The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1885-06-23

had testified to having shot his victim for
the purpose OF protecting his own life sad
that for several months after the shooting
he had shown no indications OF insanity
what would be your opinion as to his men,
tai conditiJn !" Al should (. n5ider him
sane.
On cross-exanIinati0n u 1Ir. Taylor DR..
Fiske te Titled Ihat he had only q general
reading upsn the subject Of insanity, and
he could not remember the authorities he
had consulted He had been called so
abruptly that ne had no time 10 prepare
himself as witness. On going on TO state
his
IDEAS OF INSANITY
From conclusion DR.. Fiske said: " An
a6scess IN the ear does not necessarily
affect the brain. A person constantly
tanned conclusion OF the brain I would
consider a sane person. A person sub
Jected TO the injury the defendant endured
would be more likely to be nervous than If
he had net met with such an accident. A
man may commit a crime while insane
and Immediately become sane thereafter
Can Imagine such thing as sympathetic
insanity foil wing an injury. Think
know the difference between conclusion OF
the brain, compression OF tho brain and
confusion Of the brain. but ana not very
clear On the subject. Never saw enough
OF brain subjected TO conclusion to tell
how it looks. Can't tell how long since
saw human brain
DR.. A. NJ. Loryea was next called, and
MT. GaHnpBeA ODtdiucQ rom MN an
affirmative answer to the same hypotheti-
cal question that was put 70 DR.. Fiske. He
was then surrendered to Mr.. Taylor for
cross examination, and testified that he
thought such a patient as the defendant
Noulu have n general knowledge OF right
ana wrong, but would not On the subject
Of his delusiOn.
Do you know DR.. Hammond. and
have you read lis magazinei Ayes,
sir.
Q.-Do you consider him an authority
A--No, sir; / do not. / think that ne
writes more and knows less of insanity
than any other physician in the United
States. lLaughter.l
IMPULsIvE INSANITY.
Q.-Do you believe in fmpulsive insanity Z
Al do not. never heard OF such lis.
ease in my own experience.
The witness considered DR.. Ray an au.
thority. DR.. Ray had written in affirna.
tion of impulsive insanity, but had re.
tracted his published opinions shortly
before death.
Tho cross examination that followed was
uninl Jortant. and DR.. Loryea was retired
to mako way for DIR. David Wooster. In
response TO questions By Mr.. Campbell he
stated that he was not specialist with the
insane. but had studied the disease to a
considerable extent. In response TO the
hypothetical question put to the previous
witnesses he answered that he should con
slider the defendant sane under such cir
oumstances-
On cross examination he admitted that
part il causing insanity. and that the
mental effect of a conclusion might not be
apparent for long time after its infliction.
The witness believed In emotional or i'm
pulsive insanity, but was not prepared to
say that a man 50 afflicted would not have
knowledge Of right and wrong, because in
stances have often occurred where people
emotionally or impulsiYely insane had
begged their friends to prevent them from
committing some overt act of which they
knew the consequences perfectly well.
Mr.. Taylor-Is change of disposition
any symptom of insanity in your opinion z
DIR. Wooster-I would have to see and
know the patient In some cases 4 should
say yes and in others no.
The long hypothetical question put to
the medical Witnesses for the defense was
gone over again by Mr.. Taylor, and by
way OF answer the witness sta ed that he
would consider the injury very severe and
lasting.
On redirect examination he made the
assertion that he did not believe that an in
sane person would commit an overt act
through motive. but on re-cross- exani-
nation he modified this by excepting in the
ease of monQmaniacS.
Thursday, June 18th.