The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1901-06-21

ence arises from the facts established.
Where that is so the jury may regard
the intent as proved. Intention or intent,
is the fixed purpose or design with which.
an act is done. 1t is commonly kept
secret, and the secrecy with which 1T is.
guarded Is usually in proportion to the.
gravity of the proposed crime. 1t is some
times made known by declarations of the
accused, by admissions or threats before
hand, or by confessions after the act,
and if such declarations or confessions
are truthful they furnish legal evidence
of his intent, which the. jury may re-
gard IT, however, the accused makes
no declaration or admission of his in-
tention, such intention may frequently be
inferred from his acts, and infer
ences of intent based upon established
acts are often as satisfactory as the de-
clarati ton of the accused. The reason for.
the allowance of such inferences is found
in the quite universal rule that men pre-
Sumably intend to do that which is the
natural and probable consequence of their
voluntary acts. In the every day. affairs
of life we judge the purposes and inten-
wilfully sets fire to his neighbor's house
we have right to infer that he intended
to injure or destroy his neighbor's prop
erty. If one discharges loaded pistol
at a vital point of anothers person when
| so near as scarcely to escape hitting him,
we infer, although no word has been
spoken by the one firing, that he intended
to take life, because to discharge a loaded
pistol under such circumstances would
naturally produce such a result
There is Testimony to show, and you
must determine how satisfactory and con-
elusive that testimony is, that on Sunday
| the morning of February 3, at about
o'clock this defendant had left his house
on 50 Lauren avenue and had walked
about Thirteen blocks to Midland avenue
and Beach street; that he was then fully
dressed with his overcoat on, and had in
| his possession pistol fully loaded, and
then and there discharged four shots a
Mr. Keller, two of them hitting him, one
in the hand, and one on the right side of
the head between the eye and the ear,
and that this shot was fired when the pis-
tol was so close to the injured man that
the grains of powder from the discharge
We're imbedded in or discolored the skin
at the point of the entrance of the bull
let. Dr.. Exton testifies that the pistol
which left the powder mark upon ne face
of Mr.. Keller was fired within less than
Two fet from him; DR.. McGill fixes the
distance between 10 and 20 inches. Other
witnesses testify, some of them being eye
witnesses to tn proximity of the defend
ant to the person who was shot.
CThe Court now refers at some length
to the testimony in the case.)
Now, in determining the question of
intention, that is whether the accused
shot Keller with intent to kill him, you
will recall and consider all the testimony
and all the facts connected with the shoot
ing; the fact that the assault was made
with deadly weapon, loaded pistol,
that it was discharged at so close prox-
unity to the person injured that the
his face; that the injury was inflicted
upon the head, vital part of the person,
and when, as the defendant says he be-
heyed he aimed at him. and that while
the injured man was lying upon the side
walk, the accused STOPPING over him dis
charged his pistol at him. If the evidence
establishes that fact, all these are proper
matters for your consideration in deser-
mining whether the Shootlng was Done
with intent to KILL
Where insanity is set up as defense
to a criminal charge the question for the
jury to consider is that of mental inca
pacity of the accused. Upon that question
the law adopts a standard of its own as
a test of criminal responsibility, a STAND
ard not always in harmony with the
views of scientists or members Of the
medical profession. Many of the terms
and degrees of mental disorder which IN
the opinion of doctors of medicine are re-
garded as insanity, are repudiated in the
administration of the law. The views OF
these gentlemen relate to questions
whether the patients are fit subjects Ior
care and treatment in asylums or other
institutions The law regards insanity
with a view to criminal Responsibility
an entirely different standpoint from that that.
look at While the tests of insanity,
adopted by the legal and the medical pro-
fessions, are entirely different, the testi,
mony of medical men who have examined
the accused with the purpose to discover
the state of his mind is entitled to much
weight. The purpose OF such evidence is
to show from such examination the condi-
ton and quality of the mind, or faculties
the doctor has observed, and by describ-
ing the same to assist the jury to under
stand the mental condition of the ac-
cused. The law regards insanity as a
disease of the mind implying fixedness
and continuance of mental condition, and
it therefore rejects the doctrine of what
is called emotional insanity, which be-
gins on the eve of a criminal act and
ends when that act is consummated
Insanity is a defence which If sus-
| w
the legal standard will entit1e the accus-
ed to an acquittal. 1t is a. defence
which, while not disapproved of by the
law, is regarded with jealousy, and in
the interest of justice is subjected to a
close and careful scrutiny. In such de-
fence the burden of proof is on the ac-
fit of a reasonable doubt. The defence
must be proved affirmatively by the ac-
cused and the fact or insanity must be
established by. preponderance of proof
sumes every man to be sane and pos
sessed of a sufficient degree of reason to
be responsible for his crimes, and that
presumption continues until overcome by
satisfactory proof that sanity has given
way to insanity. The defence of insanity,
to be successful. consists in establishing
the fact that the mind of the accused
was at the time of the commission of the
criminal act so impaired and diseased
that he was incapable of distinguishing
between right and wrong with respect to
tHt dcl ildl Ilt WdS uU1uS. lHG Q6l6nC6
must show affirmatively that the insan-
ity existed lat the very time of the COM
mission of the crime and that the insanity
was the immediate cause of the commits
sion of The crime, in order to relieve the
prisoner from responsibility. The law
does not require that the accused shall be
in full possession of all his Faculties in
full vigor, or have a mind wholly unirn-
paired by disease or infirnity. The mind
of the prisoner may be impaired so as not
to realize the full enor-nity of the. crime
or otherwise weaken so as not to fully
realize his duties and obligations to-
others, ana to society. and yet be crimi-
nally liable for mis- act It must be prov
ed by him that at the time of committing
the act in question he was laboring from
a defect of reason from disease of the
mad, that he did not know the nature
and quality of the act he was doing or
If he did know it, that he did not Know
it was wrong. If the accused had suffi-
cient mind to know right from wrong
with respect to the acE which he was do
ing. and capacity to control his conduct
under ordinary circumstances he cannot
discharge himself from responsibility by
saying that he did the act under irresis-
tible force and impulse.
(The Court here referred to various
kinds of mental diseases recognized in the
medical profession which the law does not
recognize as constituting a legal defence
to criminal acD, and says
THE suggestion that person can be
entirely sane Immediately before and inn
mediately after the doing of some par
ticular act, and yet be insane at the in
slant that the act was committed may
| all ~I@~s -