Daily Republican., 1879-11-18


abetting this monstrous scheme OF ""ua
would do we'll to remember this.
Rexpopsibility oflnsoxicsted MEN,
The question Of how far a man Is To-
snonsible when he is drunk for the
commission of crime, was brought out
again at New Castle yesterday IN 'ne
trial of Edward Gallagher, for the lar
csnv of lady's coat. The evidence
was poiuted and direct that Gallagher
did 20 into the residence Of James Gar
penter, SO7 Poplar street, on the
sixth of the present month and that
bs did take from a rack IN the
hall lady's coat belonging to MISS iaa
CARPENTER and examining the coat DE-
meath his own coat SO that it could not
he seen, he went across the street ana
ioinsd some boon companions. 1t was
also in evidence that when importsned
by Miss Carpenter to give up the coat
ho refused to do 80, until Mr.. Frank
Fsrnan was called, when Gallagher
finally thought i. policy TO de-
liver up the stolen property
to the owner, which he promptly
did. Gallagher had no lawyer but
he had no hesitation in confessing that
he was guilty Of taking the coat but
that he was intoxicated at the time, In
fact so drunk that did not know what
he was doing.
This declaration OF Gallagher's made
a noipt of divergence upon which Mr..
Cooper, Deputy Atty Gen. and judges
Comegys could not agree. Mr.. Cooper
ureed in his argument before the jury
that drunkenness at the time Of com
mission of crime could not be
urged as a plea for mitigation Of the
sentence or verdict Of not guilty. We
suppose that Mr.. Cooper had no idea
but what the case was perfectly clear
one and that he had no doubt but
verdict Of guilty would be speedily
rendered. Had Mr.. Cooper not thought
so he might have shown that Gallagher
was not so drunk as he pretended. He
seemed to know that he took the coat
and he knew he gave it up to the ownel
and asked her if he did not do so.
But it vas Judge Comegys who in
sympathetic manner took Gallagher
case in hand, no doubt plying his help
less condition. Though he did no
-, p.nly espouse the cause of Gallagher ye
a few words from him defining the re
sporsibility Of drunken men turned til
tide agains. the young Deputy State
=, Attorney and so influenced the minds O
the Jury that they remained in thei
room two hours and half sweatin
over the knotty problem, and at tn
- hour for adjourning the court Las
night, they had not reported. Judg
:. Co1aegys took the ground that whil
drunkenness was no excuse for til
, commission of crime, yet it would be
~ monstrous peIversion of justice to COZ
vict a man for q crime committed whe
,, he was in such a state of intoxication
that he was entirely incapacitated froI
Judging between right and wrong
This ia the same old vexed question owe
, again, and it is not likely that
line will soon be established to Shot
how far man is responsible for tn
:. crimes which he may commit. Wit
all due Difference to the recognized le
- gal ability Of Judge Comegys, we are
the opinion that in the case Of Charle
Gallagher there was not intoXicatio
), that rendered him irresponsible for hi
=. acts. In any casa it is dangeron
). doctrine to promulgate that intoxics
ton is an excuse for crime, for az MI
; Cooper pCintedly put the case yestel
Iday, all man would have to do whe
he wanted to commit crime would /
In to get intoxicated, and then no matte
4 what unlawful acts he might commit
:. at state he would not be held respol
N sibe f0r them.