The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1900-10-05


made by the defence to bring in every lit
tie detail that might tend to build up the
insanity they claimed existed. The ply
steal symptoms referred to by the defend
ants experts have been proven by the
States physicians to Indicate nothing.
You can find on any person one or the
other of these symptoms on which the de-
fence relies TO prove that insanity exists.
1.-THE whole test is has the defendant
the ability to know right from wrong, and
was he able to exercise that ability when
he killed Henry Mass.
''The prisoners mother was subpoenaed
because the State believes that she knows
more about the commission of this crime
than she has thus far told us. The same
is true of Mrs Coyle. You will remem-
Der that Mrs. Garrabrandt was the first
to give information that led to the arrest
of her son. She told the officer of a boy
being dead in the cellar.
st seems to me little singular if the
defendant had the vile and injurious hab-
its credited to him by his father and
mother that they should be as indifferent
to them as is shown by their evidence.
The mother seemingly encouraged her
sons cigarette habit and by her testimony
while he was confined in the jail she
brought him cigarettes and sensational
story books. which the defence claim
were partly responsible for his alleged i'm
paired mentality
The Prosecutor said that the defence
had insinuated that there was hereditary
insanity taint in young Garrabrandt. He
said no evidence to prove this had been
adduced On the contrary it had been
shown that he came of a lone lived and
sensible family. He insisted that the evil
dence proved clearly that the defendant
was not devoid of judgment and will pow
er. He had shown the emotion of fear in
running away after the crime and by his
subsequent confessions had proven his
realization of the enormity of the act.
"All the evidence of the defence goes to
prove moral insanity and that is no de-
fence in the law" the States representa-
tive declared.
.'The law is not to be set aside on ac-
count of mere sentiment and gush. Much
has been said about this case. A great
deal of sympathy has been expressed for
the defendant and his mother If he killed
the boy to get that money then it is will
full, premeditated murder
Justice Collinss charge was one of the
county He covered every point in the
case in a clear and lucid manner, which
did much to assist the jury in reaching a
speedy verdict. While perfectly fair and
impartial the prevalent impression was
that the charge favored a first degree
verdict.
The Justice referred to the fact that
soon after the arrest of the defendant he
made confession in which he stated that
the object of the crime was robbery. He
said tAat the State claimed that all the
acts of the boy showed mind sufficiently
competent to be responsible, while the de-
fence set up moral imbecility or insanity
He then went on to show that all the
facts produced by the State tended to es-
tablish such a defence, and said that the
doctors who were called on either side to
establish the fact of impaired mind, or the
fact that the mind was sufficiently COM
petent, differed widely in their views
The State doctors he said, maintained
that the actions of the defendant showed
sufficient responsibility from patho-
logical standpoint, while the doctors for
the defence in their examination concluded
that Garrabrandts mental ability was in
ferior to- that of normal man, and there
fore the boy was not responsible for his
act.
Justice Collins said that impaired minds
might be divided into three classes-the
weak, the idiot and the imbecile. 1t was
difficult to determine the distinction be-
tween the three classes, and the jury must
determine what weight to give to the evil
dence in that particular. He said that in
sanity could be a defence, but the de-
fendant must prove the insanity.
Here the Court read the statutes de-
fining the different degrees of murder and
said &C was the duty of the jury to fix
the degree. He called attention to the
fact that where killing for the purpose Of
robbery was shown it was murder in the
first degree.
The Justice said that clemency did not
belong to the jury They Only had to do
with facts, and if under the law Cara
brandt was responsible for his acts and
committed murder in the killing of Mass,
the jury had only to determine the de-
gree. In respect to determining what de-
gree of murder the act was he said they
might consider the confession made by
the defendant, and if they believed it had
been made by a sensible person they
might use it to reach verdict.
The conclusion was general charge
covering all the degrees of murder.