The age-herald., 1898-01-05

 5 Solicitor Ferguson interposed, saying he did not object to the evidence on the point of drunkenness, but he did object to tes- timony on sanity by a non-expert.
 To Hear Every Material Point
 Attorney Lowe said 1t was the duty of the court to hear every material fact in connection with a case He declared that the contention that non-expert could not testify as to insanity was In conflict with the supreme court decisions. A man of long association with defendant was some times better qualified than an expert.
 Attorney Lipscomb then read the decision in the case of Ford vs. the state, coinciding with Lowe's assertion. The decision held that in certain cases this testimony gould be introduced, by first establishing the fact of long association, then recite facts and conditions and follow with the opinion.
 Attorney Trotter-"we are not entering a plea of insanity, but want to show the defendants inebriety."
 Attorney Allen, with smile, said that his friend Trotter was still contending for liquor as defense. He had been reading about inebriation and drunkenness all the time The other gentlemen for the defense ha argued that the mental condition of SOlilIlS resulting AiOiii uOhiSotiS tAOobANS was the cause of the crime. Now his friend Trotter came along and switched off from the line of defense.
 Attorney Trotter interrupted him to say that both were admissible.
 Attorney Allen continued and said the de- fense was attempting to prove the mans insanity He held that it was never in- tended that a justice of the-p peace should go into this question The law has so fixed it that jury should adjudicate this matter. If the court took the position that he could try a case of insanity he went directly in opposition to the supreme courts decision. His capacity to act would be in sufficient to the issues raised. When the court passes on the question of insanity he should have a right to put the man where he would not be a danger and a menace to society. He did not, in his opin- ion, and that of the law, possess this power. Justice Tillman sustained the objection and court adjourned for dinner with the "Henglishman" still suspended in mid-air with the consolation that his perpetual volubility could again be put in motion when court reconvened.
 The "Hengiishman" Looms Up Again
 When court reconvened at 9 o'clock the Qut5tiOu put lO I1OilOn WdS Dy AltOi- ney Lipscomb, (defense). State to the court without opinion what has been MT. Collins condition in regard to sobriety for three four months back"
 Been drinking to extreme"
 Solicitor Ferguson objected to the word extreme, and the witness modified the an- swer to drunk frequently"
 Did MT. Collins get so drunk he did not know what he was doing?
 "Yes.''
 The witness stated that he had protract- ed spells and had been in an inebriated con- dition for ten days and nights previous to the killing. He stayed principally in the saloon during the ten days, and when he was upstairs in his room drinks had to be carried to him. -t
 Attorney Allen (prosecution) entered an objection on the ground that various acts of drunkenness were being referred to. He wanted to confine the testimony on this point to the time of the killing. It could throw light on the tragedy.
 Justice Tiliman sustained the objection, saying he thought the examination of the witness in regard to acts on the day of the killing was sufficient.
 Attorney Trotter (defense) "We can trace the drunk back. It had to have a begin
  ming"
 Attorney Allen (prosecution)-"D you contend that he was continually drunk?" 'This drunk has lasted for some time," answered Trotter.
 Collins Was Very Drunk
 The witness re-affirmed that Collins had Attorney Lipscomb (defense) put this ques- fn of a nlyer, man including day of killink.''
 Before he could answer Solicitor Ferguson objected to the word very being prefixed to drunk. He was not sustained and the wit ness declared that Collins was very drunk on the day of the killing.
 s'Was he so drunk that he was incapa- ble of knowing what he was doing?"
 Before he could reply Solicitor Ferguson interposed an objection on the ground that the question called for an opinion.
 Attorney Trotter (defense) said any act the man did tending to show whether he was capable of deiberation was competent. Attorney Allen (prosecution) said it was not an act the question sought for, but an opinion.
 Attorney Lipscomb (defense) said the court had ruled in sustaining the objec- ton of the prosecution that the witness could tell of the defendants acts and now they objected to it. He would try to make his question conform to the ruling of the court.
 "State to the court the different acts of MT. Collins from the 18th day of December to the day of the killing"
 .'We object" said Attorney Allen prose- cution.) The acts of man on a drunken spree would not be competent to show his mental condition after he got sober, he held He said that great many men were drunk on the 25 tn day of December, and yet one would not infer from their condi- ton on that day that they were always in- capable of knowing what they did. Then if that man committed a crime he would not be considered irresponsible, because he was drunk on the 25 tn. He declared that the evidence showed that Collins was sober when the crime was committed. He trans-