The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-12-05
THE FIGHT FOR GEM
Gilbert Collins Argues That
Clara Arnim's Murderer
Was Insane.
CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
Prosecutor Winfield Sneers at
"Irresistible Impulse"-Pan-
dora's Box Up-to-Date.
CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
specia1 to the Jerseu cltu Nsars.


TRENTON, Dec. 8, 1~8s6.-Argument was
heard by the Court of Errors and Appeals
Yesterday in the GEM murder case,
which case came up from the Hudson
oyer. Gilbert Collins appeared for GEM
ard made an eloquent plea for the con-
demned man. He presented the following
as the salient facts in the case:-
Paul GEM is a man 80 years old. and at
the time of his alleged offense he was
working as a fireman on an ocean steam
er. While crossing from Europe in the
spring of 1894 he became acquainted with
a young woman named Clara Arnim, a
steerage passenger, for whom he con-
ceived a strong affection.
On their arrival in this country they
took rooms in Hoboken, where they passed
as husband and wife under his name. he
Was employed at different places, until
finally he got work On the steamer. Dur,
ing his absences she became acquainted
with a man named Stencil, who, sne
told GEM, offered her marriage. GEM,
whose sole thought seemed to be for her
happiness, willingly CAV her up and start
ed on a voyage with the understanding
that she was TO marry Stenzel.g 1t was
arranged that the two should meet MN
on his return voyage. While IN Europe
he received a letter from his mother m
forming him thai the young woman to
whom he was betrothed had broken the
engagement. The thought that he had
lost Clara. when, had he received ms
freedom earlier, she might have married
him, seems to have unsettled his rea-
son.
The steamer arrived Friday, August
"a, 1894, ahead of time, and he sought Tor
Clara and Stencil. He learned that Stem
eel had abandoned Clara and had gone to
Chicago. For awhile he could get no trace
of Clara, but at last found her on Satur-
day evening in the Hansa Hotel, a resort
of questionable character After some
conversation they separated, and the next
morning he sought her at the room she
had engaged in his absence, where she
went by the name of Mrs. GEM. She de-
clfned to marry him and he determined to
commit suicide. and on the morning OF
August Is bought a pistol and a box Of
cartridges and then went to a florists,
where he had a bouquet made up. He
wen his way to the house where Clara
that room. Shortly afterwards shots
were heard and the ~neighbors ran to the
room and, the door from the hall being
apparently locked, burst it open and en-
tered. There they found GEM on the
floor with Clara in his arms just expiring.
She had the bouquet in her hand. He
seemd overwhelmed with grief and ac-
cused himself of being her murderer. The
police soon arrived and he was taken to
the station house and then committed to
the county jail. where he has ever since
His trial came on at the April term,
1895, of Hudson oyer n terminer. The
defense was insanity. The Court charged
ina LA 00Slt d CdSC l4lC lISdtAAly iAdoN NC
proved beyond reasonable doubt. He was
convicted, but the Supreme Court re-
versed the Judgment on the ground tina.
the defense of insanity can be established
by preponderance of proof. On a second
trial in May, 1896. he was again convicted
and the judgment upon this verdict is
before this court on the present writ OF
error.
There can be no doubt that at the time
of the killing and for a considerable time
before it, whether legally responsible for
A hfS aafc ar MT Cap1 ryoC In fnnfE snco No
Tnere is really no serious dispute on this
subject.
Mr.. Collins then quoted at length from
the testimony of many witnesses to show
GEMS insanity. Continuing, he said
Approaching now the legal aspects of
the case, We/come to consider the test
jury were told that they could only ac-
quit If the mental condition of the man
was such that the prisoner was "incap-
able there and then of distinguishing
whether his act was right or wrong"
Whatever may be said of this instruc-
ton in the abstract. it had no applicability
to the case in han and must have mis-
led the jury Under it the jury might
have actually found Genz insane; nay,
they must have done so and yet have
convicted him, for undoubtedly when he
knew what he had done he knew thai
u was wrong to do it and was over
whelmed with remorse.
Inc ABSTRACT proposition that In cases
OF alleged insanity, freedom from legal
responsibility, for what would otherwise
pc a crime, rests upon the inability to dis
tfngu1sh right from wrong, was first an
nouneed in McNaghten's case, 10 q. & F..
w. II was soon followed in New Jersey
py Chlef Justice Hornblower in Spencerss
case, l Fab, 1876, and we presume that
u mas generally been assumed as sound
n oyer and terminer ever since. 1t has
nob however. been discussed or consider
ed either in the Supreme Court or in this
e9 Mew up 2d to the er present time;
LutOuBn their courts of last rpc0rt haxre
followed the English lead, but New Ter
sey IS SIN free to decline to do 50.
In the case in hand insanity was
proved and the Court is confronted viii
the question pure and simple of whether
an insane man can be convicted of murder
IN IN me nrst decree if the jury find that
whether his act was right or wrong
even though his mental arrangement over
came mis- will and he was Incapable Of
a rule be now laid down which time and
advancing knowledge of the mystery of
insanity will justify. -
The judgment below should he revarse5
Prosecutor Winfield presented the case
LOT the State. He said the State had
proved mat Genz wanted to marry Clara.
Cara was already engaged to Stencil. and
Genz, to stop the marriage. wonld XIII
either one or the other.
He could not kill Stencil for he was
away. he then turned Upon Clara. He
kilied her and gave as a reason that ne
Was It jealousy or revenge which caused
the act? Was it the manifestation of a
determination that if he could not have
aer no one else should? In either case ii
was murder.
The main question raised by these pro-
ceedlngs is whether what is known as fine
right and wrong test of responsibility in
cases OF alleged insanity is the correct
test. On the trial the Court told the illrv
to acquft if they should find that, at the
mme of the killing the defendant was in
capable of distinguishing between right
and wrong in the doing of that act.
The question is purely one of law and
there IS no need to argue that he ala
know the difference between right and
wrong, that he did know that the act he
was doing was wrong, criminal and s1,b.
: jected him to punishment.
It cannot be denied that we are some.