New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-01-29

enlarged. Trifes become serious; little pecu'
liaritles of conduct seem no longer little; ana
the longer the matter is considered In the
light of the immediate event, the surer the
witness is that the man must have been mad
Unfortunately, however. even when the facts
were fresh in his memory, this witness, upon
being questioned, said to an inquirer that he
did not observe "any wildness' in the con-
duct of the prisoner. 1t is easy to reconcile
these statements. The witness heard the mat
ter talked over; he is informed of the defense
which is to be relied upon; other people relate
TO him instances of curious conduct on the
part of the accused; and all this throws a
flood of light upon the matter. Inc
prisoner must have behaved in an excited and
incoherent way. There may have been wild
"ness." I'm fact the more he thinks of it the
surer he is that the murderer must have been
out of his head. Gradually this much medl-
Eating man becomes an excellent witness to
prove insanity.
1t is the weak point of all testimony of this
kind that it is cOlo-ed by the event. More
over, there is not human being at this mo-
ment upon the face of the earth who, II 1t
were necessary, might not be proved "insane"
in precisely the same way; who has not been
mt one time "incoherent,' at another lex
"cited ~ who does not have some little
pecularities Of speech or Of action; who mas
not been thought by somebody to have be-
hayed "as if he were dcmented." Those who
commit murder are usually pretty positive
characters, accustomed to speak with pas
sionatc volubity even upon slight prOv0caton,
10 u-l,ip al
rs singular. After theory of insanity has
been propOunded, these things are remembered,
and az they are related to jury which has
been warned to put upon them that particular
construction, and which can really know nothing
of many attendant circumstances, they at least
raise that doubt which the tenderness OF the
law provides for the fclon's protection. The
rules of evidence are inevitably relaxed. be-
cause so much of the evidence must be matter
of opinion rather than matter of fact. PROBES
siOnal testimony is usually carefully given, this
very care increasing the scruples OF The jurors;
and when the physician refuses TO say posi-
lively that the accused was sane twelve men
talking over the matter aiterward naturally
drift into the conclusion that he must have
been insane.
ADOlHtI lllIoIldnt punt - tH' uh'"'''i"'
tory way in winch evidence of - insanity in
" the family Is usually offered and received
How many are there in this city who have
not had or do not now have IN insane aunt
a cousin who has behaved GuccIly, OF some
other relative " not so bright as common 2
And when defense in case of crime Is to
be made up with but little material 10 make
il up from, a crazy cousin. 10 matter how
distant the degree, is godscnd. Here too
great deal of light j. thrown upon obscure
cases by the necessities OF the indicted de
sccndant and heir. The grandfather was
thought by his ncghhors to be . an odd stick"
J.. there any reason why the grandson should
not be- odder still 7
We offer these remarks not by way of COM
ment upon the Lands case Gin which very
much more important evidence has been
given), but because it seems To us high time
that when insanity is relied upon for defense
the Jury should not be mislcd by mass of
frivolous and really worthless testimony. Per-
haps it is not possible to fix definitely the
rules controlling such evidence. Delicate
questions must frequently arise requiring the
acutast Judgment of the Court but certainly
we cannot long go on in the present hap
hazard way without bringing criminal courts
into contempt and thus greatly endanscring
the safety of society.