Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1865-12-25
CITY NEWS.
BEDFORDMURDER
THE TRIAL OF DR. 2 W. HUGHES.
Conclusion of Judge COflnberry's
.-arI9 charge to the jury. 81

:. Conclusion of Judge C~oflnberry
!. haris Charge to the jury o.
We append the conclusion of Judge coHi1
sr berry's able charge to the jury, the forme
n part of which was in Saturday morning
edition:
EXPERTS.
For the purpose of improving the condi
ton Of the defendants mind at the time G
the commission of the act, it is cempeten
for the prisoner to call witnesses who ar
familiar with his peculiar mental charac
3 t~eristics under the influence of intoxication
I n also to call physicians and others
Z whose professions and associations in If
are such as to have made them familiaI
with the faculties and operations of mind
and these persons may testify to matters q
e opinion or science in reference to the prob.
able condition of his mind at the time 81
\ the commission of the act.
Such testimony is legitimate, and when
used for its true and proper purpose, that OF
afording you assistance in determinatino
the condition of the prisoners mind, ID NAV
be OF the first Importance. But after ali
much of 1t is frequently merely a matter of
opinion. and should be received and acted
upon by A jury will great caution, and
should there be great conflict, or manifest
and ~irreconcilable inconsistency in their
testimony, or if in your judgment It is not
sustained by reason and facts YOU are not
bound to adopt their opinions. aVA
You are not to be intimidated by your
homage and respect for thelearning and in
~telligence of professional witnesses, from de-
termining the questions ~Ofsanity and drunk
enness for yourselves, as well as every other
question of fact in the case. The question
Of sanity or insanity is for You and you only
to determine, and the fact that scientific
men may regard the accused as sane or in
sane, drunk OF morbid, does not in the least
relieve you Of the responsibility ofdeciding
for yourselves. It is both your right and
duty to hear their evidence, to consider it
carefully, and TO give it all the eredenee and
influence it may seem to deserve, but the
question after all is left to your own good
sense and Judgment, and you are to deter
mine it according to the pr~eponderance of
all the evidence and circumstances of the
case.
DEGREE OF INSANITY.
This leads to the consideration of the de-
gree or species of insanity or mental disrule
and alienstion which absolves a party from
legal guilt and punishment for cfine.
The rule oflaw, as I understand it to be on
this subject, is this: That ga man is not en-
titled to an ae9uittal on the ground of in
sanity, if at the time of the alleged offense
be had capacity and reason sufficient to en-
able him to distinguish between right and
wrong in reference to the particular, act he
is doing or is about to do, and understands |
the act, and his relation tothe party injured.
If he has a knowledge or consciousness that
the act heis doing is wrong, and criminalin
the sight Of God and man, and will subject
him to punishment, he is amenable to pun
ishment. But if he has not sufficient in
te~lligence or power Of mind to understand
that the act he is doing is contrary to the
dictates OF justice. and right, injurious to
others and In violation of the dictates Of
duty, he is not amenable to puishment for
his act.
But, although his mind may be morbid
and labOrIng under partial insanity still, |
if he understands the nature and character
of his act and its consequences, and that it
is wrong and criminal for him TO do it, such
partial insanity is not sufficient to exempt
him from responsibility.
If it is proved to your satisfaction thatthe
defendants mind was in a diseased and un-
sound state, and that for the time being his
mental disease was such, that in reference /
to this mental act, it overwhelmed his rea-
son, conscience and Judgment, and that in
committing 1t he acted from an irresistible
uncomfortable impulses and not as a vol
untary agent, he was not answerable to the
and should be acquitted.
INSANITY FROM D-RURKEESEss.
With reference to insanity from drunken ,
ness, the law Discriminate between Grim
nal acts which are the fiHhpediGte results of
at Of drunkenness, and which are com
mitted whilst the party i 5 yet intoxicated, /
such acts as are the result of a settled, :
permanent, or intermittent insanity, which
has been remotely produced by previous /
habits of intemperance. I
When the mind has become diseased by :
habit of intemperance, and is so far alien .
tied as to be unable to discriminate between I
light and wrong, and TO comprehend the :
nature and consequences of a criminal act, I
he party is no more amenable to the PEN +
llty of the law than if his insanity were the p
let of God. And so if the act were com =
nitted during an attack of the delirium ire E
reRs, which rendered him insane for the q
ime being, and which delirium was the re- 4
ult of a previous habit of i-ntemperance, or o
f long continued drunkenness. /
= But when the crime is committed by a
man whilst intoxicated, under the
influence of drunken frenzyor madness, and =
Who is not insane when sober, his drunken v
and the temporary insanity or mad II
produced by it is no excuse or pallia- !.
on whatever. The law will not permit him y
D screen himself from punishment for his I
riminal acts by proving his own gross vice d
misconduct.
A settled liked insanity, however caused,
a good defense. Drunkenness is no ex- y
use whatever. The frenzy, passion and 3
madness of voluntary drunkenness is not -
hat species of insanity which excuses n
!;
But that settled insanity or delirium, i
which is caused by previous habits of in d
emperance orlong contin1ed drunkenness, :,
a good defense, Notwithstanding the fact ~
hat the party may rave lucid intervals. =
tut if the act were committed during a sane n
lucid interval, the fact that a party is :,
nbjeet to Intermittent insanity is no ex- n
use. 10 =
One reason for this discrimination is, that "
len voluntarily get drunk, and sometimes a
1r the very purpose of bracing their nerves a,
nd infaming their passions to the commits a
ion of crimes which they nave meditated .,
hen sober, but which they then lacked the =,
courage or disposition 10 perpetrate. y,
no man voluntarily becomes perman- n,
ntly insane, or seeks to bring on a fit of :,
tremens; and if it even were done 4,
Or the sole purpose of committing violence ~
pom another, the delirium would be more .,
kelly to defeat than to accomplish such n
~ +
But if a person were made drunk by the "a
lachinations of others, without any inten- ~
or fault upon his part, and should in #
ire or kill another during the fit Of intoxi- IN
alton, and whilst his mind was SO disorder e.
4 as to be unable to comprehend the nature y
f his act, or to distinguish between right n
nd wrong, he would not be amenable to 4,
unishment. 4af ~
R-UYKENNEss, EVIDENCE OF, M ITS OFFICE. ),
1t is also competent for the defense to ~
rove that the prisoner was drunk at the Il
me of the killing, as tending to show u
neither the act was done with deliberation AZ
nd generalization. VI
But if the evidence shows that the pur-
ose TO kill was formed before he became ~
runk, or if he gotdrunk to brace his nerves y
nd harden his mind for the act of killing, =
len however delirous he may have been at ~
he time of the act, it can avail him "
by way of defense or mitiga- u
On, and the drunkenness would not u
the offense to murder in the 81
eond degree. Let me illustrate the ~
lea l wish to convey by showing the appli- n
ltion of this principle TO another class of ~
Uses. A person charged with passing copn- ~
.rfeit bank notes cannot palliate or excuse y
is crime by showing that he was drunk at =
lie time of passing them, But inasmuch n
a knowledge of the base and counterfeit ~