New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-10-30


by mistake OF the physicians. who yet honestly sought
10 effect cure or TO give relief TO the patient have
brought about fatal result more speedily by reason OF
ts exaggeratng OF the consequences OF the wound
yet the law cannot divide responsibility In such case
TO death responsible, because he has parc
paed in producing the death. and Will not suffer an es
cape from the consequences OF the crime on
any such ground so you will observe, II you
should 20 the conclusion that this wound was not
necessarily fatal under the testimony nut tnat IL was
involved cause In the death OF FISK tehulhg 20 PV
duce that death In connection with these othor causes II
10 had produced that condition OF MS system 80 nat to
application OF the appropriate remedies In greater or Tess
amount had effect not expected by MS doctors ae
not OF course, designed BY them, ana the paeht un az
an earlier hour or died by the combined effects
of the two eauses, the responslDinV sun htlaon1
20 the prisoner he Is not to be excused IRON any
liability H. however, you should come 10 the coucIu
sion I'm this case looking at the whole eVldehco
ing the administration OF morphine thht H. anu ~ a'o,
was fine cause OF death at the time II occurred lhe
wound participating IN u or aheCln5 sas ~, the
then the prisoner would not be chargeabo Win the
death An independent, pteryening cause AFTER tSo
innctlon OF the wound which OF ltsef solely
the life of the Injured party before tho wounu W9ulu
baye caused that result, even though the wOunu 20
fataI eSenses the party who has inflicted the wouhu
t. ac' The charge OF having caused the death.
| hope Won understand me, gentlemen MY rehar r
may be Illustrated in this way; ii man were nOItai
tme~say within two or three days-anG physician Is
called TO attend his case. Who designing 70
remedy for his pain and suffering, selects mOrpma hs
,ba ins,-unent but by accident gives iata dose OF
strvohniue which of Itself Kills the pauohI III % i
NO. in srb case the law take IT, cannot charge tho
~ bic a. one of the elements Of murder, upon the
u.,' hn indicIed the blow although that blow was.
,nt of tact mortal one. understand tho case IN
Noph Carona which has been cited here TO be In prn-
chile substantially that OF my Illustration a naa in
icted fatal wound upon -, oi thre beinC no con.
snrcy or understanding between them
mortal wound, OF wmcR , u,eu death and
tho frat wound was In no sense connecleu WIN ~ ~
producing tho result then inc cue ~ tbat onse
So Won viii see that the exact point impress uPo
Won il this: II morphine properly 'ansed
4 10
the death OF James Fisk jr on jan as hii NJ
emit not an acceleratye cause, then lhG plSoo III
cheroeable with the death, because anOEer anu al lno
nendsnt agent produced that RESULT but theIe was
simpla acceeration. in conse4uehCe VI YoSd them
mt dpath ensued sooner than other"se "ou, 'lc
th uris,ner ~ not excused. But, gentlemen, II you
snouid come the conclusion IN TINS ease Ion s ~
10 atIminjstered 10 BY no means follows that the
prisoner in this not to be eonvoteu h Inc 70
endcpt agency in thHt case stepping IN at hae nou W
cause death independently Of the wound anu as ne sOo
simply arrests SrS in me Norh Carolina
ase where came in and by murderous hand killod
inc the ~" to LII him and inflicted the fatal
vgonnd with that intent simply talleu 10 De cOnsui
mated rpened into murder. D9G'uso th I that
w6uld have followed. Ihe consequence vi VA. -, !,
such state thugs Is found IN thls eVaenco ,de te
ssnming that find that he shot VIII premeditattd
design TO crec. DEATH, he Is liable to De , con
nnTder in Tie frst degree. the law does
allow prisoner under snSa a tb aet THere
fore in this case charge yOu as the law on Ili SUI,
ec that II You come to the Goncnson ha, Inc a6 az
the SANE p rn9 mai he fred the fatal shot
Win intent TO kin. inflicted the wound with
that design, then It is your duty 10 convict
BIN Of an attempt 10 commit murder IN me
drst depree. But n yOu come TO the conclusion, as
nave Ifeady said In looking at evidence that the
man died from the wound as matter Oh Gourte, is
died from the concurrent effects OF the wound ana the
morphine. the one hittcn'hs tae oIper anu
clio, ffprO r.
