The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1885-10-28

of the prisoners mind ut the thine of the homicide
the Jury must take into consideration his whole life,
the evidence as to his epileptio fits, MS TO instances OF
similar disease in other members of his family. as to
his long continued use of alcoholic drinks, while sub.
ject to epileptic fits, as to his disposition to violence,
IS to his acute pain from erystpelas, as to his stab In
the back, az to his melancholy, as to his threats OF
suicide, and us to the want OF motive In tho com
mission of the net.
! charge you that. Now you Will remember,
gentlemen, that there was testimony submit
ted to you in regard to all these doctrines, be-
would point to and have some influence In
explaining the condition Of mind In which
Fergusan was at the time of the homicide:
Nov In a. making TX IR , y91 hv y Wao sn al j. i IN eSe
you to say in considering them, whether or
not they established the fact Of such un.
sounaness of mind In Ferguson at the time OF
committing the act, that would relieve MIN
from responsibility for it.
16. If tho Jury believe that there Is q reasonable
theory of the defendants innocence consistent with
the facts proved in the evidence, they must acauit the
defendant.
I cannot charge you that, because that Ia
~ in preference to a.theory Of guilty, which
Is for sou TO decide and not HE.
II. The prisoner Is entitled to tho benefit Of ey.
cry reasonable doubt.
I certainly charge you that.
Now, gentlemen, as I said to you at the out
set, this is q charge Of murder. 1t Is perhaps
as we'll, it will certainly do no harm, If ex.
plain to You what murder is. Our statute lays
scription 0G has BEEN Borrowed Sta'i from what hat we
lawyers know as the common law, q law
adopted into this country by statute which
has prevailed in England from time immemo-
rial; and I may remark that we have in
South Carolina preserved the common law
with more of its integrity and completeness
than In any other State IN the Federal Union.
n L-.1 hAosS v1-Ny fN,v - s0nA fnkn fhn
common law of England so far rs 1t relates to
crimes. We have made certain statutory
crimes that were not crimes Mt the common
law. Common law and our statute III, pursu-
der is the unlawful killing OF a human being
with malice aforethought either expressed or
implied" We all know what s the killing OF
a human being, but We DO not all know H1 W. what n a.
a word OF technical Specification and does not
mean. precisely In this particular oiense OF
murder, what 1t does mean In the common
til will, but as used in this definition, is evil
intent. To take the life of q human being Is
evil, and therefore when o human being Is
slain and when the facts and circumstances
malice from the proof OF killing. When the
facts are submitted to the jury the jury are to
see whether or not the act was done with an
take lie in seif:defense. Then il is not lone
for the purpose of Staying another, although
it takes the life Of another, but it Ia to pro-
tect ones own life. Now you see II one man
with evil intent and therefore not with NAL.
ice. II O man take human life in sudden heat
and passion. that is not murder, because 1t is
not evil intent.
Now In regard to the defense set up in this
case for the defendant. That the defendant
was Of unsound mind n was not RESPONSE.
ble for the act. The defendant does not say
He does not say that it was In sudden heat
and passion, but he says that at the time OF
the offense, ~ was OF unsound mind." The
law presumes that every man is sane and Of a
sound mind. II the question OF sanity arises
in the proof at oil 1t arises as matter OF de-
tense. Now counsel for defense In this case
say that they cencede that 1t is matter OF de::
Tense; that they affirm 1t, and that they must
and that 1t is no sufficient defense until they
do prove 1t by a p~reponderance OF the evi.
denee; Ard Ard whenever between these aero Two I've
the testimony Of the one side out-weighs the
testimony Of the other, then he Is entitled to
an acquittal, for then the plea OF insanity Is
mads en nt,d IN Of ah sa 9ass' STANDS Sas aet ah sil t the te she
mony OF the defense weighs down the other
side by It's greater weight. Well now what
must be established? If the defendant under.
t to- set 1 SS way Snso Sl eg'ease Of 70 @ + S + is nos e eneugf,
to prove such u~nsoundness of mind as is sniff
cient to relieve him from responsibility in a
CIVIL CaSe, OUG III Il CrlInlnnl case mOTo UluSG
be proved in order to relieve the defendant
from the charge of murder. In criminal
cases, In order to absolve the party from guilt
q higher degree of insanity must be shown
than would be sufficient 10 discharge him
from the obligations of his contracts. In these
cases the rule of law Is understood TO be this
that a man Is not to be excused from respon-
sibility, If he has capacity and reason suffl-
tween right and wrong rs to the particular
act he is then doing; a knowledge and con-
seriousness that the act he is doing is wrong
and criminal, and will subject him to punish
ment. In order TO be responsible he must have
sufficient memor to r~ecollect the relation In
which he stands to others, and In which 9TH
trary to the plain dictates Of justice and right,
injurious to others, and a violation Of the die
tates of duty. on the contrary, although ne
may be laborlng under partial Insanity, If he
still understands the nature and character Of
his act and It's consequences, II he has q
knowledge that 1t Is wrong and criminal, and
o mental power sufficient to apply that
II he does the act he will do wrong and re-
not sufficient to exempt him from :esponsi;
to the satisfaction Of the jury that the mind
Of the accused was In q diseased and unsound
state, the question will be, whether the dis
ease existed to SO high a degree that for the
science and judgment, and whether the pris-
oner in committing the homicide, acted from
an irresistible and uncomfortable impulse;
If so, then the act was not the act of q volun-
tary' agent, but the involuntary act OF the
body without the concurrence OF q mind d.
recting 1t. II such is the case; the defendant
cannot be punished in this case; If not, he
may. There is only one more point and that
relates to voluntary drunkenness. Now, you
know 1t is q common maxim everywhere,tha
drunkenness is no excuse for crime. If q
man takes the liquor, and while his percep-
lions OF right and wrong are blunted by IT'S
influence, and violates the law the law pre-
sumes that when he took the liquor he in
Is as responsible as II he were sober. Writers
say that mere drunkenness by taking liquor,
and all momory and reason is dethroned, and
while in That state Of mind the crime ia CON-
mitted, he is just as responsible as when So
Der: but on the other hand a mental disease
Is produced, as we q. know 1t may be pro-
duced by excessive and continual drinking,
reached such o point as to deprive the person
from knowing right from wIonGs and cannot