Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-08-04
THE OAKLAND TRAGEDY.
Schroeder Held to Answer
Without Bail.
JUDGE YULEs DECISION.
Notice of Application to the Supreme
Court for Habeas Corpus.
ESPECIAL TO THIS REooaD-uMosl
JUDGE YULE'S DECISION.
ESPECIAL TO THIS REooRD-uSIos.l

ESPECIAL TO THIS RECORD -uSrosl
OAKLAND, August Sd. : This morning
Judge Yule rendered his decision in the Po-
lice Court in the case of Edward F. Schro-
der, charged with the murder of Dr. Albert
Lefeyre, in which he held the prisoner to
answer without bail. w. W. Foote, of coun-
sci for Schroeder, gave notice of an applica-
ton to the Supreme Court for writ of ha-
beas corpus.
FULL TEXT OF THE DECISION.
The full text of the decision is as follows
The defendant, Edward F. Schroeder is charged
with the crime OF murder. BY the Penal Code of
our Sta'e murder is defined to be the unlawful
killing OF human being with malice aforethought
Anxious TO protect every legal right Of the defend
ant on one hand, and to enforce the law of the land
on the other have listened with the closest atten
ton to every word that has been offered in evidence
| in this case Since the cause was submitted TO me
on Saturday night, have again examined the en-
tire case with that and deliberaton which its
Importance to society and the defendant demands
The conclusions reached are the results Of my efforts
to render impartial justice. The question OF the
guilt innocence of the defendant as presented TO
my mind, resolves itself into: First-Did the de.
fendant fire the shot that killed DR. Alfred Lfeyre?
Second-was the killing of Dr. Lefeyre done in SET
defense? Third-Was the defendant in that zane
condition OF mind at the time the fatal shot was
fired that the law will hold him responsible for his
act?
NO DOUBT CONCERNING THE CAUSE OF LE-
FEvREs DEATH.
Upon the first two questions there can he nodoubt
the deceased (Lefevre) died from wound caused by
pistol shot in the hands OF defendant the de-
ceased was shot by the defendant while attempting
to flee from the room where the defendant was
standing. So that the only question which forces
itself upon the mind Of the Court is Was the de-
fendant in that sane condition of mind at the time
the fat; shot fired, that the law will hold him
| responsible for his acts?
THE PLEA OF INSANITY.
Insanity, the plea which the defense urged in this
case, is form Of defense which has been so strained
and abused that TO my mind it should be received
with great caution by Court aud jur The dividing
line between sanity and insanity is so close in GER
tain individuals, according they gauged by
this or that rule Of measurement, that often
unable TO tell where the one ends and the other be-
gins. In Courts of justice for the purpose of de-
termining the mental coalition OF defendant at the
bar OF Justice, every habitual and established eX-
preston OF condition becomes competent evidence
and serves to show permanent line of conduct in
the agent.
CONDITION OF THE DEFENDANTS MIND.
With this in view testimony descriptive of the de-
fendanes natural character, habits and disposition
prior 10 the 18th day Of June, and of defendants
conduct, his manner, his general department and
words uttered by HIM expressive OF his mental con.
dition have been offered and received in evidence
from which alone am compelled to deduce the fact
whether not defendant was in that condition of
mind at the time the fatal shot was fired that the
law will not hold him responsible for his acts II
expert testimony this subject had been intro
dueed the Court would have found it's responsible
ties less, and its conclusions might have been
different
WHAT THE DEFENSE HOLD AND PLEAD,
The defense hold and plead that at the date Of the
commission Of the alleged offense the defendant
was non eonapos rnentis. Being SO circumstanced,
he was before the law without mental and therefore
without legal capacity to intend or to execute a
criminal offense, because being circumscribed he
| is person especially exempted from penal respon-
sibility for any acts committed by him. The de-
tense further hold that the burden of proof is in
the State to establish the sanity of the accusef
whenever either its own testimony or that for the
defense raises any doubts upon it, and cites some
authorities of other States in support of the prop
| osition. (BranfoId vs. State, IL Georgia. I4a
Hops People, 81 Illinois, 3s) Such Sc. ms to
be the doctrine laid down by the latest writer's upon
the subject
| WHAT THE EVIDENCE MUST ESTABLISH.
