St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-21

| laration Of the party, contemporaneous
with the act, is admissible. The rule
is fully recognized by the supreme
| court of this state.
Conlon VS.. Grace. So MIMI, 2S0. State
VS.. Koran. 81 Mimi. 1884,
The admission of evidence of this
kind rests largely In the discretion OF
| the court. --ss
O'Connor VS.. Ry Co., q Mimi, 16s-173
| State VS.. Koran (supra).
We are of the opinion it was not
| error in excluding the testimony of
Drs. Norred. Myers and Hance. as ex-
| perts. as to the effect of the shock on
the nervous system. They had neither
| read of nor seen a case of that kind.
1t was immaterial in any event It
only went to discredit the testimony
| of Blixt, as to the effect the shot pro-
| duced on her. as testified to by him.
| Brownell VS.. People, 3S Mich, 732.
| The question as to the qualification
| of witness to give expert testimony,
| is a matter to be determined by the
| judgment and discretion of the trial
| court. and will not be reviewed by the
| appellate court, unless there was an
abuse of discretion or a serious mis-
| take
Perkins VS.. Stickney, 1872 Mass, 217.
| Stillwell Mfg. Co. VS.. Phelps, 100 U. s..
| $40. Wright VS.. Williams Estate, Al
Vt, 222. Aliens appeal, SO Pa. ST., 1856.
1t is claimed that the court erred in
excluding the evidence offered, of the
insanity of Adry Hayward, and in the
remark made by the court, in the pres
ence of the jury, that. viz: Il don't
see that he is any more insane at the
present time than the attorney is
The witness, Adry Hayward had been
sworn, and asked a few questions by
the states attorney, which had been
answered in a proper manner-nothing
| unusual in his looks, appearance, or in
the manner of giving his testimony,
| and no previous claim or intimation
that the witness was insane. The
defendants attorney arose and OBJ
jected to his testifying. on the ground
that he was insane on the subject he
| was going to testify about. There was
| no offer made to prove his insanity,
other than the appearance of the wit
ness on the stand. Under these cir
cumstances, we are still of the opin-
ion that the court was justified in the
belief that there was more evidence
of the attorneys insanity, by reason
of the objection made, than of the
WllII0SS lLSdllty 1IOIli cpPC-li diiCC
ON the stand 1t might not. have been
a wise thing to have said. 1t could
not in any way have prejudiced the
| jury against. the defendant, as there
was no claim or appearance of in
| sanity of the witness at the time. 1t
was the province of the trial court to
| determine the competency of the wit
ness, when he was offered. The court
avo inc hcs q his
| fitness to testify, unless when he is
offered there is some Indication of his
unfitness. There was no evidence
from the appearance of the witness,
that he was unfit to testify. The court
| then settled the question of his COM
potency. A person may be a compe-
| tent witness, and be mentally unsound
| on some subjects if he is sane or sound
as to others.
| Cannady VS.. Lynch, q Mimi, 435.
| Hoicomb VS.. Holcomb, % Conn.,, 1T.
| Mead VS.. Harris, 60 N. w. r., 232.
| There was no error in allowing the
| witness to testify.
The defense had right to show that
| the witness was of unsound mind, or
| had an insane delusion at the time the
converse ton between him and de-
! PENDANT, as testified by him, took
| place, for the purpose of discrediting
| his testimony in that matter, If such
| was the fact. The court did not deny
to the defendant that right, but laid
| down the rule that before that teS-
| timony embraced in the deposition Of
| fered and excluded, or expert testi-
| mony could be received there must be
foundation laid by showing the acts
and sayings Of the witness, at or about
| the time the conversations testified to
| by him we're said to have taken puace.
| That the assertion of the attorney that
| he was insane, or had insane delusion,
| at the time or the fact that he had
| been contradicted by the defendant,
| that no such conversation ever took
| place, and by the father. that he was
| at a. place where, and at the time. Adry
said 1t took place, and he did not hear
| it, was not a sufficient foundation to
admit that class of testimony. 1t was
a question, in the first place, as to the
ORDER in which testimony should be
received. That was entirely in the
| discretion of thc court.
| Foster VS.. Beckey, 8 Mimi, 351 (Gil.,
| 31W, Croft vs. Ramsey, 10 Mimi. "A
| (Gil, 2D. Mcdonald VS.. Peacock, 81
! Mimi, 512.
When the defendants attorney an
| nounced that he could not lay any
| foundation, as required by the court,
| by showing the acts and sayings of the
| witness at or about the time the con-
versation and acts took place between
him and the defendant, of which he
testified, it was evident there was no
error in excluding, at that time. the
| dispositions and expert evidence of the
i
that there was no abuse of discretion
| In rejecting the testimony offered at
that time.
The questions asked the witnesses,
| w. w. Hayward and Mrs. Hayward,
| as to whether or not Adry was insane,
were properly ruled out. Non-profes-
SIGNALS are not permitted to give their
opinions as to the sanity of person,
| Independent of full statement OF
what they had observed of his actions
based. Some courts hold that even
then they cannot give their opinion;
they are only allowed to testify as to
the acts and sayings of the person
claimed to be insane; and the jury
, is from such testimony to determine
| whether or not the person is insane.
O'Brien VS.. People, So N. Y, 276
Rider VS.. Miller, Sc N. Y, 5O7 Common
wealth VS.. Brayman, 1876 Mass, 43S
| May VS.. Bradlee, 127 Mass, Ala.
There was no claim that the witness
Ardy Hayward was insane at the time
| he testified. The claim was he had an
insane delusion at the time the con-
versation took place between him and
the defendant, in which the defendant
said he was going to kill the dress
maker, and at the time he commune
Gated what had taken place on the
trial. No expert evidence could have
been given as to his sanity at thai
time, unless it was based, in part, al
least, upon his actions and sayings al
or about the time of the date of the
occurrence. The court offered to lei
the defendant prove that The facts
testified to by the witnesses, in the
dispositions offered in evidence, as tc
the insanity of some of his ancestors
taken alone, would not be sufficient
| 10, h. a;o