The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1879-01-29
Full Test of the Opinion Giving the
Boy a New Trial.
Public Feeling Over the Result-Forcible
Expressions of Dissatisfaction.
The Decision in Merrick's Case to be Made
This Morning.
The Efors to Obtain a Communication for
Achey-Tne Condition Of the
Condemned.

At about 10 o'clock a. m. yesterday the
unanimous opinion of the five judges of the
supreme court of Indiana in Guetig's case
was fled with the clerk of that court. A
number of friends of the. condemned, and
many idlers were there, awaiting the decis-
ion with breathless anxiety. The moment
after the document came into the clerks
hands its contents became known. The rul-
ing OF the court below had been reversed,
and Louis GuetIg was to have q new trial.
The news spread like prairie fire over the
city, and by the time the News was upon the
street in the afternoon, with the decision In
full, ninety -ninehundredtks OF the down ieSn
people knew of the result, and the subject
was the theme of conversation everywhere.
The moment Guetig's attorneys. who were
there, knew the contents of the OPINION, they
hurried to the Jail to notify their client. Ex-
ultsnt themselves, they fancied Guetig
would be pleased with the news they
brought He was called into the cage when
the following conversation, in substance, en-
sued:
"We1, LOUIS, the supreme court has grant
ed you a new trial, and you will not die
vet" TO which he replied:
II don't care cuss; I may as well be hung
Wednesday as any other day"
The reply was delivered in nonchalant,
devil-may-care style. indicating supreme in
difference as to what became of him here or
hereafter. The reply somewhat dampened
the ardor of the sanguine young attorneys.
THE OPINION.
The following is the full text of the opin-
ion of the court:
623. LOUIS P. Guetig VS.. the State.
From the Marion criminal circuit court
Cause reversed. Opinion by Bddle. J.
The appellant was indicted for murder in
the rstdsgree, alleged 10 have been com
miited in killing Mary McGlew, purposely
and with premeditated malice. Upon plea
OF not guilty, and trial by jury. he wa.
convicted and sentenced to suffer the peRal
" OF death. Numerous exceptions were
reserved in the record, but such questions as
have been discussed before us arose under 6
motion for new trial.
The evidence, which is all before us, in
troduced at the trial, tends to prove tina
the appellant was subject to attacks o.
epilepsy. There was also evidence intro
duced in the case, by the testimony o
experts, tending to show that epilepsy is
disease which tends to produce insanity
indeed, the insanity OF the appellant at tn,
time he committed the deed alleged agains
him, was the main defense at the bar. Ii
reference to the defense of insanity tn,
court, oyer the objections and exceptions o
the appellant instructed the jury as follows
'25. When the defense of insanity is in
terposed to prosecution of murder, the jury
should carefully and intellectually scrutin
ize and consider the evidence by which it is
sought to be established. II the jury fine
from the evidence that there is REASONABLE,
doubt whether the defendant has been sub
ject to attacks of epilepsy, and if this fact Il
H.,x -I4x.. xA-l l..
the testimony of expert wit
nesses establishing to the satisfaction
of the Jury, (evidence raising reasona
BILE doubt being sufficiently that epilepsy is
disease which tends to produce insanity, thi
evidence would not be sufficient to raise
reasonable doubt of his sanity at the time o
the alleged commission OF the homicide
There must be sufficient evidence to raise
reasonable doubt of actual insanity at tn
time of the alleged commission of tn
offence"
1t is contended on behalf of the appellan
that this instruction is erroneous, because o
its uncertainty and tendency to confuse an,
mislead the Jury, and because it directly in
structs the jury as to the weight of the evi
! dence, and thus assumes to decide Ques
ton of fact which is beyond the province o
the courts power or duty.
The State contends that the instruction
not erroneous, but within the authority @
and Bradley VS.. the State, 81 Ind, 492; and
although the instruction, standing by itself
might be erroneous, yet, that all the in
structions given by the court, taken to
gether, present the law correctly, and
therefore, the instruction can not be held a
sufficient to reverse the judgment
| In the case of Sawyer VS.. the State, Sawye
YVES indicted for the murder Of his wife. A
the trial the appellant offered to prove "tha
| the deceased, Lizzie Sawyer, had for a lon
! time previous been having aduiterous inter
course with man by the name of Bibbs an,
| PENDANT had for a long time been cognizant.
The evidence, on objection made by tn
| State was rejected, and the defendant except
ed. In this case the court, after holding tn
evidence incompetent to prove justifca
ton, excuse. or even palliation of the oil
Tense, remarked: 1T is claimed, however
that the evidence should have been permit
ted to go to the jury on the ground that /
/ tended to establish the insanity of the &C
cused. But the evidence offered was incom
petent for that purpose"
There are some important distinctions be
| tween this case and the one before us. 1t
| clear that the fact that Sawyer's wife ha,
been committing adultery with Bibbs an
other men, and that Sawyer knew the fac
would not tend to produce the disease OF in
sanity in Sawyer. 1t might very much en-
rage or distract him temporarily, but woul'
not tend to produce insanity as
| disease. This is vary different state
ment from the facts supposed In the in
struction we are considering namely. tina
Guetig had attacks OF epilepsy and tha
epilepsy tended to prove insanity. Beside
in the Sawyer case the question was one @
admissibility of evidence. which is solely TO
the court to decide. The question in th
present case is one upon the lnsufhciency Q
the evidence to prove a given fact, which
solely for the jury to decide.
The case of Bradley VS.. the State is cite
and quoted from with approval of the cas-
of Sawyer VS.. the State, and is not in cor
fiict with it in any respect. Neither c
these cases supports the views Of the State 9
urged in the case under consideration.
The instruction complained OF, compact
stated, means that: II the appellant has bee
subject to attacks of epilepsy, and epileps
is disease which tends 70 produce insanity
these facts are not sufficient to raise reason
able doubt of his sanity At the time of th
alleged commission Of the homicide. It
MOI clsax AZ the statement Of zoe TIME Of u