The Only Witness to a Saloon Killing
James Murphy’s second murder trial hinged on the sole eyewitness to a quarrel that began over cocktails and ended with Philip Dawe shot under the eye behind his bar.
Late in the afternoon a jury was finally impaneled in Judge Humes’s court for the second trial of James Murphy, charged with murdering Philip Dawe. George E. Gordon, the only eyewitness to the shooting, was the state’s principal witness and described the quarrels that led to the fatal encounter. Gordon testified that Murphy had been a frequent caller at Dawe’s saloon, usually asking for a cocktail. One evening Dawe told him to take straight whisky, saying he was tired of making cocktails. Murphy grew angry, said Dawe could keep his whisky, and threatened to boycott the place. Days later the two argued again. Dawe asked why Murphy was keeping people away, and Murphy said he intended to do so. The men called each other liars, and Dawe made a remark about Murphy’s mistress. On the afternoon of the shooting, Gordon said, he and Dawe were alone in the saloon, Dawe behind the bar. Murphy entered by the back door, threw ten cents on the bar, and asked for brandy. Dawe turned, placed the bottle and a glass before him, and Murphy deliberately drew a pistol and shot him under the right eye. Dawe fell in his tracks. Murphy put the pistol back in his pocket, walked to the front door, then returned and poured and drank a glass of brandy. When asked why he had shot Dawe, Murphy replied, ‘What is that to you?’ and left by the rear door toward the waterfront. Dr. Horton, formerly coroner, testified that Dawe must have been killed instantly and described experiments with powder burns. Dr. Laughary of the state insane asylum at Steilacoom also testified about powder burns from a .41-caliber revolver.
“Dawe turned around and placed the brandy bottle and a glass on the bar for Murphy, who deliberately pulled his pistol out of his pocket and shot him under the right eye.”
A barroom quarrel turning into a killing is still recognizable in Seattle, but this 1895 trial turned on the raw power of a single eyewitness in an era before modern forensics. The case shows how provocation, insult and self-defense arguments have long shaped murder trials—and how much weight a courtroom puts on one person’s account of a few seconds of violence.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.