The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1870-05-04
Htaqellnnson,.
TKE MCFARLAND CASE.

TKE MCFARLAND CASE.
Sixteenth Day-EVidenee OF Surgeon
General Hammond as TO the Mental
Condition or the PrISOnerIThe De.
Tense Rest Their Case-HOraee Gree
ley Put en- the Stand by the PrOsecu-
tiOn.
NEW York, April 27.-The insanity
business is still before the Court, and both
Court and Jury are extremely tired of it.
One of the jurymen remarked that he
thought it would have bad effect, COM
pairing 1t to a long and tedious sermon, Of
which every person was tired.
The first person called this morning was
Edward P, Niven, night watchman in the
city prison. He testified that he passed
by the prisoners cell at night the pris-
oner complained of sleeplessness. and he
looked like a man who had not been able
TO sleep.
DR. Hammond was then placed on the
stand, and his examination resumed by
Mr.. Graham. Witness came TO the con-
clusion that congestion Of the BRAIN with
which the prisoner suffered, was the cause
Of his having committed the deed IN point;
all the indications of the prisoners case
led witness to the opinion that McFar-
land was insane at the time thought that
if he kept away frontthe Tribune office he
would not be likely to explode as he did;
Richardson's presence was very likely 10
cause prisoner to break out into Temporal
ry insanity of an acute degree. AT the
close Of the examination of surgeon Ham
mond the court took a recess.
The examination of DR.. Hammond on
the point of emotional insanity was con-
tinued until shortly after recess, when the
defense rested their case.
The prosecution then called Horace
Greeley, who testified that he was ac-
quainted with Mcfarland; met him in
1861 or 1862.
1857
Mr. Graham-I object, as not being
rebuttal of any of our testimony. He
would not allow any testimony that did
not refer to what came out from the wit
nesses for the defense. He wished the
prosecution to state the character of the
evidence they wished to elicit.
The Court ruled the question admissa-
BILE. The defense had been very minute
in their examination, and the prosecution
could do the same.
Mr. Greeley-McFarland called upon
witness in the room of the American In
stitute, and asked if he had heard of his
troubles witness said he had not and
told prisoner to tell him his story; McFar-
land then explained how Richardson had
destroyed his peace of mind prisoner did
not think there had been any criminal in
tercourse between them Mcfarland told
him after his wife left him he never conld
live with her again: the second time pris-
oner called on witness he complained that
he had not got fair history Of his case in
the Tribune; prisoner made out a story.
and witness published it as he had witt
ten; those were the only interviews wit
ness had with prisoner; the article was
produced which Mcfarland wrote.
Judge Garver-Did Mcfarland refer to
the shooting of Richardson the first
Mr.. Graham object. The prosecu-
ton have no right to introduce extrane-
GUS matter. 1t must he introduced for
the purpose of prejudioing the Jury but
If 1t gets in it will not have that result.
They must prove that Mcfarland was the
aggresser to make any point for the pros
| ecutlon, and they are not allowed TO do
that. When this thing was fresh, whv
dad they not bring the prisoner to the bar,
| and not wait until it had disappeared
| from the memory Of every one2 If Rich
| slANoO4A nav DCC4l D4ONSIAb 11lO EGuIl al llH
| time, public feeling was so aroused that
Richardson would never have left the
court room alive Mr.. Graham then in
stanced the case of McCleud to show that
no new matter could be introduced in ex-
plicatory evidence, and quoted the deci-
| sion of Judge Gridley to that effect. He
also referred to three English decisions on
this point by Judge Barron, Judge Stan
ton and Judge Paulls He went on to
| denounce this attempt on the part of the
| prosecution as mean fnessing and unwor-
| thy OF the candor of the District Attorney.
| He demanded that this confrmatory evil
| dence be excluded by the court
! Judge Garvin said when he took up the
case he considered it q case of murder,
pure and simple, and had brought evil
| denCe to prove it. The defense las ac-
knowledged the killing, but has claimed
THAT the prisoner was insane, and conse-
| quently not responsible for his acts
They have spent twenty days in accumu-
lating evidence to establish this theory
| Counsel for defense has denounced the
private character of the prosecution from
| day to day, and n0Y they break forth with
the widest diatnBes because the prosecu.
ton attempts to use their privilege o.
rehuttal. The prosecution merely wishes
to prove that the prisoner was not insane
and this evidence Is certainly rebuttal II
its character, and consequently admissible
The case of McCloud is not at all paral
lei.
Mr. Graham, in reply, said if the law a.
quoted by him was new to the Distrie
Attorney, he (Graham) had been familiar
with it for a quarter of century. Thu
object of the prosecution was tointroduc,
men will swear anything necessary t.
hang the prisoner-any evidence calcula
ted to show malice, but it would be exclu
| ded. Let the prosecution have all latitud
to attempt to break down the evidence 70
defense. but they. must rest there, no
Introduce new matter. They can only
bring forward negative testimony, ant
the court is bound to exclude all extrane
Gus evidence not purely replicatory.
The Recorder considered it only fai
that the prosecution should be permittet
TO rebut the evidence adduced by the de
tense to prove the insanity of the prisoner
therefore. he would rule the evidenc
competent and to be admitted.
The Court here adjourned.