The New York herald., 1870-05-11

RK HERALD. WEDNESDA
There IL possibly no difference OF legal opinion be.
tween the counsel fer defence ana the District
Attorney on ths law constituting state OF sanity Or
plicaOiy Of the legal rule 70 the pnricnIar circu
stances OF the case. Those differences have been
up but it is due 70 the counsel for the defence for
me " re-rcad them with my comments.
Even The evidence a. 70 the insanity Of the defendant ant
%s Of the sommsssa of sSs alleged so also
doubt his sanity At that sme he IL entitled 10 an acqutA
Which charge.
s ss
tain reasonable doubt 70 tho perfect sanity Of he aeen Ken
are bound % aOquis him.
Which charge.
sg sSnS doSe 81 that ss % ss s
anloi whether e. that tmehc was sane or insane hey
aie bound to acquit him. -s-t
Which charge.
sns q me crime alleged against h he + ea''sd to an
Which charge.
time the prisoner committed the e! charged
hm.s 81 he % 0a Sm Wsoa any sns
~ that he would then and there see the dscsased and
$ s or 81
y wnss % % s
consequences OF the act comed. 70 be unable 70
%. sn & Il.
entitled TO acquittal. gs'll
Denied for the reason that there is no evidence
upon the subject OF sudden or expected presenta-
tion to justify the hypothesis.
H. the prisoner committed the charged upon
himself % HIM Without any authorization or expectation
bis part that he would then and there the deceased and
Lila es Or sncsd domestic sroaSiss thrown into
placing him beyond DO range q ssioohsts reference
possDs rssrsin hi@sss from The commission o.
entitled to an acqutaL
Denied for like reason.
Although sanity assumed % be The normal state of the
sumed until presumption by contrary
or repeing evidence.
Refused for the reason that the insanity for your
inquiry relates exclusively to the time OF the act
II partial insanity, simply ahown, az the human mind
is moi the subject Of inspection or examination and as the
conjecture or judsacns jury right whether
s charged e no an yssse WAS
disease though the testimony may not that length
Refused.
The Jury have The right from their own knowsdgc Of h
Of theeyldsnce Of experts 20
% SSw ns s s Of %
his act were adsuate or sufficient 70 produce INSANITY and
Which charge you.
Where the Of insanity s alleged to be intercr-
with mans marital relations or his patsrnal rights in
probability Of the existence Of such affection from
fathers
Refused.
II the jury believe that. the very time Of the
for len q time beforehand or rscanty Of
suddenly occurring tie mcnta,y
and Is legally irresponsible for IT, Y
Which charge.
II the defendant deprived Of his reason at time
from settled and well es;abiished mental sasnsiien. or
ss snS
whal he did.
Which charge.
eue Office he aid not expect 70 nor the d:
fendant him. and that after he entered the defendant
e and sacsd
s e p.s ssa Or
whom he supposed 70 bc such dethronns his reason and
a's ss ~
his acuiss and snthronins insanity their place. he is mot
Refused, because not wholly JUSTIFIED BY evidence
II the whole evidence the iuyeeve that the defend
% ant no ss 81 20
that be was committing Crms he not in law guilty Of
murder. "
Which charge.
II the jury believe that from any predsposng the
deiendants mind impaired and At the time OF killing
himself in reference deceased
i..ns said act was BY Of such cause
guilty OF any offence whatever. :
Which charge.
If controlling disease was in truth the acting power
had not suncsnt uso Of his reason 70 contro the
Which charge.
And It must be borne in mind that the moral well
the intellectual faculties may be 50 disordered by disease
deprive the mtod Of Its controlling and directing power
Which charge
In order thcn to constitute crime must have
memory and intelligence to know that the act he about to
commits Il The VIII II &c to sa
and win to enable him to compare and choose ihs
criminal act and tho immunity from punishment which be
have not intelligence and capacity enough to have criminal
iatsn. pafpose ana 4 bis moral
& 0f his aUas he eows o
time obsraed he q moi responsible moral agent and
punishable for criminal acts
Which charge.
II the ur believe from the evidence that prcyous up 10
though, or believed that his w.sad ta deceased. eae
ing nov ho or ms eiass. son % Percy ntsnans
opportunity that offered and he considerd his poverty
would render hm almost helpless against such proceedings
and unsound deusIon the part Of the prisoner; tha
a such eSon and
creased in intensity until the prisoner became and
II which his power
ls was r SrIe o Or not was Sr s @
power distinguishing was
not responsible legally for that act
Refused because, although good in part, It is not
in my opinion. correct as an entire proposition
II the jury believe the evidence that while the pr
position he committed the act charged him, at tn
lime thereof being entirely ayesed Of all mental control owe
acti0na without will conscience the capacity
win conscience in reference his conduct ia
as the and against the
he legally for the act though he
the time capable Of distinguishing between rght and
| In reference TO his act.
| Which charge
II the jury believe from the evidence that previous up Il
and at the time Of the homicide In question the prsone
thought believed that hts wife actually loved him,
would not have left him but Tor the persuasion OF th
deceaqeA and females acting In his interest and that s
was willing TO resurp and would have returned 70 hin
dslusion the part Of the PRISONER, that thereafter
and in consequence thereof his mind became and continue
diseased thai such deuson disease increased In
sy until the prisoner became, and remained subject
great causeess and violent frenzes and paroxsms
N which bis power OF distinguishing whether he was commit
ting crime Of not was, for the tme destroyed
seded and that the act charged him committed
whle In snch naroxysm and wse such power OF distir
gushing destroyed or supeeded ho 10 not responsible
| legally Tor the act
L