The Abbeville messenger. (Abbeville, S.C.) 1884-1887, 1885-02-11

. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY IL, 1885.
SUBSCRIPTIONS. " W
tack; epilepsy weakens the mind and
eventually destroys it, if frequent and
severe; epileptics are only dangerous to
themselves.
Cross-examincd-In petty NAL there
is always = loss Of consciousness mt
rigidity of muscles APPARENT in tho face;
vertigo has not a tendency to go into cpl
lepsy. 1t may sometimes go before it,
and sometimes follow it.
Re-direct-Onc could not arrange
aud carry out a plan, if suffering from
petty NAL.
Here the State closed, and his Honor
said he would allow four hours to each
side in which to make their argument to
the jury. Mr.. w. G. MCGOWAN for the
State, ::and Mr.. l.. w. Smith for
defense addressed the jury before
Court adjourned. After recess Mr..
NJ. l.. Bonha,n, for the State, made
his argument to the jury. being
followed by Mr.. T.. ,:B. Gary ant Y. w.
G. Benet Cor the defense. Col. Orr Nscd
for the State. All the speeches sh. ed
careful preparation. and reflected great
credit on those who had taken parts in
the case. The following, which was
most kindly furnished by the steno-
graphcr, is the charge Of the Judge:
Charge in EcrEuson's Case.
Commenced at 81 =. ". and ended ut s.s7l1
p. II,
Gentlemen Of the Jury:
1t is my duty to give you the law in this
case and you arc responsible for the facts. l
will try to do my full duty in the matter, aud
I shall most diligently try not to fail. If l
were to indicate to you any opinion on tho
facts Of the case, any opinion whatever by
anything that | might saw or do which would
lead You to find, by my opinion, a verdict of
guilty in the case it would be judicial murder
in me the law says l must not do it, and in
iuce and do not take tho law as | give it to
you, you will Not be doing your duty to your
country. Now as to the law as to the case, l
Fir rir. s'i ! s% S pea 'ns ssau to ehs to saa' 5Th. a' d.;
PENDANT is presumed by Law to be sane, this
presumption can be removed by him, and if
the evidence Of insanity prcponderatss, no is
untitled to an acquittal." and that Is the law /;
By "preponderance," what does the law
mean7 It means such n degree of evidence
as founded upon the evidence that would lead
your minds to the conclusion that he was
more insane than sane if he has BY any evil
ocuCe leu SO0I iuu 10 tuat CoHCtuSIOn, NtteT
weighing all tho testimony carefully, if you
come To the conclusion that it was more prob
able that he was more insane than sane then
you will give him the benefit of it.
The second request to charge, I will not
read because the stenogra phcr will take down
what have to say about it l say that the
second request is not the law the burden of
proof of insanity is on the defendant, and if
the State should offer testimony in reply, still
the prepondcrance is with him.
The third request To CHARGE. ! have D,srkad
not allowed, except ~ included in my charge
on the frst request.
The fourth request is too general, and I
limit it to this If defendant was generally
Of unsound mind, and the jury is So satisfied,
then that state of miud 10 presumed to exist
ut the time Of the homicide, but if the inssni.
ty is Of long intervals, then it must be proved,
At the time OF the homicide BY tho defendant.
Filth and sixth not allowed, it asks me TO
charge the jury if they have n reasonable be-
lief; On that | say the jury ARE not entitled to
have any reasonable belief on this point, un-
less it be produced BY the p~reponderancc OF
testimony aud on that they have been already
charged.
Tho eighth is in reference to d.lusion and
not following tho wordsa-of the REQUEST, I
charge it. thi. way II the jury Lclieve that
such delus!on has been proved by the prelon-
deranee of the evidence then its existence
will acquit the defendant.
The ninth. l say this request involves 4
question of unsoundness of mind and on that
tho jury have already been sufficiently charg-
ed I regard it as simply a repetition in an
other form Of other requests.
The tenth This involves the same matter.
and il not allowed.
The eleventh request, I will read because I
will allow il in part 1t is As follows: ...,rI,-
jury are to consider the state of Fercuson:s
mind at the time the homicide was commit
ted, ard il the evidence produced establishes
the fact that his mind was diseased he should
be acquitted" On that / say, allowed, pro-
vIdoA fha hISAnsa rAfArrn1 D., 80 H.
intoxication then existing.
The Twelfth IL as follows II from tho evil
dence the jury believe that Ferguson was sub
Ject epilcptic to fts, it il a matter which they
cence of the crime charged And il they en-
terrain any doubt whether Ferguson's mind
was sound or unsonnd ut the time Of commit.
ting this act, by reason of epilepsy, they
must give him the benefit Of that doubt aud
must acquit." 1 say, not allowed as a whole.
but thejury in deciding the question of un.
souudness of mind will weigh the testimony
on epileptic fits rs we'll rs Of all other testf-
monY.
The thirteenth request have marked mo-,
allowed because the words Reasonable belief"
arc too general and because the jury are a.
ready fully charged on the question of un-
soundness of mind.
The 18th, 18th and 10th, have marked mot
allowed" "
The 18th which I allow in part l read As
followers: although drunksnsss at the
time Of the homicide is no excuse for crime.
yet If the prisoners mind has been rendered
unsonnd by long continued aud excessive
dAnking. the jury must acquit him." say
chat il the law, provided the unsoundness so
produced ut any time continued after the de-
fendant became sober.
The 18th is not allowed, because it is too
general and too sweeping.
The l0th request is not allowed, because
it expressly prcsumes the absence Of motive
which IL a question Of fact for tho jury on
which should not charge.
The 10th request to charge contains details,
all sorts of symptoms to show insanity. and
on that ! say the court refuses to allow it. !
viii hrst charge tho jury that on tho point OF
unsoundness OF mind they must consider all
the testimony on that point.
On the 2lst, l say, I decline to use the
words Of the request, but I charge that If the
Jury are satisfied BY the evidence that the de-
defendants mind was unsouud while .oh.r m
caused by excessive drinking then tho homi-
eide will not keep him from unsoundness OF