Same Streets
← All stories

A Seattle Butcher Beat the Drunkard’s Label and Kept His Estate

A Gilded Age guardianship trial asked whether John Murphy’s drinking made him unfit to manage his own affairs. The jury said no—and his rags-to-property story came out in court.

John Murphy is not an habitual drunkard and is capable of attending to his own affairs. The effort to have a guardian appointed for him came to naught in Judge Osborn's court yesterday when the verdict of the jury to whom the question was submitted was read.

The main point of the controversy, as emphasized by Judge Osborn, was not so much one of drunkenness as of lack of capacity, the court saying that a man might be drunk all the time and still be able to attend to his own affairs. The prosecution failed to show that Murphy was incompetent. On the contrary, it was shown that he had sound business judgment and had the confidence of two of his largest creditors. "They proved too much," said the attorney for the defense.

When Murphy was married, both he and his wife were penniless, and it was shown in court that he now has property which in good times would be worth about $50,000.

The case was submitted to the jury on two questions: (1) Is John Murphy an habitual drunkard? (2) Is he incapable of attending to his own affairs? In his instructions to the jury Judge Osborn said: "An habitual drunkard is one whose fixed, customary, usual and regular habit is to drink excessive quantities of intoxicating liquors. A person is drunk in a legal sense when he is so far under the influence of liquor that his passions are visibly excited or his judgment impaired."

To each of the interrogatories the jury answered in the negative, thus vindicating the veteran butcher. A motion for a new trial was filed yesterday, but it is thought that the matter has been finally determined.

The testimony in the case revealed an interesting bit of family history. Murphy was married when he was 17 and Mrs. Murphy under 14, and they have had nine children, all of whom but one are living. Murphy is now 47 years old, while his oldest son, Arthur, is 30; that is, the father is only seventeen years the senior of the son. In appearance he is vigorous and healthy, and bids fair to live many days yet, notwithstanding that he has a wife nearly as old as himself.

“A man might be drunk all the time and still be able to attend to his own affairs.”

— Printed in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895
Then · 1895131 years apartNow · 2026

Guardianship and conservatorship fights still turn on the same question: when does a person’s behavior justify taking away control of their money? The Murphy case shows how courts, creditors and family history mix when a fortune is at stake.

The original page

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-02-16. Library of Congress, Chronicling America.

From readers

No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.

About this story

From
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, FEB 16, 1895, Page 5
Text
Cleaned up from the page — spelling and layout repaired — not a word-for-word transcription. The page itself is above, for exact wording.
Rights
Public domain
Place
47.60260, -122.33045 · placed automatically
The paper in the Library of Congress catalog ↗