But however good the reasoning however other
Courts may hold the contrary doctrine is held by
the Supreme Court OF State. The latest case at
hand is State vs.. Redemeier, case decided in
March last wherein it is held that when insanity is
raised as defense the fact of the such
insanity at the time of the commission of the
offense charged must be established by evidence TO
the reasonable satisfaction of the jury and the bur-
den OF showing this fact rests with the defendant
vs.. Warren Meyers, 90 CAL, 5ls People vs. Coff.
man, "a Cal, 230; People vs. Francis, 3s Cal. 1s3
People w. Mcdonald, 81 CAL, 1874 People vs. Bell
40 Cal 4s5; which is and must be the law govern.
ing Inferior tribunals in this State until changed by
our Supreme Court.
WHERE THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS.
Wherefore upon these authorities the burden Of
proof rests with the defense The testimony on the
part of the defense in reduced for the purpose of
showing such disordered state OF mind as shall rem
darf I'm daf .lataf irrar ll- T..
mitted is quite yoluminous, and extends over
period of time from the 11th day of June To the
26th day of July.
scHRoDERs MENTAL coNDITIoN-REvIEw OF
THE TESTIMONY
In consideration of the subject of responsibilities
OF the defendant for the crime committed it makes
difference whether the wife of the defendant had
had carnal intercourse with Lefevre or not The de-
fendant evidently believed she had and prior to the
time the defendant entertained such belief testi.
mony is introduced to show that he became and was
changed man. Many of his associates testify that
he has been moody, unsociable, Indifferent to bust
ness, and that at times he has given expression TO
intense SORROW, where in former times, prior TO the
18th day of June, he was social, pleasant and
genial companion, and often sought the companion
snip Of others. Since that day he has become mo-
rose, Indifferent TO former companionshp and that
his duties in the bank have been performed in a me-
chanical sort of way An indifference to the com
panionshp OF Others loss of animal spirits loss
Of interest in business, while they may indicate
disordered mentality, yet person in such condition
OF mind is not necessarily insane
THE SAME EFFECTS PRODUCED BY VARIOUS
CAUSES.
The effects We have often seen manifested in
persons, produced by different causes Losses in
stocks and disappointment in love, death of loving
and loved friend, will oftentmes produce the same
effects and the same symptoms. A loss of animal
spirits and indifference to the conipanIonshp of
Others and loss of interest in business with ey
DreSs0pe times of the m inf
evident, yet | am forced to believe that all these
symptoms may and do often exist and manifest |
themselves in person when there is not the least |
degree OF insanity existing.
DOCTRINE OF INSANITY.
The doctrine has been held, and think is sup
ported by many eminent jurists, that "the law is
that whether the insanity be general partial the
degree must have been great as to have taken |
from him the freedom Of mental action" So that |
in determining the responsibility of the defendant
it is necessary to determine first, whether the de-
fendant at the time he fired the fatal shot had men,
tai capacity sufficient to know the nature and con-
sequence Of the act he was committing; second,
whether, if he did SO know, he had feonious in-
tent in committing this act; third whether know
ing the nature and consequence of the act be had
the power to choose between doing it and not doing
it, To determine these questions will revert to
THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENDANT.
He says in place, 81 never carried pistol in
my life till week ago" In another place he saws in
speaking Of the purchasing of the first pistol al
bought it TO kill that man who had wron yed me-" |
And he again says After / returned from the |
trip with my father, ! remember walking down |
Broadway with DIR. Stebbins one day, and when we |
got to Eighth street l looked down aud Thought
the man who had wronged me. / left and |
walked down rapidly. l found it was not the man |
and came back. had pistol on me that bought
at Plates in San Francisco told the Doctor that
was armed. He told me Twas not doing as had |
promised-to keep the matter to ourselves l |
promised to go straight home and went did |
not keep that pistol. went home, and supposed |
that my wife saw that l was agitated. went to |
the 'front.' parlor and Tut the pistol in the drawer
When returned to the sitting-room my wife asked
me If had pistol. said Eyes" She began to |
cry, and said, Don't expose me and the children
and the family" ! promised would do nothing |
rash that would keep what knew to myself. |
took the pistol with me the next morning and went
to the bank. knew could not carry pistol and |
refrain from using 1t. took it back and said q
bought this pistol yesterday intending to give to
friend, but lind he has got one Do you object to |
take it back !?
DELIBERATE INTENT TO KILL LEFEvRE.
Here is manifested deliberate attempt to take |
the life Of Leevre at the time Of buying the first
pistol and power OF determining between right and
wrong, with mental power sufficient to control his |
acts in that he returned the pistol because he saws
:" knew could not carry pistol and refrain from
using it, and therefore returned it." Up to this
time, then, viii conclude the defendant was sane
and responsible for his acts From this time up to
the day OF the shooting his general demeanor seems
TO have been about the same as it was between the
18th day of June and the time when lie first pur-
chased the pistol he subsequently returned. On the