Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-01-26

which all exercise OF reason Is wanting, and
where there is no recognition Of persons or
things or their relations. But there was
debatable border line between sanity aHd
insanity, and there was often great diff
Guilty in determining on which side of this
line q party was to be put. There were
cases in which mans mental faculties gen.
orally seemed to he In full vigor, but where
on one single subject he seemed to be de-
ranged. A man was possessed, per
hsps, by belief in something alb
surd, which he could not be reasoned
out of (what was called an insane
delusion), or he might have some morbid
propensity, seemingly in harsh discord with
the rest of his intellectual and moral nature.
Those were cases which, for the want of a
better term, were called partial insanity
Sometimes its existence, and sometimes its
limits, were doubtful and uudefnable,
and in those cases It was difficult
to determine whether patient
had passed the line of moral or legal
accountability for his actions. The jury
would bear In mind that a man did not be-
come irresponsible by the mere fact of his
being partially insane. Such a mau did not
take leave'of his passions by becoming in
sane. He might retain as much control over
them as in health. He might COM
NIT offenses, too, wi b which his
intirimty had nothing to do. He
might be sane as to the crime
be committed, might understand its nature,
and might be governed by the same mo-
tiyes in relation to # as other people, while
on other subjects having no relation what
ever to the crime he might be the victim of
a delusion. Whenever this partial insanity
was relied on as defense it must appear
that the crime charged was the product of
a delusiOn or other morbid condition and
connected with 1t as an effect with
its cause, and that 1t was the re-
suit II zane reasoning, which
the party might be capable OF notwithstand-
ing his limited and circumscribed disorder
Assuming that that infirmity of mind had
directed an Influence on the crime, the
difficulty was to fix the character of the
disorder, which fixed responsibility or ire
sponsibility in law. The outgoing Of the
judicial mind on that subject had
not been always entirely satisfactory
nor In harmony with the conclusions of
medical science. The courts had in former
times passed upon the law In regard to in
sanity, without regard to the medical aspect
of the subject, but it would only be prop
erlY dealt with by the concurrence OF har-
monious treatment between the two sciences
OF law and medicine. The courts had there
fore adopted and again discarded one
theory after another in their efforts to find
some common ground on which to stand,
and his effort would be to give to the jury
the results most commonly accepted by the
courts.
IL would be we'll to say word to the jury
as to the kind Of evidence by which the
courts and juries were guided in this diff
cult and delicate inquiry. That subtle es
sence called the mind, dehed, OF course,
ocular inspection. 1t could only be known
by its manifestation The test was as to
whether the conduct Of man and
his thoughts and emotions conformed with
those of persons of sound mind, or
whether they contrasted harshly with them.
By that a judgment was formed as TO a
mans soundness Of mind, and for that rea-
son evidence was admissible to show con-
duct and language that would indicate to
the general mind some morbid condition
OF his intellectual powers. Everything
relating to his mental and physical
history was, therefore, relevant, because any
conclusion on the subject must often rest
on a large number of facts, and letters
spontaneously written afforded one of the
hest indications OF ones mental condition.
Evidence OF insanity In parents was always
pertinent, but juries were never allowed to
infer insanity in the accused from the mere
fact of its existence In his ancestors. When,
however, there was evidence tending to
show insane conduct on the part of the
accused evidence of insanity in ancestors
was admissible as corroborative of the
other. Therefore, it was that in this case
the defense had been allowed to introduce
evidence covering the life OF the ac-
cused and resching also his family antece-
dents. Ia a case so full of details he should
deem It to be his duty to call the
attention of the jury to particular partslof it.
But he wished the jury to distinctly
understand that it was their
province, aud not his, to decide upon the
fact, and II he at any time seemed to ex
press or Intimate an opinion on facts, which
he did not design to do, it would not be
binding on them. But they must draw
their own conclusions from the evidence
The distinc ions, which he had already
given to the jury, impaired that the true
test Of criminal responsibility, where the
defense Of insanity was interposed,
was whether the accused had sufficient use
| of his reason TO understand the nature Of
the act with which he was charged, and to
understand that 1t was wrong for
him to commit it. II those were
facts he was criminslly responsible
for his act, whatever peculiarities
might be shown of him in other respects.
On the other hand, II his reason was 80
| defective in const quence of brain disease
! that he could not understand what he was
| doing, or could not understand that what
he was doing was wrong, he ought to be
! treated as an irresponsible lunatic.
Judge Cox bad previously submitted to
| the jury whether thy would prefer to
remain and hear his charge to-day or wait
until tomorrow, it having been suggested
to adj )urn. They chose to hear the charge
at once. Judge Cox accordingly charged.
as above. AT 4:40 p. N. the jury retired
and came into court again at 5:36 p. M.
and rendered a verdict as indicted.