Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1895-09-19

sault with intent to XIII and no moro
Onao such Is the technical accuracy re-
CURED by the law that this indictment. as
10 lraiheo, would not support a verdict
OF guilty with intent to commit murder
me intent IS TO De definitely proved in
order to determine whether or not the de-
iehuaIt Is guilty of the crime alleged
against him the test is this, ordinarily, if
leatn had resulted from the assault would
1t have been mansauqhterg Man
slaughter Is defloed by the statute as the
unlawful killing of human being In
tne neat OF passion, on sudden provoca-
tlon, without express or implied malice
alorethouSht. 1t Is only necessary that
the government should satisfy you beyond
reasonable doubt that it was the inten-
ton of the defendant at the time of the
ACT TO XII the person assaulted, without
proving any malice aforethought either
express or implied, If it appears that it
was done in the heat Of passion and on
sudden provocation it Is sufficient. But
the government has gone further and con-
tends and introduced testimony for the
purpose of showing that the defendant
with malice aforethought, shot at Hop
kins with the deliberate intention of kill
ing him, but under this Indictment the
jury can not render verdict for any
higher crime in any event than guilty of
an assault with intent to kill, which as
have said, is equivalent to assault with
intent TO commit manslaughter 1t is
not denied that the defendant made the
assault with a pistol, that he fired two
shots at Hopkins but it Is denied that
he was responsible for the act. 1t Is
claimed that Re was laboring under "a
species of insanity which destroyed his
understanding and power to control his
will, and that hence his act Is in law ex-
cusable. In other words that the defend
ant was suffering from disease of the
brain or of mind that rendered him insane
at least temporarily and that he was
swayed by an uncomfortable impulse
rendering him incapable of retaining
from the commission Of the act
1t Is not contended by defendant that
the assault was excusable, if the jury find
that the defendant was in his right mind
and had control of is understanding
when he fired the pistol at Hopkins
1t is claimed that it was done
in the heat of passion and sud
den provocation, if the defendant was
not insane. If you are satisfied that he
was not insane and that the assault was
made and the shots fired in the heat of
passion on a Sudden proyocation, go that
If death HAD resulted it would have been
Imauslaughter, then your verdict must be
guilty, the defendant being armed with
a dangerous weapon"
The law furnishes DO exact rule for
measuring the degree of insanity which
will excuse crime. 1t does, however, hold
a person responsible If he understood the
nature Of his act and possessed the power
of VIII to refrain from committing It, 1t
Is for the jury to determine in the present
case whether or not this defendant was
responsible from oil the facts and crcum-
stances proven. 1t Is for the prosecution
to satisfy you beyond reasonable doubt
that the assault was made and If you
are so satisfied that it was with a deadly
weapon, q pistol loaded with powder and
ball, which is not denied, the Intent to
kill may be inferred unless an excuse Is
shown by the defendant. The State has
presented witnesses who have testified to
the circumstances of the assault, the pre-
vious relation Of the parties, the trouble
between them, previous angry words of
defendant towards Hopkins, the meeting
on the street the unarmcd condition of
Hopkins and the shooting by the defend
ant and the conduct of the defendant i'm
medietely following, and contends that 1t
nos only showed an intent to kill, but u
premeditated design The defense has in
troduced evidence which 1t is claimed
proves that the defendant was insane
when the act was committed, certain acts
and conditions of mind evinced by certain
alleged lapse of memory, changed manner
towards his wife and certain decisions
have been testified as evidence of insanity,
counsel for the State replies that they are
entirely insufficient to sustain the plea
of insanity and that they do not indicate
that the defendant was not in the full
possession Of his understanding at the
time of the shooting, and that his acts
and movements both before and imme-
diately following the shooting and at the
time, negative the presumption of any
sufficient mental alteration to excuse the
act 1t is for you, gentlemen, to say from
all the evidence whether or not he is re-
sponsible for the act,
The State contends further that the fact
that the defendant was armed with q
pistol. that after his meeting Hopkins in
the morning and Mrs. Hopkins and the
| abusive words addressed to him, he went
to his room and procured a pistol las is
contended) IL you believe he did, is evil
dence of calm, deliberative and cool in
tent On the other hand 1t is contended
on behalf of defendant, that his acts that
morning negative the idea of malice
towards Hopkins, and sustain the claim
of an unsettled mind that he went to
his room for his pistol to take with him
out of town; that he was in fact going
out of town and was on his way to the
railroad station at the time of the assault
that he had no motive and that he did
the act in public place. This Is denied
by the government on the evidence as it
Is claimed that he had no grip with him
although there was some evidence that his
grip had been packed for the journey.
/ To be responsible for crime the party
committing the act must be OF sound
mind The act does not make the party
,.,,lacc ho mimi Ia capabla nf co,,,-