Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1891-12-17

to the jury at 5:45 last evening. At 9:25
the jury returned and rendered'a YER
dict of guilty. afixing the penalty at
life imprisonment at hard labor in the
states prison.
Long before the court opened yesterday
the room was crowded with spectators.
1t was apparent that the end was at
hand, and everyone was eager to know
what the fate of Joe Remington would
be-. .s5
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
Gentlemen Of the jury: This is a
criminal action. This defendant stands
before you upon his trial, upon an in
diotment returned by the grand jury of
this county, and he looks to you to see
that no injustice is done to him. The
state, in prosecuting this defendant,
only asks at your hands that, if he is
guilty as charged, you will SO find in
your verdict.
you have heard the important facts
in this case infinitely and distinctly
stated by the witnesses; ably and ingen-
iously commented upon, discussed and
illustrated with force and eloquence by
the counsel, and I shall consume as
little more of your time as may be con
sistent to explain the principles of law
involved in this case. when it shall be
submitted to you. Under the law you
are made the exclusive judges of all the
facts in the case. It is for the court to
charge you only as to matters of law. -
The court here covered the usual for
mula given in charges to the jury, Civ
ing the law as regards the finding of the
jury in accordance with the evidence
Every portion of the ground was fully
covered.
Experts have been called in this
case. Mr.. Pollock, as an expert as to
handwriting, and Doctor Shurlook and
Doctor Moore as medical experts. They
merely give you their opinion. It is
for you to say, upon each subject, az to
which they have testified as to what
credit shall be given to their opinions.
They are to be considered rather as
mirrors, with which merely 80 reflect
upon you their opinions. You have
heard their evidence as to what they
base their opinions upon, and you are
to remain the sole judges as to whether
those reflections are accurate. The dis
tinction between an expert and non.
expert witness is this, that the non-ex-
pert witness testifes to subject matter
readily mastered by the adjudiating
tribunal, as the court or jury; the expert
to conclusions outside of this range.
The non expert gives the result Of q
process of reasoning familiar to every
n ifa, fho ra,st<s {In 1k
process of reasoning which can be veri-
fed only by specialists
Under the laws Of this state, luna
tics, insane persons and oil persons of
unsound mind, including persons tenn
porarily or partially deprived of reason,
upon proof, that at the time of the com.
Knitting of the act charged against
them they were incapable of knowing
It's wrongfulness, they cannot
be held responsible for the commission
of crime. The word insane is defined
as exhibiting unsouldness of mind,
madness. deranged in mind, delirous.
The defense of insanity is legitimate
defense. It is not to be pushed aside,
or treated lightly. It is recognized by
the courts and the public generally. We
know that men are insane. That is q
disease which the human family is
more or less heir to.
"The common law does not punish
the acts of an insane man. In all juris-
dictions everywhere, and among all PEG.
pie, defect of reason that renders one
unaccountable for his acts, is viewed
with COMMUNICATION and the subject of
it shielded from even the least reproach.
Reason is the basis of human RESPONSE
bllity. Whenever it does not exist the
party is not responsible for his acts.
The plea of insanity avails the party,
not as justification of excuse. but be-
cause he is not responsible at all. There
fore, if you find from the evidence in
this case that the defendant. at the
time Of the alleged murder, was labor.
ing under such mental alienation as
prevented him from knowing the right
from wrong, with reference to the act
complained of, then, as matter of law,
you should find the defendant not
guilty.
all the evidence in the case, as to
whether the defendant, at the time of
the commission of the alleged homecide.
was of sound mind and memory, then
You should give him the benefit of that
doubt. hi.
ITO convict person Of crime he
must have sufficient memory, intell-
gence, reason and will to enable him to
distinguish between right and wrong
III regard to the particular act to be
done. To know and understand that it
will be wrong; that he will deserve pun
ssFirst was the defendant totally in