New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-05-07
ro iraapitv can no better Judged OF by medical men

hard to discover the difference between passion IN is
most excited form, and insane impulse or frezy ~
plain that Lord Denman recognized here the doctrine o,
moral insanity noticed first here in lsi5 and
upon by Judge EdmuDds who IL high authority, AZ
Judge Ednunds was a very great criminal lawyer ana
happy TO say that during the course OF ts .r Nv, wo
have received very valuable cominunCauohs -
him giving us the pleasing proof that while his health
cnfeebed his heart and mind are still alive 10 'io ui0
tatcs Of benevolence and philanthropy - .,at no
As have already said Judge Denman says can be-
cannot agree with the notion that moral Ne know
il when we see it, Dr. Hammond himself said that ne
o or ho. in disease OF emotions the
passions, and every man OF common seh'o "a" WI
az moral insanity when he sees IL. No.,
so @ eo that Lord Denman would hold that Mr. Nones
was in a. capable OF stating whether MI IT,
" vas mn emotional insanity upon the man. OF
voOnal insanity; II did not reqnTIg enV ,vi ncr
cc n that every man supposed to have principle OF
HONESTY ' and viii not take his noighbors watch for IN
he i1R RS W n take t RS his
being impaired And he becomes so h an that Of
brute. he will Kill him. In charging the jury IN
the above reered to- S b Lsonep Was abone
under that species of insanity which you n nn mo
quite " Ss ret OF Which hS hs commttns or
other words, whether no was under the lhhuehco
Ss wa @ co,m aa the act that it was crime
This case certainly recognizes the doctrine oI nS .
INSANITY and repudiatcs the principle OF sanity being
held TO be solely knowledge Of good aud evil In the
Whether insanity Is general or partial the standard Of
Of it5 Did insanity vent itself in the particular actf
and the man acts then under an unsound emotion The
intellect reasons, and an emotion springs UP corcsPou
ing with the reasoning OF the intellect. a.,
Hadfeld case, and OxforGs case added 10 INSANITY e
departments Of moral and partial insanity 80 that IN
England in lsiO insanity as defense was aS
'O ist Total intellectual insanity.
I'd. Partial intellectual insanity.
sd. Total moral insanity.
4th Partial moral insanity. a.,
Any man tell when another man Is insane IN ms
or Da, should mS1 see man rushing at
locomotive, we would know that he was insane though
thing Imaginary and mpapabe the air against which
he could with perfect impunity That would be IN
teecal insanity very different from emotional insanity
alone but you will find that there distinction clearly
drawn between the two, and hence Lord Denman remark
Ing under that species Of insanity that satisfies you that
he quite of the nature character ana c'nse
in other words whether, he was under the
of to limo d tSa S was i comnr the ac
that il was a crime" desire now to refer to the Had
field case for the purpose OF showing you now @
Ing at George the Third, at Drury Lane Theaer In
England the lives OF two OF their soyereigns have Dsfn
attempted within this century, and In both cases insanity
was recognized and admitted. Now we all know That
f ns there he Is the
affection for his sovereign, and all Englshmen are
soTaGn and n9rfcd W6 yes IN his
when these feelings and preiudices must have
aeGnted upon 1.-THE the Simple ground Of insanity.
Hadfeld armed himself with pistol entered tho thea
ter stayed there 80 40 minutes apparently as sane
as any man in it, and when the King stepped forward TO
the Of the box to make his Acknowledgements to his
took dsberate aim and fired several shots at the King
He arrested tried and acquitted upon the ground OF
insanity. that in England the highest scopeS given
to this plea where the sovereign Is concerned and
the defense OF ,ha aTayT sc va e densG Of
total intellectual insanity, or OF partial intellectual In
sanity of total moral insanity or OF partial moral isan-
y were fully recognized ground Exclusion OF con-
| wilton for crime. ..u-
that law in the case OF Norton, who meant to kl Sir
Robert Peel but killed his deputy instead but the law
England 1910 Is still the law OF that country and
Is that man is not responsible for any act committed
while totally or partially insane, morally OF physically.
OUR LAWS CONCERNING Neutrality-suspicious. CASES CITED.
Now propose to devote few words to the law of in
sanity in this State and county 1t rests upon pro
vision of the statutes and Honor will find it In tho
third revised editions. Those provisions are that
"No act done by person In state OF insanity can be
punished as an oense and no insane G be
crime offense, while he continues in that state"
Ia saying that act done In state Of insanity cannot
be punished one, the Legislature does not mean
that the act be prosecuted to conviction and that
these proceedings must stop; they meant that as oil
criminal proceedings were designed to land In punish
ment, prosecution whatever must result in conylc
ton when the act done In state Of insanity. In
other words trial the jury must acgut 1.-THE act
was liable to punishment he was not liable 10 convic
ton Insanity being thus established as an absolute bar
to criminal prosecution by statute which forbdS re-
sponsiblty for a crime or oiicnse committed while in
before or after commission of the act it Is enough
that it existed at the time of its commission. =,
This principle is consistent with other legal rules In
murder intent 10 say perfectly formed on the in
sant constitutes the crime, under the Statutes OF this
State construed and applied by our Courts Why
not the analogy hold good in reference To responsibility
for crime II second can make murder why cannot an
instant of time create unaccountabty The law which
says II conceves murderous intent on the spot
he shall to the gallows that law should also recog
nse ha Of ms S the deS II ss
possession of mans heart and leads MN TO commit an
xplip oh
visitation OF the Deity wipes ont his mind Ia not that
there is another principle in the common law of the
land, which is the greatest system of human wisdom
ever given out to the world that common law does
not excuse man who makes himself drunk TO slay his
neighbour the law recognizes no right In him to set up
his immortality against his crminaity; but his neigh
Dor makes him drunk by force contrvance and he
should commit a crime while In that state OF intoxca
ton the principle would not apply. In the first 1t
is selfmposed Madness and in the second, 1t is forced
or compelled madness.
Docs not this analogy hold goodi Who made this man
drunkl Rchardson-and he slew him, and how II be
claimed that this man is to pay for the deed which Rich
ardon nstgated, the forfeit OF his own life That which
goes into mans mouth and disorders his brain Is as
nothing to that which goes into mans mind and mad
dens the intellect Who reduced this prisoner to q
don in which he beret OF consciousness and Will
Who mixed the contents Of and compelled him to drain
the bitter from which he drank for yearsf Was 1t
not this which caused his arrangement 49,
The who lays slow match to the happiness or his
neighbor, and maddens and frenzes him, ought 10 DO
compelled TO take the consequences OF what he thus
brings about The prisoner was the victin-not the
this Court and jury to remember that this man
did not madden himself, nut was the COM
bnation nyaed and exhibited by the evidence before
this Court Now desire IN this connection 20 refer to
familiar in this county. In this case the
defense set up by my own brother who offered in the
medical evidence OF insanity The case refer
to is that of The People AFT. Amelia Norman.
The prisoner indicted In this Court for an assault
with an intent TO kill. She led astray by who
deserted after he had ruined her and appeared de-
termncd to turn her over to fate almost inevitably
awaiting fallen woman She willing to give him
up but wanted assistance from him 10 start her in
respectable life lie refused her this although she tried
to soften him in every way.
She surrendered herself to absolute despair and I'm n
moment OF frenzy he entering public hotel In
10