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