Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1901-08-08

DR.. Arthur Sweeny testified to q
practice OF 13 years and for 10 years had
been located in St. Paul. His specially
was diseases OF the nina and nervous
system.
The state here objected to witness
giving a general ground work OF the
different forms OF the disease claiming
that questions already answered were
sufficient to prove the witness qualifica-
tions as an expert.
Legal argument lasting up to noon
followed the raising OF this objection BY
the state.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Court opened in the afternoon with
Dr.. Sweeny being withdrawn from the
stand and the defense calling Thomas
O'Rourke for brief examination. He
testified to residing in Manitoba, near
Winnipeg. Witness formerly resided
in this county coming here with Barry
from Ontario, both being raised in the
same locality and being Of the relation Of
first COUSIN to one another. At time Of
leaving here for Manitoba he sold to the
defendant the farm Oh which the tragedy
Of January 3rd occurred. O'Rourke
related the detail of what took place
during the Cross country drive to Grafton,
IN addition to witness and defendant,
there were also John Barry and Mike Nc
earthly in the party. Defendant at that
time having the diffusion that wit
ness and his brother John we're trying
to do him out OF the land he was about
to file on. The same year, it was '84,
Barry was overcome with fit Of temper
while they were breaking together and
was only prevented from bodily injuring
witness by his escape.
Under CROSS examination witness de-
scribed John Barry as being man OF
similar build to defendant. In the
incident on the Grafton trip William
struck John on the face, which remained
swollen for several days. His clothes
were also badly torn
| DR.. Sweeny was here recalled to the
stand and number of questions bearing
on insanity symptoms IN different forms
were asked by Attorney Erwin. Tbs
objections of the state were sustained BY
the court to all but one which bore or
hereditary insanity. The others were
ruled as not being in the order of the
proof involved and consequently i'm.
material at this time. The court ven tur.
ed the opinion that the defense were
taking up the insanity part of the case
on the reverse order, and that the ques.
tions now being propounded could be
brought into the case later, should they
become material.
Witness on the stand was then made
acquainted by Attorney Erwin with the
cases of insanity that bad appeared in
the family Of defendants father az shown
by testimony including the grand father;
brother Of his father, and a nephew.
the son Of his brother. John. Cited also
testimony that related to insanity on
Barry's mothers side of the family shown
in the condition of Mrs. Ridge and Mre.
Sweeny, sisters of the mother of defend.
ant. And the cases that afflicted the
immediate family, testified to regarding
his brother Richard and sister Mary Ann
Barry, as we'll as a son of his brother
John, and lastly younger brother Jerry.
Following this defense asked the
witness to state, in case the testimony
above detailed was true, If be could
state OF what form of disease, in his
opinion, Philip, son OF John Barry,
brother of defendant, had died.
State objected as question called for
an opinion not bearing on evidence in
case on trial. The sanity OF Barry on
January Bird being the question at that
time before the court. During the argu-
ment following between the attorneys
at this time reference was indirectly
made to testimony given on the stand
by Mrs, Barry. Remarks by Judge