Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-02-27

to BIO no reason. He then took up the
question of whether the Court erred in
admitting the testimony of Wapies. He
believed that person should not be
allowed To testify as to occurrences
when he was insane. Amy recollections
such person could have would be in.
sane recollectione. The Court alone can
pass upon the competency OF a witness.
Tho Court is not an expert on insanity,
Judge Grub saidi The testimony of
experts is to be judged By both
tho Court and the jury as is that of
other witnesses, viz: by their manner
on the stand, their comparative means
of knowledge, powers of observation
and memory, their apparent bias, and
in connection with all the other cir
cumstancea Of the case.
Ii the Court or jury shall behave,
that by reason of insufficient knowledge
of the subject, of bias, or Of the incon-
sistency of their statement with
other facts in the case, their testimony
Is not satisfactory and conclusive, it
will not be hound by their evidence. In
this case the appearance, manner of
testifying of NAPLES in the other facts
before the Court satisfied one half of
the Court that he was competent
witness. In this State and elsewhere
it has always been ruled that wit
ness is presumed to be sane and COM
petent to go before tho Jury as
witness until the contrary be shown
to the satisfaction of the Court. In
this court the contrary must be eHtab-
lished TO the satisfaction of a majority,
that is three members of this court OF
oyer and terminer, which was not done
in respect to NAPLES competency.
That the Court may examine the
witness himself as to his competency
to be witness is new established by
the courts of England, the United
States Supreme Court and the over
whelming current of authority of the
several States. Therefore we examined
NAPLES himself as to his own com
potency and the result was favorable to
his admissibility.
The Chief Justice took it that the
point was whether the Court, in fiv G
minutes examination, should decid Q
that man was compos against the
testimony of medical experts who had
made disease of that character life
long study.
Judge Cullen declared that when the
man comes before the Court he comes
as an insane man and the burden is
with those who offer him to show that
he his competent. 1t was incumbent
on the State to remove the presumption
of insanity, but the State had shown
nothing as to NAPLES condition on
October 9th. He took the ground that
tho Court has the right to examine the
man as to competency.
Coming to the matter of the division
of the court upon the question of adj
hitting NAPLES Mr.. Ward argued that
the witness, NAPLES, should have been
excluded by that division, on the
ground that he was offered by the State
and the Court divided on admitting
him; rather than that the objection to
his admission was overruled by the
division of the Court.
Mr.. Ward concluded about 10. 20
O'Clock, which ended the argument,
and few minutes later court ad.
iourned until 10 O'Clock yesterday,
without giving decision.
Chief Justice Lore did not appear in
court yesterday. The special jury
case of William n. Seward, ct al, VS..
the Mayor and Council of Wilmington
was postponed until next Monday
morning, until which time the special
jurors we're discharged.
The case of Frank r. Griswold va.
the r., w. & b. Railroad Co., which
will be tried before a special jury, was
fixed for trial on March 23d.
In the case of Stelwagon vs.. Will
mington Coal Gas Co., J.. II. Hof-
fecker Jr., for the plaintiff, opposed
the motion for non-suit. He claimed
that it was made on a mere technicality.
William Q. Spruance for the defence,
replied that it did not follow that the
plaintiff was without Il remedy, and
he did not feel it his duty TO suggest a
form Of remedy; but that established
practice demanded that no recovery
should be bad in this form of action.
He said that he was not troubled by
any scruples that seemed to worry the
junior counsel, Arthur W. SpTuance,
in asking for non suit on technical
grounds; that this form of action put
the defendant at material disadvan-
tage in the matter of introducing the
defence. If The case should go to the
jury on its merits he felt certain that
his opponent would find the defendant
provided with other than a technical
defence.
Court reserved decision until the af-
ternoon session.
A slight delay was asked for in the
drawing of snecial jury for the case
of Hiram King VS.. the Delaware Iron
Co., as an effort to settle ii was being
made. Bradford, VANDERBILT & Byrne
represent King. and William 9. and
Arthur W. Spruance are counsel for
the IafaOflupt