AN ANALYSIS OF 1 HE HOLMES CASE. Bv Judge Arnold.1 financial affairs were in such a condition as THE article on the report of the trial of Herman W. Mudgett, alias H. H. Holmes, by H. Gerald Chapin, entitled "A Study in the Fine Art of Murder " and pub lished in The Green Bac; for November, 1901, is a philosophic treatment of the trial as published with entire fullness by George T. Bisel, Philadelphia. There are some matters connected with the murder and trial which do not appear on the surface of the report, some which may be read " between the lines " by those who took part in the trial, and some matters which require explan ation. The first matter which should be con sidered is the effort made on behalf of the prisoner to obtain a continuance or post ponement of the trial and to create sympathy for the prisoner in case of refusal. The prisoner was arraigned on September 23, 1 895, and October 28, 1895 (five weeks after wards), was fixed as the date of the trial. On that day witnesses were present from Massachusetts, Indiana, Colorado, Texas, Canada and other places. If the trial were postponed it would have been difficult to get the witnesses again. Prisoner's counsel gave as a reason for a continuance that the time allowed for preparation was hopelessly short and inadequate, that three murder cases were to be tried in one case, that the defendant's 1 Hon. Michael Arnold has served twenty years as judge of the Court of Common Pleas as well as of the Criminal Courts of Philadelphia. He has presided at the trial of more than one hundred murder cases, and is considered one of the ablest judges in the State of Penn sylvania. He is a man of great practical ability and is the father of several important Acts of the Legislature by which ancient rules both of substantive law and of practice have been abolished to make way for new laws drawn in conformity with the demands of modern ideas. He is, to use his own words in an opinion in the case of Downey v. Traction Co., 3 Dist. Repts. (Pa.) 81, an advo cate of " The triumph of common sense over unreasonable authority." — The Editor.
to make it impossible to gather witnesses, and that they had come to the determination that they could not consistently proceed with the case much under sixty days from that time. The District Attorney opposed a continuance, stating that many of the witnesses had been brought from far dis tant States, that they came voluntarily, that he could not compel their attendance, that he was quite sure he would never be able to get them here again, and that the con dition of the widow of the deceased was such that it was absolutely perilous to permit the ance case to was go overruled. over. The Then motionthe for aprisoner's continu-' counsel made a dramatic attempt to delay the trial by withdrawing from it, and were checked by a ruling which caused much dis cussion by lawyers and newspaper writers throughout the country, although it can be sustained upon principle and supported by the authority of the highest courts in the country. That ruling was : " Counsel in a case like this have no right to withdraw. You have no right to withdraw at the very beginning of the trial. Your duty is to re main. Of course I cannot force you to stay and do your duty. The remedy of the court is, if counsel withdraw on the eve of a mur der trial without consent, to enter a rule on them to show cause why they should not be disbarred." As before said, this ruling is supported by the authority of the highest courts of this country. Some of them are cited in Weeks on Attorneys, Section 255. It is also sustainable upon principle. All withdrawals of counsel are by leave of court, which is always given when ample time is allowed to the prisoner to get other
