Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1899-11-16
& WESTON, 1872 Water ST. Augusta, Mane

| great wrong. or that H. was preyentinl
| her from doing further wrong, getting
| him into tie insane asylum or com
| nlaining against him for adultery. If she
had prosecuted him, broken up his fam
| lily. blackened his reputation. seduced
him from his wife, deserted him. made
! him unhappy, threatened him with tbs
| insane asylum. that would not Justify him
in killing hey; ana it is therefore not
enough FL; INN to prove that he thought
she was doing th,+e things. on this
point Will say that one may be crimi
nally responsible though he Is suffering
from some mental, arrangement The
possession Of sound faculties ana fun Wig
or Of mind, unimpaired BY disease or in
trinity Is not required as a condition Of
criminal responsibility The law recog
nizes that the human mind has varied and
distinct powers ana functions. such az
affection. instinct. reason, WILL imagina
ti0n. memory. and 50 forth: that some
one or more Of these faculties may ~
diseased or disordered while the others
continue uaiinpaircd and undisturbed.
one may suffer from some mental delu-
sion or infirnty and yet in all other re
spects be rational, and. therefore. re-
sponsible.
On the other hand, TO make out his case
he is not required to prove a state of
idiocy-a state Of complete mental imbe
ciiitv. He is not required to prove that
ne was a raving maniac: not required to
prove that his mind was all gone, Ill
unset. Nor is h required to prove that Il
majority Of the faculties of his mind
were affected, nor need he show that he
could not do any business. nor need ne
show that this thing was continuous or
OF long duration.
We come now - the critical point of
the ease ana that is how far must his
proof co. and here again. ! have written
out what | think Is the rule IF law in
this state, which will read to you, ana
/ beg III you to listen very carefully.
I'D establish thu proposition that ~ was
insane in the legal sense. and. therefore.
not crimiually responsible the respondent
must prove that at The time Of doing thc
act ne was afflicted with mental disease
of such character or extent that he had
MT then the mental capacity sufficient -
distinguish between right and wrong as
to the particular act he was doing: or. IN
other words that he had not knowledge,
consciousness or conscience enough 10
know that the act he was doing was
wrong and criminal and one for which he
would be liable To punishment; or, in still
other words that he was so afflicted by
mental disease as moi to know the nature
and quality of the act he was doing; or,
if he did know that much. he yet did not
know that the act WAS unlawful ana
hot ,4,lsl1 fr.s
establishes the proposition that he was
legally unsound-insane in the legal sense.
Again: Whatever was the character or
extent of his mental disease, if any he
had. If he vet had sufficient mental capa
city To understand and know the sitda q
ton. to understand and remember the
nature ana quality Of the act he was 10
ing that il was unlawful AMI wrong he
was not then insane in the legal sense 81
that term.
But bear in mind that he does not show
that liz was insane in the legal sense by
merely showing that he did not in fact
recall the situation. did not think Of rr
remember his relation to others and ~
others to him: that he did not give any
thought to the nature and quality Of the
that his mind was 50 full of other mat
ters 50 fun Of his own wrongs, real or
fancied, that it was not applied to the
nature and quality of the act, its charac-
ter ana probable results The fact that
his passions or desires were 50 strong IS
to make him unmindful of. or Indifferent
to- the character of the act and its con
sequences, does not show that he was III
sane in the legal sense. That ne did not
exercise mental capacity, did not bring
it to bear on the nature and quality of the
act. its character and consequences, does
not excuse him. provided, of course, he
had the requisite mental capacity.
He must show then, first, the existence
at that time of some mental disease.
Secondly, that the disease was of such
character or extent that it deprived him
at that time of the usual mental capacity
necessary to understand the nature and
quality of the act he was doing, its char
acter and consequences; in other words,
the mental capacity to distinguish be
tween right and wrong as to that particu
lar act. lie must show the connection
between the mental disease, if there was
one. and this unhappy result. by the re
duction of his mental capacity to the
state which | have described. If both are
shown. namely, the existence of the men
tai disease, and its extent to the point l
have described, then he was insane in the
legal sense and the killing was simply
the unfortunate result of mental disease
otherwise the killing must be held to be
the result of the mans vicious acts, for
which he is responsible.
think it advisable in a case of this
Importance. notwithstanding the very
able and clear arguments of counsel and
the vivid way in which they have put TO
voufthe items of evidence that they rely
on that | should. for the purpose of
illustrating the matter, recount to you TO
some extent the items of evidence relied
on bv one side or the other, to prove or
disprove the proposition that he was in
sane in Il legal sense.
The respondent counsel brings to your
attention evidence Of insanity in the
, family; that his mother was INSANE at
one time. his sister at one time, brother
al one time | think 2 cousin at one time.
ana | think an uncle at one time, and