Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 10.pdf/158

 Henry Laurens Clinton.

135

coin used to term " the virtue of pegging the strange surname of Carnal, was convicted. away; " and that if he took time to drive a But Mr. Clinton had the address to get an nail of testimony he did not fail to clinch it; exception on an overruled challenge to the also that he never sprung a surprise without bias which placed an apparently prejudiced being prepared to underpin it. Clinton's bar juror upon the panel. Mr. Clinton's conten competitors were in some respects more tion was that even if guilty of the stabbing, "showy," and more given to pyrotechnics the act could not become premeditated mur before the jury box than he; but none of der, but at the most, was manslaughter. In them equalled him in expenditure of deter that belief large numbers of lawyers shared. mined labor. Like a great general, while He discovered that, without his professional caring most for his centre he always care knowledge, while the jury were out they had fully guarded his flanks. He became recog sent a verbal message to the judge by a con nized for rare professional courage, and while stable asking new instruction about the dis he would never beard a judge after the man tinction in degrees of homicide; and that ner of an old Bailey practitioner, he never the judge had returned a verbal answer that allowed aggressions from the court nor unfair they were not to consider any degree except pretensions from an opponent without firm murder. Whereupon, Mr. Clinton, obtain insistence on his rights. He showed him ing the affidavits of the jurors to the inci self a firm believer in the trust of advocacy dent, moved for new trial on the ground of as laid down by Henry Brougham in his irregularity. The district attorney hotly con famous defense of Queen Caroline. tested the motion, and the judge, naturally Early in his career Mr. Clinton was called timid as to the exposure of what at least was upon to demonstrate fidelity to a client and a judicial indiscretion on his part, declined resistance to attacks upon his professional to receive the affidavits, holding that jurors rights. It came prominently to public notice, could not impeach their verdict; Mr. Clin and was the subject of much newspaper and ton the while contending that they were not falsifying or impugning their own action, but bar gossip for months, under these circum stances. Mr. Clinton had been assigned to that of the court. The law not then allowing any appeal to a convict excepting upon ex defend a friendless Swiss who, in an alterca tion in the dark, one night, at a third-class ceptions taken during a trial, Mr. Clinton had no further relief for the irregularity. He hotel, had stabbed and killed a lodger. Clin ton was assigned by the court while the case then, on a Bill of Exceptions, appealed on the for the prosecution was ready for trial and sole error of the juror challenge, and asked a stay of the sentence of death. The judge, all witnesses in court. Vainly (but accept upon writ of error, postponed considering ing the assignment under his oath as at torney) he begged the delay of one day in the motion; and meanwhile scaffold day ap order to acquaint himself with the matter. proached. At his own expense Mr. Clinton personally proceeded to the governor and There was a new and ambitious district at torney proud of his preferment, anxious for procured a respite, and again asked the judge distinction in a "star case," who pressed for (Edmonds) 'to decide the stay. The district attorney, angered that he was losing his trial. Judge Edmonds, smarting under a re first victim, and that his intimate friend the cent new trial having been granted in a mur der case over which he had presided, and governor should have given respite without consulting him, aided the judge in this delay. wherein he had been guilty of judicial mis ruling, and the case having been participated Whereupon Mr. Clinton withdrew his appli in by Mr. Clinton, was inexorable; and the cation from Judge Edmonds, and renewed trial was forced on, and the client, who had it before another judge of the same court on