The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-06-03

"s>s.ssS impulses. Ut Astler may Re ask
20 u they produce nomentary insanity"
VIII Eaffxhten the Gentleman
dr- Hart said. IF the court please.
should like very much 10 know what sort
OF insanity counsel for the 3efenxe is try
Ing 20 Prove7 confess / don't UNDER
stand It's all very hazy. Maybe. the
counsel himself doesn't know"
Il VIII sni.ghten the gentleman. IL the
court please" and Mr. Ronald came
. brsskIy 20 hts feet. I'VE claim that rhs
mind Of a man with the ADMITTEDLY peace-
iai disposition OF the defendant: may be
temporarily unbalanced by she sudden ac-
curing OF evii intelligence such as We
nave shown. ana that by losing control OF
Dis reason for tine time being be NAV he
mace Incapable Of judging between rtrh,
and wrong. That's what we claim. SIR
Well. what's that but insanity SAID
ar. Hart MIR Ronald stopped short In
his pacing to and Ero: VERY well: I'm
stand on the oT4gina. question. and to
please the gentleman we Will call IL emo
il0nai insanity
"Gentlemen." interpoaea the cour, iaugh-
ingiy. There is no use euarreling about II.
ne court thinks thG original question
WGich has caused all this iise1gxziosl Is a
httie ambiguous. as far as the condition
Of the mind ia concerned. The question ia
whether there was any adequate cause to
destroy the ability 10 Discriminate between
fishf and wrong. Does the person at the
time know right from wrong? II he does
not then he is not responsible If he does
then he II responsible. There lies the only
distinction recognized by the law The
coHrF feels very proud of Mr. Hart but
this Is not a question OF emotional inssln-
ny. irresistible Impulses or anything else
Of the Kind The question is TO ascertain
certain facts In the case and by them TO
Judge. Any evidence will he admitted I'm
fhis court which VIII help the Jury 10 de-
eide the principal point. namely. whether
the defendant knew right from wrong when
he committed the deed The objection Of
the persecution is oyerruIed The witness
may answer the question"
DIR. Miller. however did not answer the
question. He was compelled to leave the
court to visit a patient and DR. Iourie was
called in his stead. The original question
was put TO him and received an affirmative
answer:
what do you call such a condition.
zone OF morbid influence"
Stale what will cause such condition
In the brain OF powerful man such as the
defendant"
ANY congestion or irritation of the brain
cells
What will produce this cause?s
Suppose a man has wife and daugh-
tiers. and that ne loves them as any ordi-
nary father that he should become aware
Of any indtscretion on the part of one of
those daughters IN whom he placed all
love and confidence. but understand 1t 10
be only an indiscretion, suppose II should
worry him for two or three days to such
an extent that il caused him sleepless
nights: that within that time or say with
IN four DAYS. ne should be suddenly and
Unexpectedly informed that this daughter
had been seduced by a married man. and
that he Also had threatened 10 protect the
child from any VIOLENCE on the par; of the
father by killing the father; and suppose
further he should learn that another of
his daughters. only fifteen years old. had
been made the victim OF this same mans
lust and that he siill was trying 10 ac-
cempliSh their further degradation-what
should YOU say as TO the possibility OF such
a statement CT facts throwing the father
into & condition of temporary Insanity
II should say I; was possible. II might
have that cffec, upon some and upon 9th
ers IL might not That would lie determIn-
cd by the condition of the brain at the
time IL would depend largely upon the
temperament being mos; severe upon
nervous man"
Suppose a father such as related should
go out on the streets TO keep an appoint
menf to meet the sedueer: that he failed
to 4nd him At the rendezvous and then
suddenly and by surprise came face % face
with him and shot him down. three hours
after he. the father. had come into posses
sion OF the facts Of his daughters ruin:
what do you say ~ to the probability Of
such a person realizing the nature of the
set he Commits
Il say it Is possible that he could realize
it'
In the crosss-ex a mination by Mr.. McEl-
ROY. the same ground was gone over as
was covered hy the examination In chief.
without altering materially the witness
testimony.
bradley Goes tpon the stand.
Bradley was then put upon the stand 10
testify In his own behalf lie was very
pale ana at times when II came 10 telling
the story Of the wrecking OF his hone, his
voice was so husky with emotion that II
could scarcely be heard, and the court
stenographer had 10 ask again and again
for answers "a he repeated. The man was
utterly broken though he made great ef-
fort "a appear calm. lie spoke in a voice
scarcely audible. THE fathers grief was
even more affecting than the bitter tears
~ the two girls when they testified or
\
either the examination !n chief or me cross-
examination which had not been told In
one Way Or another before. except That
bradley said he VAS insane With grief
when he fred the fatal shot AMI thar he
had taken with him when ne LETT his home
10 meet Schciderap an old-pattern Calt ~
volvsr On mary points regarding the
events 81 she sunday ~ the shooting. his
remembrance was hazy. a frequent answer
,,eirE. II cnn'i remember" The testimony
vas s,tch that Iitte coaid he accomplished
in tbs WaV of cross-exa n}in8itor. though
considerable time was spent ugon 81
TnNfn. l}laA,ey's eldes, daughter. vyas
tka }ast witness II n eiav. Her placing
o5l .hs stand ,sy the defense WAS the 0egin-
ni7x Of ttF w3o'e story over again She
rs a la7se sud decidedly ;iue-;ook'ng eirl.
she w4S very nervous Oh tde stand, eS1e-
efaGtv wavn relliNE - her fathers grief
s;.an learning of has cailagena betrayal
f,ss,e and again she broke doWn completely
s,d bslrge.i he- ,par~staiaei fsee IN her
hsf.fkereh.eg while her whole BODY shock