The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1901-09-04
THE GREAT DESTROYER
SOME STARTLING FACTS ABOUT
THE VICE OF iNTEMPERANcE.

Insanity and Intoxication as . Defense
Ruling Of tile Court Of Appeals In tho
Case of Frederick Krist-Drunkenness
Does Not Affect Responsibility.
The Court OF Appeals has affirmed the
conviction of Frederick Krist OF the crime
of murder in shooting to death Katie To- :
bin in the village of Waverly, n. Y, on
April 7, 1900. Krist, who was thirty years
old at the time of the murder, had lived
in Waverly for fifteen years. He was al.
ways known as an exemplary young man,
and in his boyhood served as an altar boy
in the Catholic Church of Ithaca. In May,
1891, he was married to. Josephine Ganth-
er, with whom he lived until 1899, when
they separated because OF his lnfatuatiQn
for Katie Tobin.
Krist's wife had remained his faithful
friend, and on the night before the muir
der he prevailed upon her to accompany
Linn to his rooms in the house Of neigh
bor. She did not leave until 4.30 in the
morning. During the night Krist could
not sleep, but walked the floor, wrung his
hands, wept and talked about Katie. he
was under great excitement. and kept say,
murder her." or Twill murder them" The
next morning he bought revolver, and
a few hours afterward took room at q
hotel where from window he could, get
an unobstructed view of the house where
Katie lived. That afternoon he applied
to police justice for warrant for katIe
Tobin, claiming that she had stolen $50
from his vest pocket. The justice put him
off, but subsequently granted 1t, because
Krist had retained lawyer to draft an
affidavit. Krist had all this time been
drinking heavily Of gin. Katie and her SIS
ter had been notified by the justice of the
of tho thew
were on their way to his Office Krist was
told of their coming. He ran to his room
in the hotel and then to the barroom. No
gin was given hit, because the bottle was
empty, but he had glass of whisky.
Krist then met Katie and her sister. He
took hold of Katie's arm and said, ,"Katie,
you Son't CO." Upon being interfered
with by the sister he raised revolver,
placed it near Katie's head and fired: At
ter she fell he shot three times at her
PROSTATE body. After reviewing the evi-
afflicted with melancholia, Judge Vann,
for the court, says: "The evidence tends
to show that when the defendant shot
Katie Tobin he knew the nature and quail
ity Of the act he was doing. He bought q
revolver; had it loaded and in readiness
for action. He selected convenient
place toswatch, and by diligence and war;
ness created an opportunity to meet his
victim. He went forth to meet her as he
had planned, and deliberately. shot her,
with intent to take her life, as he prompt
ly declared. Right after the act he had a
clear recollection of all the events which
preceded the shooting, and there is moth
ing to indicate that he did not know what
he was doing or that he failed to compre..
hend the character and consequences of
his conduct. That he knew the effect OF
firing a bullet into the brain of human
being is a reasonable if not an irresistible
inference from the evidence. He knew it
would kill, for he said at once that he had
killed and intended to kill. He seemed to
have perfect understanding Of the nature
of the act, and to know when he com.
mitted it what the effect of it was with
reference to the crime of murder. He
acted with judgment, caution and fore
sight. There was no sudden impulse, toy
the act was the result of long and careful!
preparation. There was no evidence or
congenital defect or other disease of the
body which might affect the mind, for he
was apparently in good health. Did he
know that the act was wrong? Had his
mind slipped from it's moorings, 80 that
he was unconscious of the criminal char
acter and consequences of his action! Was
he mentally capable of entertaining a
criminal intent? Did be comprehend his
relation to others and realize the nature
aud enormity of the act? Did he know
the difference between right and wrong,
and have the power to choose between
them? Did he know it was wrong to
shoot Katie Tobin? These questions were
for the jury, and they might find his own
declarations, made Immediately after the
homicide, that he plotted to kill her,
nerved himself with gin in order to DO the
desperate deed, did it as he had planned,
regretted it on account of his mother, e1-
pected to suffer for it, and was willing to
plead guilty and be punished as any, one
who would do anything like that ought to.
He. promptly sat in Judgment upon him him.
he had done was wrong, both legally and
morally, and that he would be and should
be punished for it. IF he deliberately,
drank himself ipto frenzy, the law does
not excuse him from that kind OF insanity.
His intoxication did not affect his crimin.
Al responsibility, for It vas only recent
and voluntary, but he even drank with
the crime in view, as he said, and in order
to get the strength and courage to COM
NIT it. Both the statute and the common
law declare that voluntary intoxicatlon
constitutes no defense" .j,GE1l%, s.,
4"aJ1 Soooo O06S'
Alcoholic drinks are not mere deceivers,
they always cause damage and often death.
Scarcely an organ of the body is exempt
from their influence. They begin their
destructive. work on the lining of the
stomach. Here they cause disease of the
stomach at times slight, at others serious,
creating the more harm because they. in
jure the appetite and hinder the patient
from using natural food and thus dimin-
ishing his power of resistance. And be-
sides the paralyzins effect Of alcoholic
liquors. they prevent people from discov-
ering the fact of stomach trouble for some
time, so that the patients are the more
deceived into attempting to nourish them
selves on Liquid bread" under the i'm
preston that it is the only food that
agrees with them, until at last they de-
velop into regular topers,. real drunkards.,
France leads the world in wine and
spirit drinking. with Germany a far-away
second, Great Britain third and the Uni
ted States low fourth.