New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-05-11

The defcnststo Drs Vance and Hamnsnd and which you
doubtless substantially recall Ine tnnory " t ms
sanity was qissss substantially presented ~ the conac
question pat e same TnGss by re Vi
10 intend TO comment upon the evidence 1 " y.
detail do not think ought TO- In the ia piaf9 IL
has summed up m parts by the speechs on elner
side dcrng evidence and whole In tie CLOSING arg
mens. Ia The next place it Is impossible Tor me 70 take
mp the evidence without possibly impress ing upon you
by my arrangement IT, emphasis in repeating H. the
very decided conviction upon the merits OF ts pr :, "a
ton which have formed. I shall simply group u rs
aprofaining 10 the question Of malice or INSANITY, of
legal Questions, and leave tho details 10 your nS
state sanity when he slew, before he can DC leld
accountable to human law is deeply rooted IN Jgrspr
"Furosus furioso solum punitir" Amadnan's madness
Common law one of the essentials to definition of
in irrisDr,Idencel was sound memory and discreton"
ton unlaWiully kills any reasonable creature DcS IN
the peace Of tho King with malice prepense or afore
Thought either express or implied Iho converse phrase
of orr statute state OF sanity - conYeFuDe WIN ,o
"sound memory and discretion" Of the Common Law
As early 1876 In this court tsee City al kecorier
law incapable Of committing ciime but 1t is not every
egreo OF insanity which abidgcs the responsibility at
tGced to the commission OF crime Ia at speSi.s vi
insanity where prisoner has lucid intervals H. during
those Intervals and when capable Of distinguishing good
evil! he pcrpetrtcs an OIcnse, no ~ respOAsDe;
end tho principal subject Of inquiry is whether the pris
oner time no committed the ohcnse had sufficient
capacity TO discern good from eyll ana SHOULD tne Jur
believe he had such capacity it viii be their duty TO ma
ter ire responsibility 20 human law OF fnau-
man, or the man vino lacks sound memory or oSg Th
tiOn and who takes life, has never been doubted Inc
difficulty has been to decide upon me degree Of INC MAN
ness, or the quality OF tho Insanity wnlcn snail eil.n
irresponsiby. 1t is very interesting TO the legal st
don't to follow the Of legal az on
But the law regulating TO day the inquiry OF upon
have held TO be- the meaning OF the phrase state Of SAN
ity or insanity IA tho statute, viii now Ieiet TO t1e
icct charge Substantially every proposition OF the
counsel for tho defense upon the subject OF rsany,
There POSSIBLY difference OF legal opinion between
the for defense the District Attorney on tho
law constituting state OF sanity or insanity Ino dler
ence between them is one OF Applicability OF inc cB
rule to the particular circumstances Of tho case Those
differences have been reasoned out or commented upon
defense for me to rcread them with my comments q.
ey!enoe to the nstt Of i dgi loan 'aon eTt "
alleged aO dO-bs LIS sanity 'Aa' tine h' entitled
Which charge. ..,.,.,, &,
Though le eylee leave the ten:s Of H,,Tt fSn
az to the ref sanity me defendant the tine Of the eoson "a
the alleged act, the, are bound to aeq1i' bin
M,hs j"r1 eaHuot az beyoni dOnh Defendant
ths tine lie insane hcy bound to acqas lin
lie jary esen reasonable doubt upon all tie eviieree The
ee as 70 The guilt 81 9Ioe.n eco 81 ai 'en ne crime
If the time The pson. committed the oct charged upon o. he
AM EXP bis that he Wou heh and there
s, si r n or fis d sId doms. SaS INTO safe
G which he wa. s sl.r and SG Of the s be
1itte or 10 between right and ref
particular act a. n tey ~ @ Us commission lie en
Denied Tor the reason that there IL evidence upon
the subject Of sudden expected presentation to Justify
the hypothesis. -, 1891, - H., ~,
H. the deceased suddenly presented himself g. him with
aHa.a or o1 bis p1 that as would n S %
deceased Ii bis real falce dome,t troubles thrown INTO e Of
power to an extent placing Lin Geyond rlnge
Of con reference to The act CHARGED asan' Iim 81
ed him, at tie dine Of 10 c0F'ms''0" be enad to
Denied, for like reason. .,
Although sanity ASSUMED to be The normal STATE Of the human Hpd
presumption By osnr.5y cling s9ce ,or vonr IN
quiry relates exclusively to the time OF me act
II Iai4l insanity simply is shown as the human mind no, he
subject Of and the range or extent Of Ii.
whether particular act egs 9roo The GA va. Or e yss
though tie ts:.nony MAJ 60 that length.
Tn arT i.r. the h from their knowledge oup.n
ard Of The human mind n EDITION 70 4 n con- 70 5ssS S
h ny the a q the de'aa' ct ae Inn. ~ 'ne Go
mission Of bis act seFe adequate or 'a'H' 20 pOiaee ' anu "
wi~e Ne caae Of insanity alleged to be an Inheritance with
man marital relations bis Peteral rights in taxing away bis wife or
Of such an affection the feelings of Others as
II s Gr believe that the very time Of the commission o. the act
tine bsiSrelani recently saiR SessrGg &c d.fsada. was
wssan lis I.salb irresponsible for
against committed resulting either ron seei and vetes-
tAe.he me ae.aon or ron tas Iq, aI GI'0wes
bible Tor what be did
If the y when the deceased entered Ia. TnlBcsF
oaee he DID Tot expect 70 iae aeisn1ns nor g am
ag. him the sudden add irresistible pressure
sight Of ih DESTROYER peace him whom he supposed
, Gs SH ~ s g1 s s'S OF ana % en Upsg for &
tine bis faculties enhTouns insanity their place be
NJ" Refused because not wholly justified by evidence.
u from tie wss f @ q 1 e s, u s he laS Of
crime, he is not in law guilty Of murder
II the jury believe r.pone til. defendant.
mepaiy Tcapab Of governing deceased, AMI
sIoH that be was committing guilty
OF any Ofense whatever.
If some controlling Disease was, truth the acting power within HIN
if reason to eoo he pHs prompted complained Of
be E Z not reiPC c5arce
AMI must IN mind hat the mora! as well as ,he,tH,
1t. controlling and directing power
In ore then constitute crime must have and
intslsHee to InOT that tie act be s0On commit
lee, 10 au reason will enable him compare and
supposed advantage grascaon b. obtained by
Ge h1 from IT, ON the OtSr R he have rot gscs
nd espaty enough to have criminal intent purpose
moral Or Intellectual powers deficient he has Sufficient viii
e?aiEGag TG.t Or q.' e a
Grated he not irresponsible mora aseA AID not pSaA'e tor
Which charge.
II the jury the evidence that previous sni st the
The homie h question the prisoner thOrgh believed tia.
wife aud the deceased Of them, watching him
ascenDg how be provided for his oldest P,r In
tending legal proceedings deprive him Of that the trt
porturty he considered bis poy, would render
him almost helpless Proceedings would that
son that and unund euon the part Of
the prisoner thereafter and consequence thereof his mind be-
diseased: that srh dcllon disease increased in
inensy prisoner became and remained subject
violent ferzes in which his
whether be for the
and the charged him
while such and while sueh of distinguish
ing desro SUPERSEDED lie lot responsible legally FOX Tat
Refused because, although good in part, it is not, in
my opinion, correct as an entire proposition.
II tie believe from the eence that while the prisoner
suh paro described the last proposition be the
In IL. fun.L nn.l alrn.al Ill