The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-21 00:00:00

TER SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EV

mind. I should say that during the week prior to his
wife's death he was of unsound mind.
Cross-examined by Mr. Overend— I believe he has
been insane for 20 years. I think ho knew right from
wrong during the 20 years, and also during the fatal week.
Re-examined--A man may be decidedly and unques-
tionably mad, and yet know right from wrong, and yet
be reeardless of consequences. A man so insane might
not be able to refrain from the commission of an act,
though ho mielit know he was doing wrong.. Circure-
Etancss might have induced him to refrain. The prisoner
being in possession of poison, I think he would be regard.
less of consequences, and would not be able to refrain
from using it.
By the Foreman of the Jury—My opinion is not an
abstract one, but refers particularly to the case of the
prisoner.
Mr. John Kitching, of York, examined by Mr. Hail
—I am a surgeon, and superintendent of the York Re-
treat. I have about 100 patients under my care. I
have heard the evidence in this case, and have formed
an opinion that the prisoner was insane during the fatal
week. I have examined the prisoner in the Castle, and
my examination confirms my opinion.
Cross-examined by Mr. Overend—l think it is pro-
bable that the prisoner knew right from wrong during
the fetal week. If he did the murder 1 have no doubt
that he kcew he was co:nmitting murder, and that if he
were found out he would most likely be punished for it.
Re-examined by Sergeant Wilkins—l consider his con-
duct during the fatal week the natural consequence of
his previous life. I believe he has been insane all his life.
I simply meant by murder that he knew he was trying
to kill his wife.
By the Judge—l think he would know that he was
doing wrung in proportion as he kaew right from wrong.
By the Jury—l adopt the theory of previous medical
witnesses in general terms. I do not adopt it in reference
to the fatal week. I account for the murder, if the pri-
soner committed it, on different principles.
By Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—l think we have here a
man of originally deficient mental powers, and a man
also who is insane, and this condition would render him
liable to commit any absurd, irrational, cruel, vicious,
malignant action that presented itself to his mind. Ido
not apply the term vicious or malignant as regards mo-
tive. Considering the whole circumstances of this case,
and the prisoner's conduct throughout life, the catas-
trophe which has happened is just what might have been
expected.
By Mr. Overend.—l question if he would think that
he had violated the law it he had committed murder, or
if he stole. I think this was not imptilsive madness
alone. It was partly impulsive. If the prisoner thought
of the deed before he committed it, he would know he
was doing wrong to the extent I have before described.
Most I:kely he would knew it to be a violation of the
law to take life. It is impossible for me to say whether
he knew he was doing wrong at the moment he poi-
soned his wife, if he did do it. I cannot tell whether
he would know a short time before the deed and after
that he was about to commit murder and had committed
murder. lam not prepared to say that he would not
know he was doing wrong at the moment he put the
poison into the glass. The same answer applies to each
alleged administration of strychnine.
By Mr. Sergeant Wilkins.—We have not a dangerot s
weld in our retreat, but they have one in some asylums.
I should expect to find some impulsive patients in the
dangerous ward, but not a great number. The keepers
have a great deterring influence over patients,
but they are not now allowed to exercise that
influence upon their fears. If the patients were
left in a room without a keeper, I should ex-
pect each to follow his own inclination. There is
a madness which exhibits itself in a propensity to kill.
If a stranger were left alone in a room with a patient af-
fected with such madness, I should expect the patient to
exercise his propensity and to kill him, though his
keeper might have him perfectly under his control. In
my opinion the prisoner was insane during the fatal
week. The patient would be restrained by his keeper
probably from a fear of some chastisement.
This concluded the case for the defence, when the
court, at 10 minutes to one o'clock, adjourned for re-
freshment. As on previous days the prisoner again made
a hearty lunch.
Mr. Overend, at 20 minutes past ono o'clock, rose to
'reply '4;on:the case for theOlAnett6:eilis duty, he said,
was a very plain and simple une:ellis learned friend had
not disputed that poison had caused the death, but he
had suggested that it might be a matter of accident ;
and, secondly, that if the prisoner did the deed inten-
tionally, he was in his right mind. He had adopted a
double line of defence. He would not say that this ra-
ther showed that his learned friend had no confidence in
either ; but he would say that it compelled him (Mr.
Overend) to meet both branches of the case, in order to
satisfy the jury that a murder had been committed, and
also to satisfy them that his learned friend had not es-
tablished his case. He would address himself to the
qUestion of insanity in the first instance. His learned
friend had started that theory, and had called a host of
witnesses to establish the proposition.. He (Nlr. Over-
end) had looked at those witnesses, and had heard their
statements, and when he had himself thought over what
was the issue which they were going to try, he had cer-
tainly wondered at the kind of. witnesses his learned
friend had called, and the kind of testimony he had
given ; but he had marvelled more at the witnesses he
had not called. What was the issue they were to
try The issue they were to try was whether that
man, the prisoner, was of sane mind from the 25th
of February to the 21st of March ; and his learned
friend had gone and called a host of witnesses to
speak to facts which took place twenty years ago.