OF an early death from the combined eAecIs theh the
prisoner has no excuse
EMOTIONAL INSANITY THROWN OUT.
Tho next question to which propose call your at
entlon Is that made by the TO his nsanity
Insanity Is by statute perfect defense when proved be-
fore jurya perfect protection, rather against conyic
tim Because person who is insane, within the
ing OF the law incapable OF committing crime, there
is in the of an insane person olal absence or ca
narity 10 commit crime; and the law VIII not
commit such II that fact appears in advance 10
be pnt upon trial at ALL and II enOins upon courts and
ires when IL does appear that such person Is insane,
that verdict OF acquittil shall be gwen What Is the
insanity that appears To protect man against the con-
seouences OF his act within the meaning Of this rule
There has been a great deal Of misunderstanding on
tried upDn tho idea of temporary insanity,
nm emotional insanity arising at the moment OF tho oc-
currprcp and spriugng out Of sOme transaction Ivy
which tho party was transported into such rage as to
he Incapable Of governing himself; that he was the sub
irct of some unknown and uncOntrollable impulse that
drove him into tho commission 0t INC oaIhoe ho.Nltl
standing his feelings or wishes 10 inc contrary.
Nan
room upon tue idea that ,sHch form OF INSANITY
existed in law ~ deien-e me sulgect mas
and have an opinion here from which propose 10 read
a few words that you may know what mean To say
when saw that insanity constitutes an excuse rather
than a defense, a shield against Charge of crime.
There must be that diseased condition OF the mind
which renders person incapable OF knowing what he
Is do ne or, II he knOws what he Is doins-incaabe,
from the diseased state Of mind OF knowing TIE
character or quality Of the act which he
ia doing. Tms ~ the language Of the Court
And unless insanity comes within tins rule 1t IS not 10
be conceded by courts and inries as defense" The
court below had charged this:
To establish defense tho ground OF insanity IL
committed pa y Interested was abOring under such
n defect of reasOn from disease Of the mind not To
ting and If be did know II, that he did not know he
was doing wrong" Exception was taken by the prls-
oner's counsel and the appellate court cOnirmed the
decision Of the lower court This was the Of The
People agt Llnigan
firely justified In saying that IL very meager think
only one person Mr. Andrews, has spoken OF him he
were those OF an insane man on the Saturday when he
came TO his Office and on previous OCCASION when he
came down and retained him tAudrews) as counsel lie
thought 50, because MS manner was very excited.
lie nervous, and the other witnesses WHO
have spoken that subject have spoken
of his excitement whenever Fisk's name was
Inctoned and his manner his constant talking
the subject OF Fisk and his abuse OF him. Now you
know gentlemen insanity, rule involves dclusion,
and yet in this all the subjects 10 which the pri
oner is said TO have aulludod IN these conversations
were not decisions but facts claimed to be here and
that the is excited aud nervous when he has fears
OF personal injury, when manifestations are made
OF an attempt to deprive him OF his property,
when he believes that persons following him
about for the purpose OF watching him,
possibly doing him vOlence-when man Is excited
under such circumstances IL Is very slender evidence in
deed that his mind diseased that ne Incapable Of
approaching the quality Of the acts he performs. On
that point, matter OF course, you should consider
what tho prisoner states himself as 10 what ne
was and what he did; the capacity to know
what he was doing, where hs was going, who he
was seeing. with whom eOnversng. what subjects,
and into all the evidence bearing upon his knowledge
and appreciation OF the various acts with which he
connected at about that time. Indeed the learned
counsel substantially as understood hlm said that
chief object at least IN presenting this defense
TO enable him 10 lay before You a class OF
evidence which, otherwise, would not have been adj
mssble. That is the declaration OF the accused himself
His fears OF injury, personal injury either from F1sk