Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1878-11-18
Local ann State Mems.
END OF THE sCRIBNER TRIAL.
THE MURDERER CONVICTED.
The Verdict 'GuIlty of Murder In the
First Degree"

First Degree"
The trial Of Jason 2. Scribuer, for muir der.
closed on Saturday, with the conviction Of the
miserable man. On the coming in of the court
in the morning, there was the usual large audi
ence. Judge Libbey, who had presided with
much dignity and impartality throughout the
trial, began his charge to the jury at ten minutes
past O'Clock, and it occupied one hour in its
delivery. 1t showed clear understanding of the
case at issue, as well of the law, that should
govern the jurors in coming to a decision. Its
language was unexceptionable and its statements
clear and easily comprehepded We give below
an abstract Of the charge:
Gentlemen of the jurV:
The prisoner is charged with an unnatural and
most atrocous crime. 1t is OF great importance to
the public rs we'll as to him. But its imp nee
and the consequences which may follow from our
verdict either 10 the prisoner to the pubic
should not deter you 10 the least degree from de-
clarirg the ruth AS you find it. Your duty is to
declare the fact as you are satisfied that it exists
The law takes care of the consequences, whe Their
they be to the public or 10 the accused. II jures
should shrink from an honest, fair and full dec!ar-
| alton of the fact merely because the conse-
quences to the accused to the public are so
great and so terrible, great criminals could sell
| dom be punished But the magnitude of the
crime charged in this case is such that it calls up
dence carefully, dispassonatey, and deliberately.
| Having done so, it is your duty, and l know it
will be your pleasure to declare the fact as you are
| satisfied it exists.
The judge. after explaining the elements con-
| shutting murder in the first and second degrees,
| said:
But the prisoner, through his counsel, says that
| he is not legally guilty, although he may have
commtted the homicide; because at the time
| when the act was done he was insane and not
| legally responsible for his act. Every person is
| presumed TO be saue and to be responsible for his
| criminal acts. And when he comes into court and
sets up his insanity, the burden upon hm to
isfy the jury that he insane at the time of
doing OF the act, insane to such degree to
| der him irresponsible for the consequences of the
| act. The theory on the part OF the defendant Is
! that naturally he was of al irritable, exctable
temperament, very easily excited that for several
| years he was of intempvrate habits, which had
| weakened and impaired to some degree his intel
| lect, and from his natural constitution and tenn
| permanent, his habits and the indulgence of his
passions. he had finally become so insane to be
| irresponsible. On the part of the State 1t is main
tanned that his acts were his natural and ordinary
acts; that his mind was not diseased. His habits
| aud disposition have been laid before you for
| several years prior to the HON eide. and wy
| properly Because what might be in one an
strong evidence OF insanity, in another would be
simply evidence of his natural, ordinary action.
If man who had always been moderate in his
| manner OF expression, and had never used vio-
lence, and all at oAce he is found to use proianc,
| extravagant forms of expression, and violence
towards Others, it would be strong evidence that
he had become insane. If, on the other hand,
| you foul nd man who had been IN the habit oil
| using profanity all his life, extrsvagant express
sions, violence towards others, and the evidence,
| tends to show that that kind of conduct bad ex
.ted any particular occasion, 1t Is entirely con-
, sistent with the nsn As he was before the alleged
insanity, and would be evidelce OF no weight
| tending to prove insanity. SO In this case you
should consider the acts of the prisoner as he
before the alleged insanity. aud compare him
| rs he before with what he is proved to have
been after the alleged insanity, aod determine to
| what extent his acts satisfy you OF his alleged
| diseased state of mind.
| general definition Of insanity is . diseased
| mind 1t may have reached to the extent
| as to entirely destroy the mind or it may exist in
| the slightest degree. In this case il is claimed
that tie insanity Was that OF insane delusion.
| What is insane delusons In a legal point Of
| view it is where q person believes something to
| exist which not only does not exist, but
| of which he has evidence sufficient TO sat
isfy any healthy mind. aud he acts upon it,
reasons upon it and holds it as . reality. You
| will see that this d. milton of insane delusion,
insanity of the kind claimed 10 this case, embraces
several elements. 1t embraces the element OF .
| belief in something which has no existence. But
that is not sufficient. 1t Is necessary that appear
| that that belief is entertained and held and acted
81 upon with evidence sufficient ~ satisfy any
healthy mind of its existence. II you stop in th'
def niton where DIR. Harlow stopped, without cm-
| bracing the other element, perhaps 1t would be
said every man in the community has been insane.
Probably not one of US Is free from entertaining
belief in some fact that has no existence, at some
time during onr lives. We believe 1t. however,
| upon evidence, which, to our minds is satistac-
| tory. We may be undeceived entirely by evidence
and the belief is abandoned But not so 10 the
case of an insane person. His belief 10 thing
that does not exist is without reason, without EVIL
deace sufficient TO satisfy any sane mind. The
fact exists only in the imagination OF the person,
| without reason.
Another definition of insane delusion is this :
1t. aaI anft n AND
in which person believes things to exist when
exist only, 10 the degree they are conceived OF,
| only in his own imag inston, with the persuasion
fixed and firm that neither evidence nor argu-
ment can convince him to the contrary.
give you these definitions Of insane delusion
/ because they have been sanctioned BY the law
court AS the correct definition like this,
where ir sanity is set up Applying these rules to
the evidence, has the prisoner satisfied you that he
+, entertained insane deiusons at the time oil the
commission of the act .
, Aside from the acts and sayings of the prisoner
| YOU have the evidence of the expert, DIR. Harlow,
who has been upon the stand in behalf of the
cused. II is competent evidence But II Is not
submitted to you As rule upon which you should
rely. You TO consider il as tending to give you
some light as to the issue in the case Ii ID mere
ly the opinion of the man; aud when given, our
| experience is that it is valuable largely so
| far as the expert is able to give good. common
sense reason for it. In this case Dr. Harlow gave
| you three reasons why he believed the prisoner
insane, which be discovered, as he thought, in the
evidence. And he based his opinion. you remem-
| Der, upon the evidence submitted to you, with no
| evidence disclosed that he had any knowledge of
| the prisoner before; that he had ever made any
examination of him. His evidence is based upon
| the evidence submitted to you, and upon the as
sumption that it is all true upon both sides. lie
tells you that he discovered, in his opinion three
insane deusions, and the first Is the belief that
poison was put in the milk which he drank at Mrs.
Aliens. The second is a belief that his friends
! and relatives imposing upon him, and the
third is that he believed that his nsighbers were
talking about him. These are what DIR. Harlow
is satisfied were his insane decisions.
Now you will apply to these matters the test re-
CURED by the legal definition of insane deuscn
which have given you, and determine whether
upon the evidence they come up to the test. To-
constitute evidence Of insane delusion you
must be satisfied from the evidence that the fact
believed did not exist. II is not sufficient that
" there is no evidence in regard to it. You must
be satisfied from the evidence that the fact did not
exist, and the burden is upon the prisoner in that
} respect. Is there any evidence in the case that
l poson NOT nnt in he milk Refore the he