The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1897-06-17

Of defendant. This objection was over
ruled and witness answered that in his
opinion defendant was then sane. that
Is, at the time Of the transaction. To
this bill of exceptions the learned
judge appends the following explana-
ton: THAT said witness was asked
his opinion as to defendants sanity at
the time Of his conversation with him
about the check on Wednesday before
July "a, 1896, and witness detailed at
length the facts upon which he based
his opinion, as is set out in statement
Of facts much more fully than in this
bill, and answered that upon the facts
detailed, defendant was, in his opin-
ion, at that time, sane" We are not
required to consult the statement of
facts to verify the judges statement
II counsel for the accused was not
satisfied with this statement, they
should have inserted in the bill of ex-
ceptions, all that Gibson stated But
If the testimony of this witness is look
ed to, it will be found that though not
an expert, he was qualified to give an
pinion as to sanity of the defendant.
This is not like Williams case, 80 S.W.
Rep, 6S7. In this case no facts were
stated by the non-experts as the basis
Of this opinion. Here the witness gave
full detail of such facts. See state
ment of facts as referred to in bills of
exceptions for evidence of Gibson and
Rutherfrd.
R. A. Rutherford. was permitted to
give his opinion as to the sanity of
the appellant. Counsel for appellant
made the same objection to this wit
ness as he did to the testimony of
Gibson, above. and the learned judge
gives the same explanation to the bill
of exceptions. In regard to this bill
we make the same observations as with
reference to Gibson's testimony above,
holding that he very clearly qualified
himself to give an opinion on the
sanity of the accused.
Counsel for appellant proposed to
| read certain excerpts from standard
works on medical Jurisprudence and
the disease of insanity. The State OBJ
jected, and the court sustained the OBJ
lection and defendant reserved his
bill of exceptions. We have carefully
read the brief of appellant on this
phase of the case, and while counsel
seem very confident that the court
committed an error in rejecting these
excerpts, they cite no authority in sup
port of their contention. We have no
statute on this subject. The rules of
evidence known to the common law of
England must therefore prevail. What
1 is the common law upon this question?
In Rex v. Crouch, 1 Cox Or. c., "a, the
prisoner was indicted for the wilful
murder of his wife, and the defense set
up was insanity. We quote the case
in full:
"Clarkson, for the prisoner, in his
address to the jury, attempted to quote
from work. entitled 'Cooper's Sur
gerry the authors opinion ON the SUBJ
ject. Anderson, B., thought that he
was not justified in doing so.
"Clarkson.-I quote it, my lord, as
embodying the sentiments of one who
has studied the subject. and submit
that it is admissible in the same way
as opinions of scientific men on mat
tiers appertaining to foreign law may be
given in evidence.
Anderson, 81 should not allow you to
| read a work ON foreign law. Any per-
| son who was properly conversant with it
| might be examined, but then he adds
his own personal knowledge and
experience to the information he
may have derived from books. We
must have the evidence of individuals, not
inundated with books if we were to hold
otherwise.
"Clarkson-1 shall prove the book to be
one of high authority.
Anderson, B.-But can that mend the
matter? You surely can not contend that
you may give the book in evidence and if
not, what right have you to quote from it
in your address, and do that indirectly
which you would not be permitted to do in
the ordinary course?
"Clarkson-It was certainly done, my
lord, in M'Nachten's case.
Anderson, Band that shows still
more strongly the necessity for stringent
adherence to the rules laid down for cur
observance. But for the non-interposi-
ton of the judge in that case you would
not probably have thought it necessary to
make this struggle now.''
The case of Rex v. Taylor, 10 Cox Or.
G, n, was another murder case. The
deed was done by cutting the throat of
the deceased in the presence of only a
child about nine years old. Counsel for
the defense, in addressing the jury, set up
insanity on the part of the prisoner, and
proposed to read a case from Taylor's
Medical Jurisprudence. Brett, j., says,
That is no evidence in court of justice.
1t is mere statement by medical man
of hearsay facts of cases at which he was
in all probability not present. l can not
allow it to be read"
In line with this common law rule. will
be found the cases following:
Ashwood V. Kittridge, II Cush. 1913, 80
Amer. Dec. 17S.
Boyle V. State, 81 Wis. 472.
Com. V. Wilson, Gray, 1877.
We quote from Boyle v. State. supra.
as follows: Medical books can not be
introduced in evidence, nor can an expert
witness be permitted to testify as to state
ments made therein, and it is clearly in
admissible to permit the reading of such
book to the jury by counsel"
In the trial of a criminal case. where
the defense relied on, is the insanity of
the defendant, neither books of establish
ed reputation on the subject of insanity. |
whether written by medical men or law
yers; nor statistics of the increase of in
sanity, as stated by the court or counsel
on the trial of another case, can be read
to the jury" Com. V. Wilson, l Gray. |
Counsel proposed to read the same ex-
cerpts from these standard works in ex.
PLANTATION and elaboration of his aroy,-