The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1885-03-26
COURT PROCEEDINGS.

1 shO'sssAh AAsSsAS vi sbOp SOoAV -
appoint a Guardian for the de
fendant. alledging that she wa
unable to attend 10 her busines
affair on account of imbecility
The Probate Court upon hearin:
the testimony sustained the mo
ton.
The question submitted to tn,
Jury in the Common Pleas, b.
agreement Of parties, was wheth
error not the defendant was al
imbecile person.
Upon the testimony the jury
decided that she was. There
was a motion for a new trial or
the ground that the verdict was
not in accordance with the
testimony, which was ovsrruled,
! The case will be taken up or
error assigned in overruling the
motion for a new trial.
The following IS the charge oi
the Court delivered by Judge
Friesner to the jury:
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY The
question that has been submitted
to you. as has been already ex-
planned. is whether Mary Lehman
is or not an imbecile person.
This is the fern used in the
statute, and it becomes my duty
to define the term and give to it
the meaning intended by the
Legislature to be conveyed by
its use in the statute.
The word imbecile, as COM
monty used, may as well apply
to weakness and in capacity of
body as of mind, but as used in
this statute, it is applied partic-
ularly to the weakness and inca
pacity of the mind, meaning, in
fact. person who has been of
sound mind but for some reason
or other has become idiotic and
mentally incompetent.
To say just how little mental
capacity a person may have
without falling under the defini-
ton of imbecile is perhaps hard
to do.
One the one hand it is not nee
essary that the person should be
entirely void of all understand
ing whatever. and on The other
hand it is not necessary that she
should be shrewd, smart hnsi-
ness woman. capable of doing
any intricate business affairs.
or that she be even up to the or
dlnary individual in thar respect.
AS near as Lean define the
matter. the person, before she
may be called an imhecile, must
be incapable of forming ary ra-
tional Judgment as to an act
concerning which she has had
full opportunity of knowledge
Incapable of reasoning with any
kind of fair discretion incapa-
BILE of appreciating and anticipa-
ting tfe natural result of ordi-
nary causes; ; incapable of dis
tinguishing and understanding
her own affairs, her own inter-
ests'; of exercising Judgment for
her own protection of apprecia-
ting and Distinguishing the diff
ference in the value of property.
Neither illiteraey nor intellect
ual inferiority alone is sufficient
TO constitute imbecility, although
you may look to such fact as cir
cumstances tending 10 show such
state.
Remember, however, the ques-
ton is not what information the
person under investigation has
acquired, but how much was she
capable of acquiring.
Illiteracy may or may not be
evidence of imbecility, owing to
the circumstances of the person
In question.
If a man or woman has had a
full opportunity to acquire an
education, and has put forth his
or her mental powers endeavor-
ing to acquire one and has failed,
such fact would 60 far to estab-
lish a mental weakness incapa-
BILE Of acquiring, etc.
Upon the other hand, if per-
son has had none or but little op-
portunity, or because OF negli-
geIce. indisposition or careless
ness, has never put forth any eff
fort TO acquire knowledge of
books. of reading or of writing,
etc, the fact OF such person re-
naming ilIiterate under such
circumstances. would reflect but
little upon his or her natural
mental capacity.
Imbaciiity, in other words, is
the result of a diseased, weak
ened or defective mind, not an
unculiured one.
So in examining her intelli-
gence as compared with other
persons, you will observe wheth-
er any inieriority in that respect,
should you find any 10 exist, is
the result Of want Of opportunity,
of experience. of means of OBJ
servation upon her part, or
whether it arises out of defec-
tive. diseased or weakened mind.
So in examining into her judg
ment as evidenced by her acts