Delaware gazette and state journal., 1899-11-30

Edna Wilson, 1t was impossible for him
to control his utfectionin that way and
SO he came back to her. AS to the
baseball bat, he declaread that it must
have been brought from Philadelphia
for purpose. He deemed the evidence
OF insanity very fiinisy. Speaking of
the failure Of the defence to ask Harry
l5arriclow as to Coles mental cordi-
tion on May nth, he d1ew the inference
that Barriclow would not have said
Cole was crazy; in other words that il
Cole had Iut his life In jeopardy, Bar
riclow was not going to put his soul in
jeopardy.
The prisoner was in the view of the
jury: did it see any evidence of insanity
in him? His brother had testified; ;
why should the prisoner he deemed
insane and not the brother also?
~ only want him to suffer il he is
guilty, " said Mr.. White. "and IL ho
is not guilty. for Gods sake, acauit
him" He asked not for the forfeiture
OF the prisoners life, but for the pro-
lection Of society.
Mr. White concluded at 3. 46, and
soon afterwards the judges retired to
confer. When long time had elapsed
| ard the judges were still out, it became
rumored that a disagreement had
occurred in the court and that two
charges might be given; which turned
out to be untrue.
Meanwhile Cole rested his face in his
hands, or chatted with his guards or
gazed at objects in front of him. Mr..
Cooper had brief conversation with
Edna Wilson, and she came forward to
the clerks desk. Her witness fees
aggregate sl47.50, her pay while locked
up as a witness being dollar day
less 90 cents for board.
The three judges returned to the
bench at s. 20 and the jury, which had
been resting in its room, was broue hit
to the box, TO hear tho charge, which
was read by the chief Justice 1t set
forth that only the first and the third
of the three counts in the indictment,
were to be considered, the second being
unsupported by proof. The degrees of
murder were defined, and antecedent
threats and menaces wei 9 mentioned as
proper to take into consideration in
deciding upon the question of malice
aforethought.
The charge took UP also the question
of insanity, saying that the defence
rested its case upon the plea OF in
sanity, which, il proved, was COM
1
whether the. prisoner at the time, as
touching the act, was sane or insane
whether he was Insane with reference
to the particular act charged against
him. If he had capacity to know an
act was right or wfong or the power to
choose whether he would or would not
commit it, he was responsible for the
consequences of it. II he had sufficient
mental capacity TO distinguish between
right and wrong and also the power to
choose whether or not he would com
init the act he was responsible.
The court laid down two principles,
first that every man is presumed to be
sane unless the contrary is shown; and
ms insanit, is the defence, the burden
is upon the prisoner to prove it, Mere
eccentricities of character will not OK.
cuse man from doing criminal acts.
Insanity must not be oonfounded with
drunkenness, anger or revenge
The court said In conclusion
"If you should be satisfied from the
evidence that the prisoner at the time
he gave the mortal wounds, was labor.
ing under such disease of the mind
as to render him for the time being in.
capable of distinguishing between the
right and the wrong of that act, or was
without the power to choose whether oil
not he would do the act, you shoulo
acquit him, ,on the ground of insanity,
and should SO return your verdict.
"But, if you are satisfied that he was
then capable of SO distinguishing apc
had the power of SO choosing, you
may, if the evidence shall SO warrant
lind the prisoner guilty Of murder Of
the first degree, or Of murder OF tht
second degree or of manslaughter.
Ther the case went to the jury.