St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-02-28
ADRY,S DELUSION.
The Court Throws Out the Illinois
Dispositions.

The Court Throws Out the Illinois
Dispositions.
Attorney Smith-At this stage we de-
sire to offer the dispositions of S. f.
Stroud, B. Keller and Susan Locock, Of
Macoupin county, Illinois, in the case
of Harry T. Hayward, taken Feb.
before a notary public as bearing upon
the question of sanity of Adry Hay
ward.
The Court-This issue must be con-
fined to the proper limits.
Mr.. Erwin-Our claim is that Adry
Hayward was suffering under a de-
fusion at the time he spoke to Elder
Stewart, and he did not know what he
was saying.
The Court-Did he say those things?
Erwin-This relates to the conversa
ton.
The Court-On the production of this
testimony you must produce Mr. Stew
art to show the connection of Adry
with him, and his action at that time.
Erwin-We claim at that time Adry
was laboring under an>insane delusion,
and that he had continued to be in that
condition up to the time he was on the
stand, and the delusion related to the
entire subject matter testified to by
him. To establish this we propose to
show by these dispositions -
The Court want to know on what
ground you claim he was insane?
Erwin-We propose to show these
insane decisions by John Hedges KEEL
Ter, the maternal uncle of Adry, who
became insane in 1910 and was sent to
the asylum; in 1860 he was violently
insane, and was discharged in 1863, and
returned in 1879; afterwards he was
discharged and was again returned 10
the asylum, and died Aug. 2, 1852.
After the ancestral insanity has been
shown, I propose to prove by DR.. Hay
ward and the father and mother of
Adry that the witness on many occa-
sions had delusions, and magnif1ed small
things into large ones. After this L
propose to put experts upon the stand
who have seen Adry Hayward testify,
and to put to them hypothetical ques-
tons, which include all the matters
connected with the case. By them l
shall prove that he was insane in re-
gard to this subject matter at the timo
he gave his testimony on the stand.
Mr.. Nye-What is the form of the in
sanity? I object to this as incompe-
tent, irrelevant and without founda-
ton.
The Court think the law is well
set that an insane person is compe-
tent witness and competent to testify
to anything outside of matters upon
which they were perhaps judged In
sane. So far as the first question it
has been settled by this court that
Adry Hayward was a competent wit
ness to testify in this case. and there
was no other testimony offered at the
time the objection was made. When
he appeared as a witness on the stand
the court said at the time that he did
not observe any more insanity in the
witness than in the attorney; so that
settles that question. AS to everything
that he testified to, his testimony is of
such a character that the jury may
give it attention. There is nothing to
show he was insane at the time the
occurrence spoken of took place. You
must put it in such a way that the
court can understand upon what par
ticular branch of the testimony he tes-
titled to he was insane.
November Adry Hayward was insane
in this respect, that he imagined by
| reason of his insanity that what he
testified to really occurred as to the
| conversation in his fathers office.
| These things never transpired in fact
and were decisions arising from his
! insanity, which has continued to the
time he was on the witness stand.
MI L.,
| that he was insane that day?
| Erwin have it here.
The Court-You must show that the
actions and sayings of the man on
| that day were such as you describe.
Erwin have shown he was not
| there that day.
The Court-Well, does that prove he
was insane?
| At this there was an outbreak of ap-
| plause, and Judge Smith said, sternly,
| IF the people here do not keep quiet
| they must leave the ROOM
| Erwin-His testimony may be false
| testimony, or insane testimony, and I
| claim it is false because insane.
| The Court-Can't you claim that for
| every witness on the stand?
| Erwin-No, 1 can't.
| The Court-You must show how he
| acted on that day.
| Erwin-He was not there.
The Court-You may prove he lied
| on the stand.
Erwin-Supposing he had claimed to
| be different person on that day.
! The Court-You must lay the founda-
| ton for this testimony showing his
| condition on that day or any other
| day connected with the same matter,
| and then if it is sufficient in the judg-
| ment of the court, will permit it to
| go in.
| Erwin have proved by two wit
| nesses no such thing ever took place,
] is not that sufficient?
The Court-It is not sufficient. You
| must have facts. There is nothing in
| your statement as to his insanity.
Erwin-The fact that no such thing
! ever took place as he testifies is the
| basis on which I lay my ground for
| this; 1 want to prove that he has in
sane decisions as to what happened
on that day and, having shown that
| by these dispositions, will show the
| insanity of his ancestors and then call
| experts.
The courtney can teSCiIy 10
| these dispositions. The whole question
of his conduct at the time must come
before the court before that can be
| done.
Erwin will call DR.. Hayward, and
Mr.. and Mrs. w. w. Hayward to tes-
tify to this.
The Court-It will be denied.