St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-11-21
THE DECISION.
The following is the decision:

hO ioiiOWiuS Tie QcclSiOu.
l. On the trial of an indictment for
one crime, the prosecution may prove
the admission by the defendant of the
commission by him Of other independ-
ent crimes, when relevant and material
to the issue.
four or five months before the COM
mission of the murder, held competent
under the circumstances as tending to
prove that he contemplated the COM
mission of the crime.
8. The statement Of the deceased a
few hours before the homicide, not in
the presence of the defendant, that she
had business engagement with him
that evening, held competent evidence
against him in connection with the
other evidence in the case.
4. Certain expert evidence held to be
Irrelevant.
5. Certain evidence offered to cor
roborate the defendants evidence, held
of no weight and that it was not
error to rule it out.
g. Two witnesses for the defense tes-
titled that in the company Of each other
they were going along the road when
they observed certain facts, held it was
not error to permit them to be cross
examined for the purpose of ascertain
ing whether there was any concert or
agreement between them as to their
testimony, and for this purpose the
court might permit one witness to be
sequently told him as to what he saw.
z. Certain evidence offered to corrob-
crate one of the states witnesses, held
properly admitted.
s. After a witness had been fully
croSS-eXamined on certain point, held
not error to refuse to permit him to be
further croSS-examined on the same
point later in the trial.
8. Held not error to refuse to re-
ceive certain evidence at the close of a
of to5 trio q tho rpO11lor tiT1a
to introduce it had passed, and that the
rulings of the trial judge do not show
that he exercised his discretion in ia
vor of so receiving the evidence out Of
order, but rejected it on some other
ground.
10. After a witness for the state had
testified at considerable length and was
to all appearances perfectly sane and
rational, the defense objected to his
competency on the ground that he was
he was.
Held, under the circumstances, it was
not error for the judge to assert that
he did not see that the witness was at
that time any more insane than the at
torney was.
II. When insanity of a permanent
type is once shown, 1t is presumed to
continue until 1t appears that the per-
SON has again become sane.
But this presumption only applies to
habitual insanity, which has continued
so long as to raise presumption that
it is permanent.
Temporary insanity or temporary de-
lusions or alterations are not presumed
to continue, and evidence of the same
standing alone, is no evidence that the
person Is insane at a later period.
II. Evidence of the insanity of a per-
sons ancestors and relatives Is not
alone competent or sufficient to prove
that he is insane, and such evidence
can only be used to corroborate other
evidence Of his insanity.
13. Whether when insanity Is di-
rect issue in the case, evidence of
prior temporary delusions or mental
alterations and evidence of insanity of
ancestors and relatives is together suf-
ficient without more to go to the jury
as evidence of the persons insanity at
a later period. Quere.
But held such evidence without more
is not sufficient to go to the jury when
insanity is merely a collateral issue, as
where an attempt is made to impeach
the competency or credibility of wit
ness, by proving that he Is insane.
Distinction between insanity as a d.
rect issue and as a collateral issue
noted.
When an attempt is thus made to
impeach the crediblity Of a witness,