Chief-Justice Charles Doe. Judge Doe liked to remind the bar that substantial justice in a speedy, inexpensive form was the chief duty of the court. The verdict of the bar, at the present time, is that this reform has been a successful one. Some of the same results have been reached in other States by legislative enactments, but in none by rules and decisions of the court, as in New Hampshire. Before his day, the practice of oppressive, unreasonable and often insulting cross-ex aminations had been very common. Judge Doe resolved to break it up and to secure civil treatment for all who were called upon to aid in the administration of justice. Dan iel M. Christie, with whom he studied law, and one of the strongest and best known lawyers of his generation in the State, was one of the greatest offenders in this direction. It fell to Judge Doe to preside at a trial term in Dover quite early in his career as a judge. When he saw that Mr. Christie was beginning to abuse a witness, he took advantage of the first flagrant breach of proper questions to say to the witness, " You need not answer that question." Mr. Christie quickly compre hended the criticism and desisted. Gen. Marston, in the case of a like rebuke, gath ered up his papers, ejaculated " What a damned fool! " and left the room and the case. He returned after the adjournment and a truce was declared, which proved to be a permanent peace. The old license of abuse has largely disappeared, though not without obstinate resistance on the part of some of the older and more aggressive members of the bar, as already suggested. Judge Doe did many things in his way of working out his rule of substantial justice that men of less vigorous intellect and less self-reliance would not have ventured upon. Not many years after his appointment to the bench, Judge Doe held a trial term in Grafton County. At that time there was no other bar in the State where trials were con ducted with greater vigor and tenacity. Both the Binghams, Judge Rand, Harry Hibbard,
247
and the present Chief-Justice Carpenter were among the leaders engaged in almost every case. Harry Bingham and Judge Carpenter were both well grounded in the common law, and doubtful, to say the least, of the propriety of any encroachment upon its wellestablished rules. In one of the school dis tricts there had been a very bitter fight as to whether a schoolhouse should be repaired or a new one built in another location. The views of the economical party prevailed, and the school meeting, after an angry debate, voted to repair the old house. The minority, who, strange to say, were the men of wealth and the heavy taxpayers, determined it should not be done, and assembled and demolished the old house in broad daylight, not, how ever, without resistance. A large number of the destroying party, prominent citizens among them, were indicted for riot. The county solicitor, the present Chief-Justice Carpenter, with whom was associated Harry Hibbard, moved for a trial. A verdict of guilty was almost sure to follow. Of course the sending to jail of so many persons out of one small school district would have created a feud which would have lasted for years. Judge Doe, who had informed himself of the facts, quietly, as if it were an ordi nary occurrence, without waiting for the counsel for the respondents to say anything, said that he had considered the case and thought that substantial justice would best be done by sending it to a referee to assess the value of the property destroyed, direct ing the referee to hear only one witness on each side, whom he named in the order; to determine who had participated in the un lawful act and to apportion the cost between them; when the damages were paid to the school district, the cases were to be dis missed. He offered to allow the State and the defendants to agree on the referee, but, as the solicitor would not agree, the referee was appointed by the court. The order was in his own handwriting and placed on file. Although the court would not hear the
