe had repre sented to Mr. Barnard, the attorney general, that he was in danger of a verdict of not guilty, and urged him to accept a plea of guilty in the second degree, which Mr. Bar nard likewise refused to do. Neither of the two counsel knew of the conference with his opponent. The trial took nearly two weeks. The jury went out in the afternoon and had not agreed

at bedtime. Mr. Burns got up about five o'clock and started for the court house to see if he could hear anything, when he met Judge Doe. Judge Doe said: "The jury have not agreed, and won't agree, and might as well be discharged. Your client ought to plead to something, and I will give him five years. I will discharge the jury and let him change his plea. He ought to be pun ished, but I don't think he intended to kill his wife, but he did kill her." Mr. Burns remonstrated against discharg ing the jury, and said it would be unprece dented to call in a jury at five o'clock in the morning and discharge them; that, if they did not agree by nine o'clock, it would be time enough to discharge them and talk about a compromise. "Have you heard from the jury? "said Judge Doe. " Not a word. I don't want to hear from the jury. I have seen you. I shall protest against bringing in the jury now." At this point, the sheriff came in and told them that the jury had agreed, and from his manner it was apparent that the verdict was an acquittal. A short time after, Judge Doe sent a letter for Hodgman to Mr. Burns, in which in a very kind manner he gave him advice as to his future life. The trial of the Almy case attracted a great deal of attention. Almy was indicted for killing Miss Warden at Hanover. The act was committed with a revolver, under circumstances that excited the public to an unusual degree, and was followed by the re markable hiding by Almy in the barn owned by Miss Warden's father. Under the New Hampshire law, if the accused pleads guilty to an indictment for murder, it is the duty of the court to try the question whether it is in the first or second degree, the punishment for the former being death by hanging and, of the latter, imprisonment only. The trial was in November, and in very cold weather. There was a great deal of