Republican news item. [volume] (Laport, Pa.) 1896-19??, 1901-09-05
THE GREAT DESTROYER
SOME STARTLING FACTS ABOUT
THE VICE OF NTEMPERANcE.
Insanity and Intoxication as a Defense
Ruling of the Court of Appeals in the
Case of Frederick observation-disclosures
Does Not Affect ResponsibilIty.

Insanity and IntOxication as a DEFENSE
Ruling of the Court of Appeals in the
Case of Frederick krist-Drunkenness
Does Not Affect Responsibility.
Inc 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 az 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 infatuation
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
him to his rooms in the house of a neigh
Dor. 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
ing, "She has ruined my life, and | will
murder her" or will murder them The
next morning he bought a revolver, and
a few hours afterward took a room at
hotel. where from window he could get
an unobstructed view of the house where
Katie lived. That afternoon he applied
to a police justice for warrant for Kettle
Tobin, claiming that she had stolen $50
from his vest pocket. The Justice put HIM
off, but subsequently granted it, because
Krist had retained lawyer to draft an
affidavit Krist lad all this time been
drinking heavily of Gin. Katie and her sis
ter had been notified by the justice OF the
issuance of the warrant, and while they
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 gwen him, because the bottle was
empty. but he had a glass of whisky
Krist then met Katie and her sister. Ee
took hold Of Katie's arm and said, katie.
you won't go.' Upon heing intcrfered
with by the sister he raised a revolver,
placed it rear Katic's head and fired. Al
ter she fell he shot three times at her
PROSTATE body. After reviewing the cvi-
dencc of experts as to whether krist was
afflicted with melanchoia, Judge Nan1,
for the court, says: "'Thc evidence tends
Katie Tobin he krew the nature and Quail
ity of the act he was doing. He bought 4
revolver: had it loaded ard i'll readiness
| for action. r. selected a convenient
place to watch, and By diGgcncc and wari-
ness created an opportunity to meet his
'-ictim. He went forth to meet her as he
| had plarned. and deliberately shot her,
with ulte,t to take her life, as he prompt
| " declared. Right after the act he had a
clear reco' o'lecton 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 conpre-
! hcnd 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 1T
would xii, 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. for
the act was the result of long and careful
preparation. There was no evidence of
| 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 its moonngs, so that
he was unconscious of the criminal char
acter and consequences of his action? Was
he mentally capable of entertaining a
criminal intent? Did he comprehend his
relation Co others and realize the nature
and 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,
regYetted it on account of his mother, ex-
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
self. and seemed to fully realize, that what
he had done was wrong, both legally and
morally. and that he would be and should
be punished for it. Ii he deliberately
drank himself into q frenzy, the law does
not excuse him from that kind of insanity:
His intoxication did not affect his crimin-
al responsibility. for it was 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 intoyication
constitutes no defense"