The Portland daily press., 1867-05-21
Ro yey vs.. Esebson.


and which has been tried several times before,
in two of which trials the juries were unable
to agree, induces us to give the charge Of Judge
Tapley TO the jury entire. The circumstances
of the case are familiar TO the citizens of Port
land, and our out of town readers will easily
gather them from the charge to the jury:
CUMBERLAND CO. SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
April Term, 1867.
Ed,0t1 y. HoUey Us. AtntOR 5. Ho6S0n.
JUDGES CHARGE.
The plaintiff claims the possession of piece
of real estate in the city now occupied by the
defendant.
To sustain his title, he proves that it was
foamerly the property of Stephen Neal of this
city. That Stephen Neal died in December
1886, leaving Mrs. Lydia bennett as his heir
at law. That Mrs. Dennet in July 1858, con-
veyed the real estate in question to the plain
tih and he therefore became entitledto it.
The defendant says the property formerly he
longed TO Stephen Neal, and that Stephen
Neal in his lifetime, on the 9th day of july.
1855, conveyed the same TO Samuel h. Crocker
and that from Crocker it came through several
conveyances to him, and therefore 1t did not
descend to Mrs. Dennet, but came TO him
through the several conveyances he has proved.
The plaintiff then says that Stephen Neal,
on the 9th of July, 1885, was not competent
to make deed, by reason of mental unsound-
ness, and therefore nothing passed by this at
tempted conveyance to Crocker.
Upon this point the parties differ, and have
introduced much proof, but the principal con-
troyerted point is that of the capacity OF Mr..
Stephen Neal to convey, at the time the deed
TO Crocker was signed and delivered.
In the trial OF this as in other civil cases, all
the questions OF fact are to be determined by
the jury, and all questions OF law by the court.
Each must take the responsibilities arising
from the consideration and determination OF
the several questions propounded 10 them.
The case must also be determined by the
hoPa tatr lu
to sthem, unintiueIced by the action Of an;
other jury in similar case. There is no proof
IN the case, of any decision in any other case
OF similar character, and as Jun ors you are to
know nothing and care nothing about that
matter.
line amount of property depending upon
similar questions must not in any measure in
fluence your conduct How much there may
be in tins city or in any other part of the State
depending upon similar questions, we know
not, and IN the investigation of the evidence
care not. The same careful examination Of tho
evidence is required whether others may or
may not, be similarly situated. You will be
very careful that such considerations do not
influence or mislead you. 1t cannot aid you
in ascertaining the mental condition Of Stephen
Neal in July, 1885,
Your attention is called by both parties to
the equities OF the case, and you will pei Seive
the difference between them is as wide as are
the poles apart; the defendant on the one
hand contending that he is an innocent pur-
chaser TOR valuable consideration, and the
plaintiff ON the other hand that he is acting in
the interest Of a defrauded heir at law.
Whatever effect such considerations NAV
have upon the rules of law to be applied to the
case, they have none whatever upon the ques-
| ton OF the mental condition of Stephen Neal
In the d. termination of that question you will
| therefore discard all such considerations, and
| look only TO the evidence bearing upon that
question, while that is under your considera-
ton.
Neithar bava va oantlemap ap,r 1-nr5ic+ IN
loose to gain. We have certain defined du-
ties to perform, and they duties. Each of
you have pledged yourselves in the most SOL
emn manner that you Will in this cause render
| true verdict according to the law and evidence
| given you. You cannot act upon mere caprice,
| you cannot seek your personal wishes and de-
| sires regardless of the evidence, without COM
and man. Hrsat tSI Stsnee S aSaast the laws Of Sod
keeping your oaths, or your character con-
| sciences. If you forfeit your own self respect
| by known failure to perform your duty, you
| never can find relief in the hattery of those
| who may derive benefit from it. The ever
present consciousness of hagrant disregard
| Of right and duty can never be hushed to ST.
lence i'll that way. Every effort of that kind
| to appease will but aggravate the malady.
Then, gentlemen regardless ofconsequences,
stepping neither to the right or left Of the path
| of duty perform the offices required of you in
this case. Some discussion has been carried
| on in your presence as 10 the mental capacity
| required to make a valid conveyance, and as to
| what il or is not in law a non conpoS.
