Probably the most successful instance on record of making use of a dummy occurred in the early stages of the now famous Morse-Dodge divorce tangle.  Dodge had been the first husband of Mrs. Morse, and from him she had secured a divorce.  A proceeding to effect the annulment of her second marriage had been begun on the ground that Dodge had never been legally served with the papers in the original divorce case—­in other words, to establish the fact that she was still, in spite of her marriage to Morse, the wife of Dodge.  Dodge appeared in New York and swore that he had never been served with any papers.  A well-known and reputable lawyer, on the other hand, Mr. Sweetser, was prepared to swear that he had served them personally upon Dodge himself.  The matter was sent by the court to a referee.  At the hour set for the hearing in the referee’s office, Messrs. Hummel and Steinhardt arrived early, in company with a third person, and took their seats with their backs to a window on one side of the table, at the head of which sat the referee, and opposite ex-Judge Fursman, attorney for Mrs. Morse.  Mr. Sweetser was late.  Presently he appeared, entered the office hurriedly, bowed to the referee, apologized for being tardy, greeted Messrs. Steinhardt and Hummel, and then, turning to their companion, exclaimed:  “How do you do, Mr. Dodge?” It was not Dodge at all, but an acquaintance of one of Howe & Hummel’s office force who had been asked to accommodate them.  Nothing had been said, no representations had been made, and Sweetser had voluntarily walked into a trap.

The attempt to induce witnesses to identify “dummies” is frequently made by both sides in criminal cases, and under certain circumstances is generally regarded as professional.  Of course, in such instances no false suggestions are made, the witness himself being relied upon to “drop the fall.”  In case he does identify the wrong person, he has, of course, invalidated his entire testimony.

Not in one case out of five hundred, however, is any attempt made to substitute a “dummy” for the real defendant, the reason being, presumably, the prejudice innocent people have against going to prison even for a large reward.  The question resolves itself, therefore, into how to get the client off when he is actually on trial.  First, how can the sympathies of the jury be enlisted at the very start?  Weeping wives and wailing infants are a drug on the market.  It is a friendless man indeed, even if he be a bachelor, who cannot procure for the purposes of his trial the services of a temporary wife and miscellaneous collection of children.  Not that he need swear that they are his!  They are merely lined up along a bench well to the front of the court-room—­the imagination of the juryman does the rest.