The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-07-11

murder, or other acts of violence. The law
alone provides the proper mode of redress
ing all such grievances, and this law recog-
nizes no distinctions among citizens. 1t is
instituted to mete oTt equal and exact JUS
tice to all persons, and is alike the law of
the strong and the weak, of the powerful
and the lowly, of the rich and of the poor.
1t imposes upon courts and juries the duty
of fairly and impartially admins terng it's
salutary behests, in order that justice may
not be overthrow and government become
an engine of oppression against any person
charged with crime.
AS much has been said during the pro-
| gress of this trial concerning the reputed
| opulence of this defendant and his immedi-
ate relatives, the fortunate circumstances
that their energies have been rewarded with
abundance, bears no relation to the issue
! between Adolph B. Spreckels and the people
of this State. His possessions, whe Their ex-
tensive or limited, have nothing whatever
to do with his defense that can operate
for or against him.
Besides his plea of not guilty, which puts
| in issue every material fact alleged in the
| information, and makes it the duty of the
| people to prove beyond reasonable doubt to
| justify conviction; and his plea of self
| defense. the defendant also relies upon the
| additional plea that he was insane at the
| time of the alleged assault, and that the
assault was the product of such insanity.
| This is a proper plea to make, and in sup
/ port of it he is not required to prove it
beyond reasonable doubt. but only hy suck
prepOnderance of proof will satisfy you
that such was the fact al the time the shoot
ing referred to in the trial occurred.
Having pleaded this defense, charge you
that in order to enable the defendant to
maintain it, it must appear, as already in
TINA ted, that at the time of the doing of the
act charged, if he did it, by preponderating
proof, that is by evidence which renders it
more probable that he was at the time more
insane than he was sane, and the burden OF
proving this fact lies upon the defendant.
1t has been said that many entertain
unjust prejudice against this defense. If
so, it is probably because of its very great
liability to abuse. 1t opens the door to
much evidence which would otherwise be
vigorously excluded, and there is cOnse-
quently great temptation to interpoSe the
plea when there is no just foundation for it.
Nevertheless, this defense, when founded in
truth, is a meritorious one. The misfortune
of insanity surely should not be punished as
a crime You should therefore earnestly
scru tinize the evidence. taking great care
that your judgments are not influenced by
sympathy or pre- udice, and then if you find
that the assault charged was the product of
insanity, you should gladly give the defend
ant the benefit of such conclusion and acquit
him. Whether the defendant was in fact
insane, and whether the act charged the
product of such insanity, are questions of
fact for you to determine. You should re-
member, however, that this particular de-
Tense really is that the defendant was insane.
You should discriminate between an i'm
pulse, which is uncomfortable, because of
mental unsoundness, which has impaired
the judgment power of volition, and an
impulse which comes from hatred or desire
for revenge. and which is said to be irresist-
IDLE in one who is sane, because of the vio-
lence Of passion.
While medical writer's and others claiming
to be familiar with the phenomena of the
mind have given various definitions of in
sanity, have sought to classify it, and have
in many cases put forth theories and specu-
Iations on the subject, the Courts have
found it necessary for the protection of soc-
ETY. to declare certain rules of law, govern
ing the subject and defining tne kinds and
degrees of insanity which shall warrant ex-
emption from punishment and constitute
available defenses in criminal cases, and
these rules, SO far as the evidence in the
may require it, are applied to the con-
sideration of this case.
First-The frenzy which is tho Immediate
result and is caused by present condition
of intoxication oluntarily caused by the
party under it's influence, is not insanity
within the meaning of the law, and does not
exempt the offender from punishment for
acts done while in such state of frenzy.
While on the other hand, Insanity ultimate
ly resulting from long -eOntinued habits of
intoxication, is recognized by law and ex-
cuses the party from the penalty Of acts
done under it's influence and control.
Second-Where by disease the mind has
become affected 80 ~ to render the man un-
conscious of the act which he has done and
the law recognizes insanity and holds him
guiltless.
Third-When by disease tue mind is SO
affected that the party is conscious of the
act at the time of doing it, but his mental
faculties so confused or obscured that
he cannot appreciate the nature or charac-
ter of the act so as to distinguish between
right and wrong III relation to or as applied
to it-that is insanity within the law, and
excuses the party who does the act.
Fourth-H the accused has sufficient un-
Outstanding to know what he is doing, and
also to understand that what he does is
wrong and unlawful, then he is fully respon-
sible in law for his act, even though he be
par TALLY insane at the time of its commits
sion--if, for instance, man influenced by
insane delusion, imagines that another had
a loaded gun pointed at him, and under the
influence of such delusioD, should take the
life If such neraOn in IMAGINARY sa1f- defepea