Almost invariably he appeared for the accused. Later he became a judge, and died in the fulness of his powers and fame. When a judge he seemed to feel instinctively that he was concerned in the prisoner's defence. Hence he was not always very satisfactory to the prosecution in a criminal case, yet he was an able man. It was force of habit asserting itself unconsciously, and was not intentional partiality, for he was a man of integrity.
Judges run that way, just as do men in other walks of life.
Early training asserts itself in the judge's career on the bench, particularly in regard to his attitude towards persons accused of crime. Perhaps I should say his point of view, rather than his attitude. The point of view of each of us is our view point, or the position from which we view a matter, and that position is determined by our career up to the time we come to consider the case presented to us. We adjust our views of a criminal case according to our judgment, and my experience is that the judgment of a judge is formed on a foundation in which the corner-stone is the substance of his training prior to going upon the bench. The machinery of justice makes few slips, after all.