The record-union., 1891-10-09
OUT ALL NIGHT.
The Jury in the Haggerty Murder
Case DeIiberating.
Judge Van Fleets Able Charac-Tho
Arguments-A Jurors Brilliant
Conundrum.

District Attorney Ryan made his open
Ing argument to the jury as soon as court
convened, and went over the facts in the
case in considerable detail. The fact that
Haggerty had murdered his son, he said,
was not denied by the defense, and the
only question left for the jury to decide
was whether or not Haggerty was re-
sponsible for the terrible deed-whether
or not he was
MENTALLY CAPABLE
OF knowing what he was doing. Mr..
Ryan then went over the testimony and
argued that there was nothing in it to
show that Haggerty was other than a
sane man, who was given to the excessive
use of intoxicating liquor. This being
the case, he said, the jury could do moth
ing but bring in a verdict Of guilty, as the
law forbade acquittalS on the ground Of
drunkenness. Drunkenness was in no
way an excuse for committing crime.
e The attorneys for the defense, Messrs.
Anderson and Bruner, each made elabO-
rate arguments in Haggerty's behalf
They defended him out of pure charity,
as he had no money, and, it seemed, no
friends. They maintained that the very
crime itself-the murder of ones own
Spn-was an act of insanity. The evil
dence, they argued, showed all through
that Haggerty was insane, and had been
50 for years. This insanity was brought
on by the excessive use of liquor, and by
az accident which the defendant had met
with many years ago.
THE COURTS CHARGE.
The District Attorney made a brief
closing argument, and then Judge Van
Fleet gave his instructions to the Jury.
These instructions were particularly in
teresting, by reason of the fact that the
subject Of insanity, such as may be
brought on by years of excess in the use
OF Intoxicating liquor, was ably and
clearly treated.
Judge Van Fleet incorporated in his
instructions a number of propositions
submitted to him by both the defense
and prosecution. Then, continuing, he
addressed the jury as follows:
''But you must understand that it is
not every degree of insanity, or unsound-
ness of mind, that will render man ire
spOnSible for his act. A mans mind
may be unsound in some respects-in-
deed, he may be monomaniac upon any
given Subject-and yet his mind may be
sound in all other respects. Such man,
though quite capable of judging between
hight and wrong in regard to an act Of the
nature of that of which he is accused, can
not be said TO have a sound mind, yet he
would be held responsible for the COM
mission of a criminal act, except an act
which involved or grew out of his pecu-
liar phase of unsOundness or monomania.
MUST PROVE IRREsPoNsIBILITY.
ITO establish defense in criminal
case on the ground ofinsanity it must be
clearly proved that at the time of commit
ting the act the party accused was laborinp
under such a defect of reason. from
disease of the mind, as not to know the
nature or quality of the act or if he did
know it, that he did not know he was do
ing what was wrong. 1t is only such
degree of unsoundness of mind, or in
sanity, that viii constitute defense to
crime.
The law does not require that the
mental infirmity should have existed for
any definite period of time, nor does it
make any difference what cause may
have produced it, but it must be made
satisfactorily to appear that the defendant
at the time Of committing the act was
laboring under mental arrangement to
the extent | have indicated above, or it
cannot avail him as a defense.
In other words, as | have before in
structed you, his mind must be shown to
have been in such diseased condition
that he was incapable at the time of the
commission Of the act Of distinguishing
between right and wrong
There is evidence tending to show that
the alleged insanity of the defendant. If
ne was insane, may have been produced
partly from the effects of an injury to his
homicide, and partly from the long-con-
tlnued use of intoxicating liquor That
IS a question for the jury to consider and
cetermlne, and, as / have said, it matters
lot what the producing cause may have
been, If you should find that he was in
fact insane when he committed the act of
killing. Insanity produced by a
LONG-CoNTINUED INToxICATIoN
Affects responsibility in the same way as
insanity produced by any other cause
But it must be settled insanity, and not
merely temporary mental condition
produced by the recent use of intoxi-
eating liquor. The mere fact that q man
IS drunk does not excuse him. The law
is that no act committed by person
while in a state of voluntary intoxication
IS less criminal by reason of his having
been in such condition. But whenever
the actual existence of any particular
purpose, motive or intent is a necessary
element to constitute any particular
species or degree of crime. the jury may
take into consideration the fact that
the accused was intoxicated at the time
IN determining the purpose, motive orin
tent with which he committed the act
ION the question OF insanity it is proper
for me TO instruct you further, that the
burden Of proving that ne was insane at
the time he committed the act rests upon
the defendant. The law presumes every
man sane until the contrary is shown,
and the prosecution may rest upon this
presumption and need not prove the SAN
ity of a defendant. But when a defend
ant alleges that he was insane at the time
the act was committed as a defense to a
criminal charge, he is called upon to
prove his insanity clearly and
satisfactorily TO the jury before
he can be acquitted upon that ground.
And he must establish the fact of his in
sanity by preponderance of evidence.
It's not sufficient if the evidence only
creates in your minds reasonable doubt
as 10 his sanity but he is bound to estab-
lish his insanity by such preponder-
ance of evidence that if the question were
submitted to the jury in civil case they
would lind him INSANE. The
DEFENSE OF INSANITY
Is a defense which may be, and some
times is resorted to in cases in which the
proof ofthe overt act is so full and complete
that any other means of avoiding convic-
ton and escaping punishment seems
hopeless. While, therefore, this is a de-
tense to be weighed fairly, fully and
Justly, and when satisfactorily estah-
Iished must recommend itself to the sense
of humanity and justice of the jury, you
should examine ii and all the evidence
upon which il is based with care and cir
cumspection, lest an ingenious counter
felt of this mental intirmity shall furnish
immunity 10 guilt
IF YOU should come to the conclusion
that the defendant should be acquitted on
the ground that he was insane at the time
OF the commission of the act charged your
verdict must be not guilty by reason of
insanity"
NOT MANSLAUGHTER.
It is usual in cases of murder for the
Court to instruct the jury that, if certain
facts are presented, a verdict of man
slaughter may be rendered, and he de-
fines what manSlaughter is But in this