Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1888-02-26
RFcxxfs 70 AcQrrrYD.


LssoASd Hiekiis lsfs shs soess hssss
. fTse Gss iass night ahsst : deIeek-
fbs jsry returned . vssdis1 seat kswns
-nst guilay. h<caass b ga insass-"
The 6n: bai1os taken SITTER sss jssy -
tirsd sfsod ten fos tbs vsfdiss asaily
agreed sron ssd tws To- sesiisy IL tn
noesDA DEGREE Ihsc che OF tas tuo
voting FOG tbs Iafses ves3ssa, vent ssss
70 TIE majority and the etAsr fottovsd
sstsx tine.
Htekiin vas evsreona With fsy, anA
essed Eks . ahsld. Mn. Hieii5n wa
Atsos ose9cope b. the fAscssbte srfuin
Alton Of the TRIAL. Tkey iefs tbe eesrt
ho1se toQssk<f and vent down teOn.
The evsdence Gas eonssaded sbocs 10
o'ctoek- Cki<f Justice Jones told tie
attorneys BE- vooId role tkas tie GALS
q1ssst1n he the esse ~. DID the de-
fsrdaos siI C9sssgre chile u seah .
seats Of uind - 70 Be irresp nsitss fss
bis actf He shkn limited tbs laUysrs 70
ooe boar espt 10 thefr addresses to Tie
tofy. Al ths nclSston e The sps<eten
The ehisf tasfsee charged the iasy, the
ehsfgs consisting Substantially tie fct-
lowing points
he jad9e fsss Femarked thas the
Circumstances eour ected With tie kill
Ing OF Cocsixne were cot fu dshp1ke
the kii;iuR vAs admitted. was u the
pfemedisAt<d set Of the defendant Z
DID the defendant realise shat be va
doing or, wxs be controlled b. some
masferioR inruise or sabosipQ under
soue deins.oa which rendered him n.
ospable Of comp,sseuaina What be vas
60i0ef Wes be. 10 other voeda To-
sane There 10 no nxed codc Of rules
ty which the sanfty Of . nan can BE-
Determined rodes one set Of circnm
stances the acts 81 nan msy be
explsinable, consistent With feason.
Under smother set 81 circumstances the
very sane acts NAV not BE- % explain
able. Ihe Judgment In sreh cases ncst
t.xs into consideration the time, the !
place, the circumstances. tie man and
his relations 70 all the circumstances
and everything UPON which another
may reasonably base a. optEiou - 10
vhsske. or not they point 20 certain
ccrclusiou. The Law pfes1ues man
sans until the contrary IL proven. The
burden Of pTevinq insanity rests With
the defendant. There IL no iufAiiihIe
eel Of circumstances by which q mans
ssni,y % lps unity may be determined.
Tbs jadge then referred 70 the evil
cenoe Ia the o. sc, stating that under
such-and- such circumstances the act Of
The dsfendant v-Eid smonnt TO murder
10 the arss degree, and hos, under dir
fesent csro1nssseoss, q verdict IN
lesser degree might be sound.
II. does net make any difference 10 |
this czse,s be continued, "whsther the
onargs made By Mrs. Hiekiin against
Copsi2ne, aud teld 20 her husband. the
vas true OF not. As an alb. |
siraes question ve hgys nothing 10 do
with II. DID tie defendant believe Il.
add did thai belief 81 the time over |
throw bis reason and make Tim ire
sponsib for bis acts aud incapable Of
between right and
wrnu2,"
The judge held that this yes the
whole case. Hc then venl on to dis
cess insanity IN the abstract, TO deaae
reasonable doub., and called the atten-
ton OF tbs iury to what appeared TO be
. fact that mankind Ia now more dis
posed 10 insanity than In former years.
lie also spoke Of the ffeqoeccy With
which this defense vas presented and
tina, insanity 10 sometimes slammed
1ne jury then retired.
on = NJ rf.a Sar- -ag frcxxx