Norwich bulletin., 1914-11-20
FAMOUS TRIALS
TRIALS OF DUKES.

One of the most deplorable tragedies of purely personal character that has ever occurred in the United States, was enacted in the small city of Union town, Pa, more than 30 years ago. It was somewhat in the form of a fam fly feud and eventually resulted in a double murder. On Dec. 24, 1882, just as the Christmas church bells were ringing on Sabbath morning, :Rep. l.. N. Dukes, a well-known member or the Fayette county bar, and a member elect of the Pennsylvania Legislature, nings' Hotel. Six months later the second tragedy occurred, when Mutt s son, James, killed the slayer of his father.
 The high social and political stan9- ing of both men gave startling signI . .f1cance to the first tragedy. The cause of the trouble between the two men was Dukes infatuation for Mutt $ daughter, who was only Is years old at the time. He had pressed his attentiotl upon her in disregard of the wishes of her parents. He was informed that :se must cease making advances and 10 this admonition Dukes sent Mutt sew erar letters which the latter claimed quite offensive. s
 These letters so angered Mutt that
 he called at the hotel to demand al explanation. Hot words at once ensu".l when Dukes suddenly drew revolver from his pocket and exclaimed: You came in here to whip me, and so I'll shoot you.' At this he carried out his threat. After Mutt had been shot fe reached to his hip pocket and pulled out his revolver but before he could fire he fell into the arms of two friends who had accompanied him.
 Dukes walked calmly out of the room and to the office of the hotel and gave himself up, remarking, as ha T f1,af hstf it was in self defense" Dukes was at once taken into custody. At the first hearing on December 29, Judge Wilson decided that the murder was unpre- meditated and bail was fixed at SIP, ,00G 1 which was supplied by the homicide s 1 stepfather.
 The prisoner was at once released and the trial was arranged to take place in March 1883. It was begun or l the 18th ana the strongest point pre- scented was the brutal letters thaf Dukes had written to Mutt regarding ! his daughter. On the second day C. I the trial 37 witnesses testified to tho ] tragedy.
 l The trial continued only three day! and the jury rendered a. verdict :: 1 favor of the prisoner and he was re l leased. The people of Uniontown wer' 1 so indignant at the result that Duke was hung in effigy and it was neces l sary to protect the former prisone l from the angry mob. An indignation ] meeting was held by the citizens ol i the same day of the acquitta1 and a. pc
 tition was presented before the Fay l cite county bar to disbar Dukes as 1; l lawyer.
 l The excitement gradually subslded i only to be revived again on June fl when James Mutt, the second son 0 l the murdered man, shot the murder CT of his father in front of the post
 office building at Uniontown, the bod | of Dukes being carried to the sam room of the hotel in which little nor than six months previously the frs tragedy had ocurred.
 1 Dukes was killed almost instant1 and young Mutt was arrested. An at I tempt was made to hold his trial ]; UEiontown in Dec. 1883, but it wa impossible to obtain a. jury and ta
 case was transferred to Pittsburgh
 The trial was begun in that city O
 young Mutt entered a plea of no
 guilty" 4 number of witnesses wer produced to prove that the prisoner
 mind had become unbalanced on ac count of worry over the death of hi father and the disgrace of his sister
 The jury retired on Jan. 21, 1884. al
 a verdict of not guilty" was rendera
 on the following morning. Judge Stow signed the order for his release at one and James Mutt was judicialIy de clared sane and a free man. This vcc
 ditc was received with as much ar
 proval as had been the verdict
 Dukes the reverse.