Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1899-11-16


sci assigned by the court for the de-
fence of this prisoner, as an officer of
the court, very properly comedies that
if he was of sound mind at the time
the evidence justiiies the jury in find
ing that he is guilty of murder in the
first degree: that he did the shooting
with malice aforethought, with the
express intent to take life. But. gen.
tlemen, that is not all. The defence
concedinS that much, says that that
is all upon the hypothesis that the
mans mind was responsible, and set
up what is commonly known as the
defence Of insanity, that is. the de-
! fence claims that despite all these ac
tons of his, the going to the place,
overhauling her as she was going
along with the young fellow. the talk
with her and the shooting,-despite all
that, and despite the appearance OF
things, that this mans mind is not
guilty, that is. that it is diseased and
not responsible.
The word insanity" is used in these
matters with two Specifications from the
standpoint Of the person addressing him 2
self to the question. Insanity in a medi
cal sense, in The sense that it is used and
thought of by physician who is treat
ing disease, means a mental disease, a
mind disease. as distinct from Il healthy
mind; and the medical man who is al .
dressing himself to the trca tment of dis =
ease looks on and regards the question Of
whether or not a mans mind is diseased
and, if so. the character of that disease
its symptoms. and so f0rth,-its probable
extent ana how far it may have pro
crossed; the same as a medical man, per
haps. treating the body would say that
person with a weak heart dyspepsia or
with sundry other difficulties, had an un-
healthy body. and yet the body wouiu go
| on doing work. II might be that Il man
drawn as a juryman might be pronounced
by Il physician not to have a sound body,
that there would be some bodily defect;
and Vet the man need not be excused
from jury duty. 1t would have to be d
such a character rs would seem to dis
qualify him from sitting as a juror But
We have to also consider il in what is
called the legal sense. Insanity means
unsoundness. \ sound body is healthy
body: a sound mind healthy mind. You
undoubtedly have heard the phrase ''sana
mems in corpore sano''- sane mind
sane.
In a legal sense when we are consider
ing n!en's responsibility for their acts We
come to the question of the legal mean
ing of the term insanity mean
ing that has in law. 1t means something
more than in the medical sense. Il
means a mental disease Of such character
and extent as for the time to destroy
a person may be in the eye of I doctor
medically insane. that is. he may have
diseased mind. and yet not be insane in
the legal sense; just as the body may h
in a medical sense unsound and yet prac-
t:cally sound. y man might have eczema
on his arm and a physician would say
he was not perfectly sound in the body,
and yet ne could 60 on and do business
with practically no inconvenience. The
question we are to consider here is not
simply whether this man at the time ~
this killing was what we call medically
insane that ~. had diseased mind from
the doctors point of view, but whether
he was unsound in the legal sense Of thlt
tcrm-vhat the law understands is insan
ity-and I shall define this to you more
fully as | 70 on.
Before do that. gentlemen, it is prop
er for me to state to you who has the
burden Of proving this insanity. Under
our law that burden falls on the respon
dent. 1T is an issue that he raises. or his
counsel for him, that otherwise would not
be raised. He sets up this defence by
way Of avoidance of the consequences If
what he has done; that he did these
things. but sets this up as an affirmative
defence. Therefore, the law requires him
t. establish that by proof, and, as we
say, the burden is ON him to make the
evidence preponderate that way, to af =
Tentatively cause jury II believe that h
was actually insane in the legal sense III
which ] shall describe to you. Hence, If
a jury finds itself in doubt as to whether
Of not he was insane, they should r.
ject his plea. because he has the burden
to more than make them in doubt lie
has the burden to cause them 10 believe
that he was insane. Hence a verdict Of
guilty does not imply that you afiirma
lively believe that H. was sane in the i
cal sense. while verdict Of not guilty
BY reason NJ insanity does imply that you
40 affrmatively believe that ne was in
sane in the legal sense
IN the effort to show YOU what he must
prove. / think it may help somewhat for
me to lay out Of the case on either side
certain matters. | will begin by stating
some things that it is not enough for him
to prove. ana then some things that h"
| need not prove. He does not sustain his
proposition by merely proving ,hat ne
! was of weak mind, nor by proving that
! he was silly in his conduct or his Ian
| guage nor by proving that he was of d.
| praved tastes. nor by proving that he was
unable to perform certain mental eXcr-
! cises that is. that he was poor in math-
ematics or that he could not write poetry
| or sundry other things; nor is it enough
| for him to prove that he was of bad
habits that he was drunken or licentious.
| Nor is it enough for him to prove that in
| what he did he acted under the influence
of fear or excitement or OF anger. or Of
rage. or of hatred. jealousy, avarice or
uncomfortable passion. 1t is not enough
! for him to prove that he is mentally de
| PRAYED or naturally vicious, nor that he
| was eccentric in many ways, or that lie
| was odd in his conduct, or that he had
! the blues" was at times depressed or
/ was Of 4 morbid disposition. Nor is 1t
| enough to show that he thought he was