Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-03-01

that his wife was unfaithfuI, and
make threats to kill. That would be
difficult case, because his wife might
be unfaithEdl. or he might have just
ground for suspicion that she was, al
though she was innocent. Such case
would require care in diagnosis. .
Asked as to the causes of monomania
and delusion, the witness said: AS
a rule, there is a hereditary faint, the
nervous system is affected by 1t, and
any exciting cause, such as illness.
over-work, too much study, anxiety
or trouble may result in delusions or
monomania. For instance, II a family
is strongly inclined towards religion,
and it is a subject frequently talked
over, the monomania may take the
form of some strange and unusual re-
ligious ideas. If money matters pre-
dominate, then the financial idea may
be uppermost, and so with other ex-
citing causes" Proceeding. in answer
to other questions, the witness said
the patient might be mentally sound
in all other regards. In some cases
the memory was remarkable and the
reasoning power normal, and even
brilliant The mind might be and Of
ten was normal in all respects but
one-the cause of the trouble. The
witness illustrated this condition of
mind in a number Of ways, and his an
swers were listened to with the clos
est attention by all within the sound
of his voice.
Witness gave an excellent def
milton of different forms of
insanity, plainly showing the dis
tinction between them. His Ian
guage was devoid of the technical
terms usually employed in evidence OF
this sort, which makes it unintelligible
to the average juror.
Dr. Guthrie rescribed monomania as
insanity upon one subject. He said it
was usually subject which was made
a matter of daily conversation or or
daily contact. 1t is one of the most
dangerous forms of insanity. The
persons toward whom the patient is
apt to show violence, would be rela-
tives or close friends.
The defense attempted to show by
DR.. Guthrie that there was insanity
in the family of DR.. Hissom. Witness
testified that Margaret Wharton, an
aunt of Mrs. J. r. Hissom, had been
committed to the Spencer institution.
At this point the defendant, ]. R.
Hissom, was recalled, and questioned
concerning Mrs. Wharton. He told of
her relationship to his wife, and of her
being committed to the asylum.
Q.-Why did you say nothing in your
testimony before Squire Greer about
Mrs. Wharton's insanity? A.-The old
lady was there, and she was cranky,
and thought she might law if said
anything about it,
Dr. Guthrie was then recalled. To
Mr.. Howard, witness said Margaret
Wharton is an incurable, a monoman-
lac. Her delusion is persecution.
In the ross-examination, Mr.. Hub
bard endeavored to induce the witness
to give definition of the word ''gener-
alton" which had been used by Mr..
Howard in questioning the witness.
DR.. Guthrie said there was no blood
relationship between great aunt and
great nephew, but there would be
some of the same blood in both. Mr.
Hubbard asked a number of other
questions with reference to insanity
Q.-Isn't there insanity in some de-
gree in almost every family? Any
observation has proven that insanity
is confined to comparatively few fam
lilies.
Q.-Do you begin on the assumption
that everybody is normal, or that all
are little bit off? Ave are taught
by philosophy that everybody is a
little bit off, but not necessarily in
sane.
Q.-Then you start on the assump-
ton that everybody is little off? A..
No, that's not my mode of proceed
ure in examining cases.
Mr.. Hubbard called attention to the
fact that records of the institution
contained an entry concerning DR..
Hissom, which was not signed while
all other similar entries were signed.
He asked the reason for this.
Because there was newspaper con-
troversy regarding the Hissom case"
was the answer, and we wanted to be
certain to make no mistake. The en-
try was made on an order by the
Board"
The witness admitted that all 9TH
er entries were signed by the examin-
ing committee. He admitted that the
law requires the examining board to be
summoned as soon as may be after a
patient is received Witness waited
for three weeks, explaining that the
Board was to meet then in regular
session, and as the case was regarded
as one of considerable Importance, he
preferred to have the Board pass upon
it, rather than an examining commit
tee. In the meantime, he desired to
observe the actions of Dr. Hissom, for
the purpose of familiariZing himself
with the case.
He admitted that during the three
weeks DR.. Hissom was under the same
restrictions at the institution, as after
the Board had passed upon his case.
grounds, however, and might have es-
capped If he desired to do so.
Q.-Is there anything in the law
which permits you to keep a patient
thus for three weeks? A-There is
nothing in the law which prevents it.
We believe we have a right to keep a
patient a reasonable length of time
before concurring in the opinion of the
Justice who committed him. If we
were to assemble the Board every time
a patient is committed, it would break
up the State.
Q.-Does not one of the Directors
live in your town. Ayes.
Q.-Would if break up the State If
you and that local Director would
meet as an examining hoard unou ev-