Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1878-11-20
Wafrlinran & eyunr,mL.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1878


The Opinion of the Court In fuII-Hayden
Address-The Sentence. ITO he Hanged b
the Neck Until Dead"
The career of Edwin C. Hayden, which began
dozen years ago under auspices of unusual bright
: ness, came to the saddest of all ends on Frida
forenoon, when the awful doom a. to be hange
by the neck until dead" was pronounced upo
him, a doom which, despite the terrible Grim
OF which he was guilty, could not be hear
by anyone without a feeling of pity for the errn
man so soon to end his days in unuttemble dis
grace. Hayden has grown old rapidly since hi
conviction by the jury, and looks very haggar
and almost broken in spirits. Although unde
the influence of an anodyne, he was very ner
vous and 1t was only with the greatest effor
that he maintained his composure while standing
| up to receive sentence His case was the last on,
reached, and a hum of expectation arose from tn,
crowd Of spectators when 1t was called.
The opinion Of the court was delivered by Judg,
Royce, and was as follows:
THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
" The respondent was tried on an Indictment
charging him with the murder of his wife Ger
trude Hayden. lie did not controvert the evi.
dence introduced by the state, tending to show
the killing and the circumstances shown in evi.
dence connected with it, but claimed that at the
time of the killing he was insane and not respon.
sible for the act and he introduced evidence
tending to show that he was insane. The prose-
cution introduced no evidence upon the question of
his insanity, except the testimony of experts and
Others who gave opinions upon facts detailed
and the case expressly finds that there was no
dispute ofc0nhict in the evidence as to the acts,
conduct and declarations OF the respondent, which
were put In evidence as constituting the facts
upon which his insanity was claimed to be estab-
lished.
" FirSt-The first exception that is now in
sisted upon, is to the ruling of the court In per-
mitting the witnesses, Wood, Channel and Han
son to testify to their opinion upon the question
of the respondents sanity. 1t appears that these
witnesses were acquainted with the respondent
had seen him frequently, and under different cir
cumsances, and the opinions they were permit
ted to give in evidence were founded upon such
acquaintance and knowledge. In Moore u.s. Craw-
ford, Seventh Vermont 400, it was held that a
witness-not professional man--who was ac-
quainted with the respondent and had conversed
with him, might give his opinion in evidence
upon the question of his sanity in connection with
the facts upon which IL was founded and in
Cram u.s. Cram, Thirty-three Vermont, Is, it is
said that on the question of insanity witnesses not
professional men are permitted to give their opn-
ions in connection with the facts observed by them;
and in Hathaway, administrator, Us. National
Life Insurance Company, Forty-eighth Vermont
33j that the opinions of persons not experts upon
the question of insanity admissible in this
state, based upon facts that are within their
knowledge and observation, they having testified
to such facts as the basis of their opinion Upon
the authority of those cases, and others that
might be cited, the evidence was admissible, and
the weight to be given to it was question for the
jury, considering the facts testified to upon which
the opinions given in evidence were based
" !Second-The second exception is as to the
ruling of the court in permitting the question to
be put and answered by Dr. Draper, a medical
expert, as the case shows it was putand answered
There is no occasion here to discuss the grounds
and reasons upor which the testimony of medical
experts upon questions of sanity is universally
held TO be admissible, as the only question upon
this exception is whether the rules of law have
been observed in the way and manner of admit
ting the evidence. 1t appears that Dr. Draper was
present in court and heard all the facts relating to
the respondents acts and conduct claimed to in
dicate insanity, which had been put in evidence,
and 1t is important to notice in this connection
that the case finds that there was no dis
pute conflict in the evidence AZ to such acts
and conduct. He was then asked: Suppos-
ing all these facts you have heard testified
10 in this case by the defendants witnesses and
the plaintiff 's witnesses are true, what is your
1Diuiuu do think he Nuu
-he time OF the alleged murder?" The question
was objected TO by the counsel for the respond
'nt, and 1t WAS claimed that question should be
put to the witness including statement of the
acts developed IN the case, and that he should |
not be gwen the entire scope OF the case. The
aSe oi fairchild rs. Bascomb Thirty-Fifth Yer
mont, 39S, is much relied upon by the counsel for
lie respondent as an authority That case we
hink is clearly distingushable from this. In
hat, the evidence bearing upon the question Of
he sanity OF the testhtrix was conflicting; in this,
is we have seen, there was conflict The
question put to DR. Rockwell in that case was
like the one put to Dr. Draper; but
n answering the question he was required to
ina conclusions from the evidence in order to |
ecohche cohiilcting facts, and that was the ex-
'iusive duty OF the jury. II there had been no
oniict IN the evidence in that case it is apparent
nat the Judgment would not have been reversed, |
OF Judge aidis says that we have no doubt that |
'uedicii witness VINO has heard the testimony
nay give his opinion as to the sanity or insanity
u party Us lhucated oy any gwen state OF facts,
% long as such iacts are warranted by the evil
'ence, ana are not conflicting; and that in some
ascs All Tue iacIs bearing upon the issue might |
'e summed up III single question Here the
luos'ion was put upon the assumption that all the
"c's put IN evidence bearing upon the question
u 'ne respondent SANITY were true. They con-
titu'eu 'he iaets upon winch he was to predicate
'nu give MS opinion IN answering the question
le was not ciied upon 10 weigh, to reconcile con-
''o'ins eNiuehce' Ills opinion was based upon the
assumed existence Oh the iacts referred to In the
question: ana It's value as evidence was dependent
ipoh the actuai existence oil such facts. 1t is not
'ehieu pu' 'na' hypothetical questions might have
'eeh put 10 " pr"pef' pased upon any evidence
II 'ie case tenug 10 snow the sanity or insanity OF
he respondent ana upon the authority OF Gilman
IS. Straiiord II would have been competent to |
,"'o enlureu Vi nm what MS opinion was upon
he testimony OF each witness, assuming that the |
estl'hohy was true, VINO testhed TO facts tending |
o snow SANITY OF insanity Hence, there was no
error IN permitting the question to be put in the
orih III whlch IL was ana with the right OF the re-
'pondeht upon cross-exalnination TO get the opin-