The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-11-26

| to the Jail and take the measurements
OF the head of the defendant. The wit
ness replied that he had been asked to
examine him, but didn't know that there
was any limitations to the examination.
The attorney asked him if he did not
decline to do so because he did rot have
the necessary instruments. The witness
went on to say that he had secured the
instruments, ETC., when the attorney for
the defense cut him off.
The district attorney here objected to
the way the attorney for the defense
mad taken the witness away from him
and the objection was sustained
Mr.. Burleson then asked the witness
what he had found on the examination
of Burt. The witness replied that the
attorneys for the defense had the writ
ten report of the examination. The dis
trict attorney turned and asked Maj
Walton if he would let him have the pa
pers containing the report. The major
replied that they were their private pa
pers. The district attorney here turned
around to the witness and asked him if
he had copy of the report He replied
that he did, and, turning to DR.. Joe
WOoten, the copy was produced. The
witness then proceeded to state that he,
in company with his two sons, had visit
ed the Jail and that Burt had been
brought out into the light for the pur-
pose of taking the desired measurements.
The district attorney here asked if the
measurements he had taken We're not
genealogical measurements. His reply
was that they were. He went on to
say that after making the examination
of the defendants skull aud the measure
ments, that they had drawn a comparison
between the defendants Uranium and
those of 1900 normal craniums, and had
found that the defendants Uranium was
a little better than the general average.
That they had examined the pulse and
pupils of the defendant. Had caused
him to stand up and shut his eyes this
being a tesD and had taken his knee
jerk, and that he had also had him to
write as test of his nervous system.
He wrote very rapidly, but nothing out
of the ordinary was noted.
In reply to request for what was the
| correct definition of a moral pervert the
| witness said it was rather hard to de-
fine exactly what is meant 'by moral
| pervert. The question was asked if NOR
al peryersion was not a symptom of in
sanity, or rather disease itself. The
reply was that it was not insanity. The
| doctor then went into a lengthy and
| technical explanation of what he consid-
cred the correct definition of the term
| moral pervert and went on to show how
| that term and that of "congenital neu-
ratio" indicated mental weakness,
| though not necessarily insanity nor occa-
stoned ignorance or right and wrong. He
| then testified that degenerate was one
where the weakness was hereditarlly
| transmitted from one to the other. The
| explanation was quite lengthy. Upon
| its conclusion the witness was asked
| if he had not had Burt doing some col
| e.,
had and that he had had some CONVEX
sation with him about the matter. Here
| the district attorney asked the witness
| if. at the time he examined Burt in JAIL
| he was insane, or is he insane now. The
| defendant objected to this and the OBJ
| lection was overruled. The witness then
went on to answer the question, stating
| that he had taken the measurements OF
the skull, and that the brain regulated
| the size of the skull in all cases. That
he had found nothing abnormal in the
equilibrium by having him close his eyes,
and that in this case he had stood all
right. which he could not have done had
ANYTHING been the matter. He also testi-
fed that he had made the defendant
| write, giving him a sentence often used
| in such cases as this one, and that Burt
had written the sentence correctly, with
the omission of one ''l'' in the word ar
tillery.
The district attorney asked the wit
ness if, in his opinion, the defendant
was degenerate. The reply was that
| there were some reasons to thlnk that
he is, but that it is hard subject to de-
eide. The witness further stated that
he thought there must be weakness OF
the will power and the judgment in the
defendant The district attorney again
asked if the defendant was, in the opln-
| ion of the doctor, suffering from any or
ganic disease of the brain. The witness
| replied that he did not think so.
| Here District Attorney Burleson fired
n question at the witness that 1t TOOK
| him fifteen minutes to PROFOUND. lie
| reviewed the case from its inciplency,
and with all the minor details OF the
| testimony set forth as his predicate; ne
asked the witness if he thought that tne
defendant was insane. The defense OBJ
;ectrd on the grounds that it did not
contain all the evidence, and after sew
eral attempts District Attorney Burle-
son got the question in position where
| # was acceptable and was answered by
| tbe witness. who stated that in view OF
The facts that were before him that there
was nothing at all connected with the
transaction that would lead him to think
| that he was insane. In reply to the dl-
rect question he said that, in his opinion
tbe defense was sane. District Attor-
nov Rurleson here reviewed the testl-
monv of Drs. Smoot and Tally, and the
testimony of the defense as to lunacy,
and the incidents of killing the rabbits
and the like, and asked the witness II II
coused him to change his opinion OF
Rurt,s sanity. The reply, in the CON
struction which he had placed upon II,
was that it did not. That IT was
true that there were some eccentricii-
ties in his early days that showed WEAK
spot in his general makeup. mat tne
cruel feature made manifest in the killing
of the rabbit was nothing unusual, IN
osmuch as education more than any
thing else overcome this feature
of cruelty, which was not at an
uncommon. The witness concluded by
saving that with the qualifications !, ne
had previously introduced that he dId
NOT think the defendant was insane. lie
also stated that the eccentricities men,
| toned could not be considered form OF
insanity. He testified further that wo-
men are at times afflicted with form OF
insanity at pregnancy; that there was
nothing unusual about this form of preg
nant insanity and that it did not AFFECT
the child. The question was here asked
| if the witness had seen the defendant,
and was he Stimulating. The defense
raised an objection and the witness HIM
self said that he had not noticed the
| prisoner enough and would not care TO
| answer that question.