/ donot think it will be necessary to trouble
you with discussion of those questions, at
present L think n correct result will be more
surely reached by another method.
| propose to put to you certain questions in
writing to be anwered by you, and then TO give
you the law applicable to them. 1t will leave
| your minds untramme lied in the consideration
| of the questions OF TACT by any nice distinc-
tons in law, not always made apparent by
once stating in charge to jury. These ques-
tions are as follows:
lst-was Stephen Neal, at the time the deed Of
July 27 1895, to samuel L. Crocker 81 sned and
delivered, OF sound mind?
| 2d-Did Stephen Neal execute and deliver the deed
Of July 27 1885, Samuel 4. Croeker about its
| date, understanding and comprehending the nature
MS as ne iSo S 10 a@g J1 fbaTa ne
IN described TO said Croeker and the consideration TO
himself?
TIird--If he did not was 1t because he was not OF
sound mind at the time?
} These questions you will perceive all pertain
to one point of time, viz the signing and de-
livery of the deed Of July q, 1885, TO Samuel
} | T.. Crocker.
The first question you will see is, was he Of
) sound mind No inquiry as to the cause or ef-
| feet is here made. No inquiry as to the legal
. or medical name attached to it. No inquiry as
to the responsibility OF the individual in what
| ever mental condition you may find him; 1t IS
! only the simple, plain question, was he ofsound
: mind.
The law presumes every man sane and OF
sonnj lind until the contrary has been prov
cd Tho Low presumes that Stephen Neal was
a sane man and OF sound mind, and IL the
plaintiff would aval himself Of the ta?r I, OF , un
soundness of mind, he m ptGse .ns nrasnmnfop nv
den is upon him to overcome
OF the law by proof.
| How is it to be done?
| Unsoundness of mind is discovered In the
mental manifestations, showing its irregularity
oil &C tion, ana IS seen Iii many such Incidents
| as those related by the witnesses.
What acts have been proved is a Question
solely for you to determine. Whether tLey
prove an unsoundness of mind is a question for
you. They have been given to you in great
| numbers and detail, and at great Length and
| with unusual ability commented upon bv the
| one side and the other. Your attention has been
| called to those which are said to have transIir-
ed before, and those which transpired after
| July q, 1885.
The particular time in question, is. when the
deed was signed and delivered. Acts occurring
before and after are only evidence tending to
show the mental condition then
II the plaintiff has shown that Stephen Neal
was during the years of 1888 and 1884 insane
| and OF unsound mind, the law presumes it con-
| tinued down as late as the signing and deliv-
cry of the deed, unless the proof shows to the
contrary. To show that it did thns exist, and
| thus continue, acts have been proved both pri-
| or and subsequent to July 9th, 1885 The sub
| sequent acts can be considered only as they
| tend to Drove the condition OF mind before
| There il no presumption of law that a man in
| sane in 1896 was insane i'm 1885. All the infer
| ences If any to be derived from il, are infer
| ences of fact and in the consideration of this
| ouestion YOU will be careful to make the prom
| er distinction between those occurring before.
| and those after the time in question
To show that there was no unsoundness Ell
ther before or after the time in question the
defendants have introduced evidence OF MANY
incidents tending to show his sanity
Ii they have proved he was of s. und mind at
a period later tnan the plaintiffs proved him of
unsound mind, then the presumption of law
comes in that he continued so from the time
they thus prove him to be sound until he is
again proved to be unsound OF mind
Upon this point there is an appearance of
conflict of testimony. Whether there is or not,
and how much, you will determine.
Perhaps upon careful examination YOU
will find not much really conflicting and irrec-
oncilable testimony.
The testimony of DIR. Harlow as an expert in
such matters has been introduced. He has
given you his opinion, and here may say 1t is
only experts who are allowed TO give opinions
in such cases, hence it is that all the witnesses
have been obliged to state facts, and not give
their opinion.
DIR. Harlow, upon the assumption that certain
facts were proved, has given it as his opinion
that Stephen Neal was not of sound mind and
that he was afflicted with senile demeTltid: that
this disease is intermittent in its character and
manifestations. That the patient viii appea-
better some days than on others. Now If he is
correct in this matter il is rot unreasonable for
I 80 thAA&