Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1879-10-27

the mania appearing to pass of; but in such
a case he should expect dementia to set in
resulting in death. In another branch of his
evidence he gave it as his opinion that in this
case, assuming the mania to have existed al
the time of the homicide, and to have been
brought upon the prisoner in the manner in
which he supposes it had been, to the extent
Of involving his whole mind, resulting in the
homicide, and then without any evidence Of
mania from that time to this, nearly year
and half, without any impairment Of memo
ry or apparent dementia, he should expect
just such a state of things to exist. You have
a right to consider these theories, one in con-
| necton with the other and determine how
far this opinion addresses itself to your good
judgment. 1t is purely question for you.
1t 10 claimed on the part of the prisoner
that the evidence shows insane delusions.
In regard to the poisoned milk, you may be
satisfied that it had no poison in it. The evi
| dence tends to prove that he said he thought
| it had. 1t also tends to prove that he was TAX
| en- sick Immediately after it. If the sickness
was such as would ordinarily follow poison
ing. you will determine whether OF not he
might not have had sufficient evidence to sat
isfy some sane mind that there was poison in
what he had taken, although in point of fact
there was none II he had such evidence
then that would fail to come up to the test Of
insane delusion. So in regard to his neigh
bOrs talking about him Were his neigh
bors talking about him, and had they been?
II so, had he evidence which induced him to
believe it, and might have induced any sane
mind to believe it? II he had such evidence
that would fail to come up to the test. Apply
the same rule to all the other instances in
which insane delusion is claimed. If he was
insane at the time of the commission of the
act, then was he insane to such degree as
to render him justified for the homicide? And
upon this branch Of the case give you this
rule:
''TO excuse a man from responsibility on
the ground of insanity, it must appear that at
the time of doing the act he had not capacity
and reason sufficient to enable him to distin-
guish between right and wrong, as to the par
ticular act he was doing. That he had not
knowledge, consciousness or conscience
enough to know that the act he was doing was
a wrong act and criminal act and one that
he will be subject or liable to punishment for
doing. In order to be responsible, he must
have sufficient mind and memory to under
stand and remember the relation he stands to
others, and others to him, and that the act he
is doing is contrary to the plain dictates Of
right, wrOngfully injurious to others, and
violation of the dictates Of duty. If there be
partial arrangement or insanity Of mind, so
that it is not in all respects perfectly sane and
sound, yet if not to the extent before indi-
Gated, it will not excuse q criminal act. In
other words, man may be a monomaniac
his mind may be disordered, and, to a GER
tain extent, it may be proved that he is of
unsound mind, and yet, if he has mind and
understanding enough, and is not carried
away so but that he understands the differ
ence between right and wrong, rs to the act
he is then doing, that is to say, if tie man
knew that what he was doing was wrong, and
the act would not be excused, then he is SUBJ
ject to punishment, although there might be
some partial arrangement"
Upou this branch of the case you have the
evidence of the prisoner and the evidence Of
others rs to his declarations and acts. And
the expert was asked, "did the prisoner at the
time he committed the homicide, and imme-
diately before and Immediately after, have
sufficient mind and memory to know that the
specific act which he was doing was a wrong
act?" And his answer was in the affirmative.
Considering all the evidence upon this issue,
you will determine whether the prisoner has
satisfied you by preponderance Of the evil
dence, that he was so far insane upon that
occasion as to be unable to determine the ma
ture of the act he was doing, the relation in
which he stood towards his children, his duty
towards them; that the act he was doing was
wrong, one for which he would not be ex-
cused. fyou find he was in such q cOndi-
ton then he is not crimnally responsible.
Now, gentlemen, you will take this case
and give it your careful and deliberate con-
sideration and render such q verdict as you
think the evidence requires without fear or
favor, without regard to the consequences
either to the community or to the prisoner.
Declare the fact as you find it, and that will
be a full discharge of the duty resting upon
you.