If his learned friend had wanted to establish the fact,
did not the jury think it would have been fairer
to the prosecution and to the jury if he had cross ex-
amined the witnesses whom he (Hr. Overend) called,
and who knew what was the conduct of the prisoner at
the time in question. Should they not have thought
he ought to have cross-examined the housemaid as to his
acts of insanity during the time she was there ? But
his learned friend dared not put a question to her on
the subject. The prisoner's mother-in-law was there
during the fatal week. Did his learned friend pet a
question to her as to the prisoner's conduct ? He left it
dark, undisclosed, unrevealed, and he did not put a
question to her upon the matter. Witness after witness
had been called that had been with prisoner day by day,
and visited with him, and his learned friend had them
in the box and never put a question to them. Mrs.
Whitham had been in the house day by day, week by
week, month by month ; she had seen him, and had
heard from his wife about his character and conduct ;
she was examined and cross-examined. His learned
friend could have asked her whether there was anything
like insanity, anything like excitement or want of re-
sponsibility, in the prisoner when she saw him ; but
she was allowed to go out of the box without a single
question being asked her upon the subject. His learned
friend then brought doctors into the box. Doctors
But he did not bring doctors. Where where the doc-
tors mho ought to have been called ? Dr. Morley—the
man who attended the prisoner's wife, his family, and
who knew whether there was any particular disposition
to insanity in the family. Dr. Morley was put into
the box, but his learned friend never asked him
a question on the subject. Did that look like con-
fidence in this case ? There was Dr. Morley, who
saw the prisoner day by day, who attended him
in his childhood, who knew all his family, who
was intimate with him, who had been in court and
was in court at that moment, and who, if the prisoner had
been an insane man, must have known him to be so. Not-
withstanding the evidence of Dr. Williams, Dr. Smith,
and Dr. Kitching, his learned friends never dared to put
it to Dr. Morley as to whether the prisoner was sane or
insane during the week in question. Neithet^ had Mr,
Scarth, Mr. Peacock, Mr. Noble (governor of York
Castle) nor the surgeon of the gaol been asked as to whe-
ther they considered the conduct of the prisoner that of
a man of unsound mind ; but the jury were asked to go
back for years, and upon the speculations of such gen-
tlemen as Dr. Williams to come to the conclusion that
the prisoner was insane. The doctrine which had been
propounded by Dr. Williams, Dr. Smith, and Mr.
Kitching was is dangerous one. If such a doctrine was
te prevail, away all punishment. Vice would reign no
longer. It would be nothing but insanity to commit a
crime. A man had only to commit an act of atrocity,
and for Dr. Williams to say that he was insane in order
to escape the consequences of his criminality. After re-
peating that the learned counsel for the defence had not
called the witnesses they ought to have called, Mr. Over-
end proceeded to comment upon the evidence -01 the pri-
soner's conduct in boyhood and youth, and observed that
it was an index to vice, and not insanity. That the pri-
soner was a bad boy he did not deny. He should expect
that a man a ho had committed so deliberate a reurd,er i s
this would be a bad boj. The learned counsel suggested
that the evidence produced for the defence was the result
of an afterthought, to rescue the prisoner from his peril.
There were witnesses who had not been called whose evi-
dence would have been important, and there had been
wituesses called whose evidence was unimportant. There
was Mr. Mark ham's steward. Where was Mr. Markham's
steward ? Was there anything to show that the prison,r
did not manage his farm like other people ? He had
chellenged his friend to call the doctor who had attend-
ed the prisoner's wife. He would not call him, and
why ? Me was a doc-or who had seen the prisoner day
by (ay, and his friends had called doctors who had never
seen the prisoner before. They had called doctors who
had formed an opinion upon exaggerated statements,
and having heard those statements, they said he was in-
sane. Did the jury believe that Mrs. Jenkins would
hav'e allowed a man to marry her daughter who was in-
sane ? He visited the daughter, the mother bad long
examined his character and would the mother have
allowed the daughter for a moment to have continued
in his custody, and under his protection ? Would his
own father have allowed him to have brought to his
home a young woman to whom he was likely to do any
damage? The thing was impossible. Look at his acts
acid conduct, and then he (Mr. Overend) would ask the
jury whether there was any justification for the defence
which had been set np ? As to the pricking the horse
with the nail, it was the act simply of a drunken mare
and nothing more. The learned counsel alluded to other
circumstances referred to in the evidence for the de-
fence, and contended that there was no ground for sup-
posing thattbe prisoner was a man of unsound mind.
Then as to the shooting; if the prisoner had shot at his
father and at himself, it would have been something, but
he would say that the accused had the most perfect con-
trol over himself. It was a grind bravado on his part,
:mid it ended in nothing—not even in smoke. It bad been
shown that the prisoner knew it was perfectly wrong to
steal and to murder, and there was no doubt he was
queer and eccentric, and given to habits of intemperance,
and that when drunk he did many foolish things; but
that was not to say that he was insane. It was because
he ve as in peril—it was because his life was in danger
that this theory is brought up, which was an afterthought
brought to rescue him front the scaffold. It was very
easy to get up a see cuiation after the event, but why
did not the parties come forward at the time to say what
was the state of his mind ? Wby did they associate