Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1874-04-23
Correct Doctrine.


Joseph Waltz was convicted of
murder in the first degree. His
victim was a scissors-grinder
named Herman Holsher. The
murder occurred on the night of
the first day of May last. The
young man made confession,
stating that on the night of MUIR
der Holsher came to the house,
conversed pleasantly with the
family during the evening, and
theL retired.
In the middle of the night
the prisoner said he was tempt
ed by an evil spirit to commit
the murder; that he prayed to
God TO help him to resist
the evil influence, but finally was
overcome; went to the wood
house, procured a Ratchet, re-
turned to theroomand dispatched
his victim while he was quietly
sleeping. According to his
statement he carried out the
body alone, and on the follow
ing night prepared the grave
and buried it.
His counsel interposed the
usual defence of insanity. From
the time of his arrest to the
hour Of sentence the conduct of
Waltz indicated many proofs of
insanity; and during the trial
his demonstrations were at
times so violent as TO interrupt
theproceedings. Itwasa strange
scene when, during one Of his
paroxysms, not only the doctor
present wasexamining hissymp-
toms, but the judge left the
bench forthe samepurpose, name
ly, to discover whether this
behavior was feigned.
1t resulted in the positive
declaration Of the. physician
that it was simply a pretence.
Although the testimony on
the part of the prisoner show
cd various exhibitions Of
strange conduct, suggestive of
an unsound mind, the apYlica-
zion of the law to this and SIM
liar cases was so clearly laid
down by Judge Westbrook,
who was presiding, that the ju-
ry were in little doubt in de-
Gliding on their verdict.
We add the precise character
of the law of New York, in ref
crcnce to the plea of insanity, as
enunciated by the Court of APP
peals, during the last year.
1t is expressed in simple
terms, and was doubtless sugges-
ted by the TOO frequent ac-
quittals in capital crimes, where
this ground of defence was set
up.
The decision referred to may
be found in "52 New York Re-
ports" in the words following.
INSANITY AND. MURDER.
"Where insanity is interposed
rs a defense to an indictment, tie
test of responsibility is the capaci.
ty of the defendant to distinguish
between right and wrong, at the
time of, and with respect to, the
act complained of. The law does
not recognize torn of insanity in
which the capacity of distinguish
ing right from wrong, exists with
out the power of choosing between
them. We are asked in this case,
(the Court say }, TO introduce new
element into the rule of criminal
responsibility in case of alleged
insanity; and to hold that the
power of choosing right from
wrong is as essential to legal re-
sponsibility as the capacity OF
Distinguishing between them; and
that the absence of the former is
consistent with the presence of
the latter. The argument pro,
ceeds upon the theory that there
is a form of insanity in which the
faculties are SO disordered and
deranged that man, though he
perceives the moral quality Of his
acts. is unable to control them;
and is urged by some mysterious
pressure to the commission Of acts,
the consequences of which he an
ticipates but cannot avoid. What
auar medical or scientific authoTi-