The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-05-31


sanction of an OATH and the adverse party
would DO confronted with the witness aud
would have no opportunity OF cross-cx-
animation.
See Ashwood VS.. Kutridge. 10 Cush. 1893,
% Amer. Dec. l7s: Mutual Insurance COM
pany VS. Bratt. 80 NJ. -, 200.
In some cases. when the Inquiry relates
to the exact sciences. the rule has been
relaxed and tables of logarithms. OF
weights and measures and OF interest,
have been submitted. but on question not
falling within the exact sciences that Is,
when a proposition Is not susceptible OF
demonstration according TO known and
arbitrary rules. the evidence is excluded.
(Joues on evidence, page S9i.)
on the proposition that the court erred
in refusing TO permit counsel 10 read eS
tracts from said authors TO the jury, ho
cites Wade VS. Dewitt. 20 Texas. 3sS. IL
this case he adopted as the proper author
ity to govern, then no error is shown, for
this case vests the question In the sound
discretion OF tho court
at has been repeatedly held that the
extent to which counsel may, In arsument
be permitted to read from books, whether
LEGAL or scientific, is matter conaded 10
the sound discretion OF the court, and ono
which this court will not revse. unless II
is made to appear that this discretion has
been abused TO thc prejudice OF the de
PENDANT"
See Gross VS.. state IL App. 81; Hines Va
State, 3 App. Sss, Brown vs.. state.
App, Gil; Bingham vs.. STATE App. edN;
Foster vs.. State s App,~.lS
No abuse Of discretion is shown In this
case The court permitted the extracts TO
10 read as part OF counsela speech. but
refused to sanction IT AS evidence. The
great weight OF authority Is against per
hitting the practice OF reading scientific
books to the Jury at oil The practice is
not under any circumstances allowed in
England tSoc Rex VS.. Crouch. 1 Cox or
C.. "a; and Rex VS.. Taylor % Coz Cr c.,
m
'srhc same objections which have been
deemed sufficient to exclude scientific
troatisCs as evidence would seem to be
equally potent against the right OF coup-
sci 30 read extracts thciefrom RS a part
OF their argument to the jury, IT is difficult
to see how any distinction can be made
between the Two cases and how any such
right can be recognized by any court which
maintains the inadmissihility OF the trea-
tisc In evidence.
tSeo Rogers on expert evidence, sec. i7a;
People VS.. Wheeler 20 CAL 5Sl, Al Am.
Rep. 90. % Am. Dee. las, and uotos,)
V. \ proper understandings Of the record
will ciiectualiy dispose Of the maitera com
planned of in subs. o. and OF appellant =
I brief.
These matters refer to the evidence given
| by Drs Joe and Godail Wooteu, aud pr
| NJ NJ Smith. in reference TO the sanity
| of appellant several weeks prior "a the
| trial and on the trial.
| The hrst objection raised Is aa to the
| predicate laid to authorize Drs. Mootcu 10
| testify as to appellants sanity NJ the time
OF the commission Of the Uneusc, TINS L.
urged in argument while the record showr
that neither OF these gentlemen testified
| to anything based o. their examination
| except az to the condition OF appellant 5
! mind at the time OF examination ~ jail
and ON the trial. The trial cour anys
This bill Is allowed with the following
| explanation and qualification 1hat tho
question asked the witness was who h1r OF
| not from his examination of deteni tul au'
the facts to which ho had 'esti.i'd, he
! was insane at the time OF ouch cNamina'
| tons instead of on 1uy a. S96. to Mhic'
duestIun the witness answered illat IN hh
| opinion that defendant was 3ot insane a.
| the time OF such examinations. which was
few DAYS before this trial began.
AS TO the predicate aud their qualified
tons as experts IT appears thai these gen
llemcn are graduates Ct tie best school o
medicine In the United States, They sub
Icctod appellant to rigid examination Il
accordance with the most scientific meth
DDS known 90 the medical profession. The,
made fourteen measurements OF ms head
cumparcd the measurements and diagram
drawn thcrelrom with 1900 normal cIaul
ums with the result Of finding app~llanl
head normal tn almost every particular
Various tests we're then made as 20 VIII
power. by standing him erect With cye
closed and heels together. taking 'kne'
Ierks" In this attitude. and all logoih'
applying known aud recognized inlaluhI
tests then making comparative tests II
read he testimony Of these gentlemen WI
..U.m .H...Nu ..HsH d ..HN 1
IN every parucUlar Dr. Smith and "
Hughes testified 10 certain acts OF appollnn
during the trial as tending "a show ih'
condition Of his mind al that lime. an
putting NJ beyond question that he wa
Stimulating. n occurs 10 me that the d.
PENDANT f. in no position 10 complain u
7 this regard rs he had made rIotcrt d
! appellant and his conduct upon the trial
callug special attention TO this IN ordc
! 90 show that he was insane. This gave Ia
State the right 10 traverse this by crols
, examination. or by independent teatlmun
tending 10 explain or contradict the theor
advanced by this act introduced by the ar
ncilant-
: But 1t is insisted that appellant was /
= jali and had not been warned when IN
examination was made by the medical ia
ports; therefore the result OF the eSamina
, lion or anything learned IN that way cJu
$ not be given In evidence. The Is an IA
; explained Hbstruct PROPAGATION might r.
: quire notice and consideration at you
{ lands but when considered. as II muet b
In the light OF the surrounding circun
D sances attending its Introduction IN ov
- dpuce its competency and admla3ibiiy
put beyond controversy The cyiden'
o. thus obtained was 10 no sense q confession
therefore admlssible (Iiunt's case. 30 apr
j, 252: Adams case, 81 app. 40.
4 Appellant asserts that his execute
1 would he judicial murder. The trial con
= and distrlct attorney are arraigned
4 scaih.ug and terrific terms. ana TINS cou
a appealed to 10 the most SOLEMN manner
:. correct what they pieaBe to term an uni
!. d.cial proceeding" Now, IL these aaso
: lions and Implications be true. justice d.
K. mands correction, but before you proce'
' I 10 enter judgment on these matters yol
= attcntioiVss directed TO the record. Looi
? ing there. YOU Will fail to find corroboF'
ton OF tho cXtraYfdinary position sasum'
By appellant IA argument 10 this case.
z, What are the facts IN this regard DT
= Wallace. Workman. Swearingen, Woote
; Wooten, Tally and Smith. at the ISsi.n
> of the defense made an examination of a.