The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1898-01-27
ubt that accused was of Sound men,
end discretion" | am compelled to
/e that no good and sufficient reason
Gown to warrant interference with
G sentence. w. b. DUNHAM,
Mcmber Board Pardon Advisers.
Executive Office. ian. 10. 1905.


the communication Of the sentence to i'm
prisonment for life in the state peniten-
tiary. and the members of the board of
pardon advisers, being divided in Opin-
ion on the merits of the application, my
responsibility, already great, is increased
ard intensified. The gravity of the case,
no less than this division of opinion,
suggests that the reasons for the con
clusion reached be fully stated. On the
night of July "a, 1886 in the city of
Austin, the wife and two infant daugh-
tiers of defendant were brutally murder
ed in their home Death was inflicted
with a hatchet by crushing the right
temple of each victim. Handkerchiefs
were tied tightly around the neck of
each, the hands and feet tied and the
bodies, wrapped with blankets and cloth
ing, were cast into the cistern on the
premises and the cistern nailed up and
securely fastened. The participation of
defendant in the active homicide is abs0-
lutely certain, because, without reference
to other testimony, the Ratchet, night ap-
parcl and bedding of the deceased, cover
ed and saturated with blood, were soon
afterward found at Houston i'm a closed
box shipped there by him and directed
to an unknown or fictitious person in
the handwriting of defendant. The sin
gle ground presented in the application
is that defendant was insaneIat the time
of the homicide. While the question
of sanity was fully considered and delib-
erately decided against defendant 1T the
trial, and while neither Me jury, district
attorney. district judge nor either of the
appellate Judges have suggested
that possible error w9s commit
ted, the question is / again pre-
scented and must be- met. The
general legal principles which should
control in the consideration Of the APP
plication, are clearly stated by Mr..
Durham of the Board of Pardon Ad-
visers in the foregoing report.
Thomas VS.. State. 40 Tex, 60.
Williams VS.. State. Z App, 1913.
and 425.
1 W. ION & Stiles Med. Jur.. sec
tlons =, . ct seq,
Tayl0r's Med. Jur., TIT ct seq.
] Russell on Grimes, 10 ct seq.
Wnthaus & Becker Med. Jur., 424, AL.
,UHon the facts it is insisted that the
Insanity of defendant is shown in, Q)
Certain Incidents in his life; ~ insanity
in his family; c9 the active homicide
itself, and a. n want of motive and they
will be considered in this order:
Certain Incidents in His Life.
The principal witnesses who testified
to incidents in his life, supposed to indi-
cate insanity, were his two brothers
Nnd Rev. DR. Smoot, who is warm
riend of the family. The brothers
I'VE instances of his taking money from
Nheir store when he was employed by
hem, committing forgeries and embez-
elements, and lack of affection for them
md their parents; but it is plain that
while such conduct on the part of Il
brother and son may be unusual, it is not
nfrequent nor necessarily indicative of an
mind; and il is significant tnrt
neither of the brothers testified that he
was in their opinion insane though one
IF them said: II have come to the con-
clusion that he was Il little off for sew
nral years past" DR. SmOot testified
to an incident of cruelty to rabbit
when a child and to several instances of
deceit falsehood and peculation, but
not prove insanity. In fact these in
ridents in his life as evidences of insanity
may be dismissed because any sugges-
ion prior to the murder that defend
ant was insane would have been justly
regarded as absurd. DR.. Mclaughlin,
his family physician, testified: 81 have
never during my intercourse with de-
PENDANT noticed any evidence of insanity,
md had not and would never have eX-
pccted it, And DIR. Smoot, himself,
said: "If he did not kill his wife
md children, then l would not say he
vas of an unsound mind"
Insanity in His Family.
Proof of the insanity of mem
Ders of the family of the de-
endant is only admissible in evidence
when some evidence has been given that
he defendant himself has shown signs
VI his own insanity.
Buswc!l on Insanity, section go.
= Lnwson's Criminal Dcfcnses, SCI.
Testimony on the question of insanity
N defendants family was admitted,
however, probably in abundance of eau
ion, and that of consequence related to
his mother and maternal grandfather.
All the evidence adduced with reference
10 the insanity of his mother is purely
hcarsay, although throughout the time
covered by the testimony she resided
IN Austin, and is to the effect that just
previous to the birth of defendant, she
was at times insane, requiring restraint
md watching The testimony of DIR.
I. ID. Wooten, which is not controyert-
3D. disposes of this contentious: WON
IN are at times affected with n form Of
insanity at prcgnacy, but there is moth
ing unusual about this form Of
pregnant insanity and it does not affect
the child On the subject of the insan-
ty of his maternal grandfather, Dr.
Smoot testified that "Dr. Burt told me
that his wife's father, the grandfather
Of defendant. had been adjudged insane
and was confined in lunatic asylum in
Georgia" DIR. Talley, cousin of de-
PENDANT, testified to the same effect This
testimony illustrates the loosenGss of all
he testimony in the case on inc sHS1ect
If tho insanity of the defendant AS