Evening journal., 1916-01-10


reliably reputed TO be a man of ex-
tremely fine sensibilities, such as 10
lead one to think that IL he had had
conscious knowledge OF having killed
man he would have been completely
unstrung, and solicitous for the well
iare or the injured. Yet he did not
STOP his car, and. the day after he
returned to the vicinity of the acci-
dent and played golf for half a day
as care free in his conduct as he had
ever been. These circumstances ac-
cord with his claim that he had no
knowledge OF the catastrophe that had
happened
From my investigation OF his
claim, ! found. to be brief. that Wit
nesses who were with him al dinner
and left him Immediately before the
accident, positively swear he was not
intoxicated, as against the circum-
stantial evidence of the state that
would seem to indicate he was; other
witnesses who saw him on his arrival
home swear he was not intoxicated.
Thus much for evidence against the
intoxcation theory
AS supporting his theory that he
was not intoxicated. | have the afli-
davit of his physician, who impressed
me as very reliable and credible
witness, that the defendant. ever since
his typhoid Illness has been subject
to attacks of nervous indigestion.
which induce a state of vertigo that
affects his head; that just such n
dinner as defendant ate on the even
ing of the accident would bring on d
severe attack resulting in a vertigo
and a condition OF mental confusion.
Men who have seen defendant in
these attacks make affidavit that when
suffering from them he is affected as
the physician describes. His wife
makes affidavit that on his return
home on the night in question. he in
formed her he had taken the pill his
! physician had prescribed for this
/ Illness.
Defendants reputation for So
briefly is excellent beyond all possible
doubt. as disclosed by sworn state
ments before me, made by reputable
people
"These facts go far to overcome the
discriminating inferences of the States
I circumstantial evidence, and to sus-
tain defendants contention that he was
! in and not intoxicated. In fact they
tend to raise such a reasonable doubt
that l question very seriously
whether a trial jury could get beyond
them. In view Of this, / have con-
cluded that it would be unjust TO sub
ject the defendant TO the narrowing
experience of a trial for homicide.
Another consideration which inilu-
ences me in secondary way is the
situation Of Mrs. Matchctt, the widow.
Before indictment she requested that the
ease be abandoned. ! declined TO COM
ply with her request. She. TO be sure
is. in one sense. the party most az
grieved. Tor her husband is gone. and
with him not " his companionship,
but as we'll his support. understood
tha: the defendant was always willing
to compensate her in money rs far as
he could for the loss occasioned TO her
through him, not because he admitted
liability but because he could not bear
to think he had been the cause though
not intentional or culpable, OF her eN-
trene loss. He is a man Of limited
means, as my inv stigations convince
me. His position was that. il he had "a
defend himself against a charge of homi.
eide, he would first apply his resources
in the defense OF what he contcndeC
was his innocence, and then from whai
accunmlations remained TO him he would
compensate her so far as ne could. Ihii
was not an unreasonable position. Ac
cordingly in SO far as the state deplctet
his resources by subiecting him TO tria
the fund available for her became there
by diminished. This was a circumstance
of a disturbing nature for ! am reliably
informed that her financial situation Is
such as TO entitle her to much consider
alton. Ii the case were strong against
the defendant, | would. for the publ,
welfare. press the prosecution 10 the end
and leave her as hfrd as it may seem
, Z. her private plight. But tn. case being
a. II Is, with the strong possibility o
an aoquittal. I could not bring myself &c
overlook the necessities Of this widow
. Accordingly ] advised her counsel thai
in his negotiations for settlement of he
claim for damages, he might count ol
the dropping of the criminal prosecution
and / notified counsel for the defendant
! that in estimating what Mr.. VOORHEES,
/ could pay the widow. he need no Longer
I con ,ider prior disbursements necessar,
/ in defense OF the criminal suit. ] an
, now advised Of the settlement of thi
civil suit and Of the sum agreed upol
and am again requested by Mrs. Match
cit. through her attorney, to abandon
this case. BY this entry Of a noll
prosequi 7 do SO.
IF. perehance. ! am in error in thus
acting on these facts. and in not press
ing for what Is. in fact. a publ,
wrong. ! am satisfied nevertheless
that the sum paid to Mrs MatChett is
so heavy a burden on the defendant
as TO amount to a severe penalty IL
, the way of a fine, paid not to the State
to be sure. but to the aggrieved wild
ow. Thus while the defendant, fol
reasons of his own satisfies his de
sire TO render assistance to the widow
of Mr.. Matchett, he by his act at the
same time pays to her such sum o.
money as. If he be really guilty
amerces him in severe money pen
atty. in view of his limited means.
'I have taken the pains to make this
lengthy statement in this case, be-
cause I want to make it clear that au-
tomobile drivers. in clear cases, can.
not escape criminal prosecution b,
making none restitution. BY show
ing the reasons underlying my actor
in this case, no one can now infer tha
man may drive his automobile in {
culpable manner in the belief that thu
law can be dealt away. The fact thai
my action might have a bad effect OF
the public by creating an impression
that such an automobile offense, Il