The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-02-10

He said that recurrence of epilepsy.
when the disease was chronic, was inter-
mittent, and that the failure OF IL for
four months or for four years did not
affect the patients condition. He said
epileptic insanity was incurable. and that
showing symptoms OF epilepsy or stupor,
but he CDR. Fletcher) had never known of
such case.
| remembered specifically the details of
| currences Of four months ago." asked Mr.
| Brown
THAT ii would be unusual" Dr. Fletcher
replied, and he then continued to enumer-
ate the possibilities in such case. He said
he had never known an epileptic of such
wonderful memory. He said he had known
| very few epileptics capable of conducting
| their business affairs.
The defense took the witness and re-ex-
amined him along the same line with little
result
DR.. Ernest Reyer, another expert, who
was a witness in the Copenhaver murder
trial, was the next witness. DR.. Reyer
| said in the practice of his profession he
| had made a speciality of insanity and
! epilepsy He was employed by the State
| of Indiana at the Central Hospital for
the Insane in the care of insane persons.
| He was asked the same questions pro-
| pounded to DR.. Fletcher.
| Dr. Reyer replied: In a broader sense
| I will say that Cantrell is insane
| DR. Reyer said he was connected
| teacher with the Medical College of In
| diana but never had been in the faculty
| of the Central College of Physicians and
| Surgeons. On cross-examination he said
| that a man showing memory OF the kind
| attributed to Cantrell might be of unsound
! mind, vet be possessed of a good memory
| and capable of telling the truth. He said
| i'm reply to a question that according to
| the hypothesis furnished Cantrell must
| have peen insane from birth.
"A man might be morally insane from
! birth vet intellectually able and capable
| curateiy.' said DIR. Reyer. The witness
was excused without further cross-exami-
nation.
| of five years practice, professor of path
| ology at the Central College of Physicians
| and Surgeons replied to the hypothetical
| question as follows:
II think he is insane"
Doctor. you belong to the same college
| as DR.. Alexander, don't you?" asked MI
| Brown for the State.
81 hold a chair i'm the Central College of
Physicians and Surgeons" replied the wit
ness.
Doesn't DR.. Alexander belong to that
| colege?'
II don't know" Dr. White answered.
do you mean to tell this jury that you
| don't know whether Dr. Alexander is con-
nected with that college or not?" asked the
| examiner
IL do not / don't know DR.. Alexander
| and would not know him IL / saw him now
| L have read parts of the college catalogue
for 1902. but nothing in it relating to the
connection of Alexander with the school,
he said.
Dr. White said he could not answer ques-
tions as to the effect of occurrences OF cpl
lepsy on the mental condition or RuIus
Cantrell or the absence of them. He SAID
Cantrell might tell the truth and might
not and he did not know whether his cpl
lepsy would interfere with his veracity. On
| denomination DR.. White said that a mar
ration of events as contained in the NY
pothesis was consistent with the subject
mental condition. He said that the subject
was not in his opinion moral lmpeche'
but instead was paranoiac
| Dr. Edgar II. Wilson, druggist charac-
ter witness, said he had known DR.. Alex,
ander intimately since 1892: that he mad
known Alexander's reputation for law and
order, peace and quiet and honesty TO be
good. On cross-examination DR.. Wilson
| told how he had learned of DR.. Alexander
reputation. He said he was particular
friend of Dr. Alexander and had formerly
| employed him in his store.
Walter NJ. Ballard, bookkeeper of the In
| dianapolis Abattoir Company, said he had
known Alexander intimately for five years
and knew his reputation for honesty and
| probity, uprightness and integrity TO be
| good. A question as TO his peace and
quIetude was objected to and overruled by
the judge. Ballard further testified that ne
| knew DR.. Alexander's reputation for moral
ity to be good. Cross-examination on minor
| points brought out no new evidence
cal manager of the Postal Telegraph Com
; | pany, who said he had known Alexander
socially for twelve years. He said he had
little knowledge of him In a business way,
|. but thought him to be of irst-class char
acter. Mr.. Samuels on cross-examination
said he had met Alexander at card parties
and had always heard him spoken of well.
Ferdinand A. Mueller, druggist, who has
lived in Indianapolis forty years, said he
has known Alexander for five years, and in
a professional way had found his general
reputation to be good.
COUNCILMAN GRAIL HEARD.
John ii. Grail. real-estate agent and mem
Der of the City Council, was a witness in
defense of Alexander's character. He sale
: Alexanders reputation was good and that
he had signed his bond to secure his re-
lease when the doctor was indicted for com
plicity in the robbery of graves. He saiC
he had known Alexander for eight years.
E Charles Lavery. cigar dealer, said he haC
lived in Indianapolis for thirty years anC
; | he'd known Alexander for ten years. HI
! said he was acquainted with Alexander:
| reputation, which he knew as good.
, Herman T.. Tombs. pharmacist for TWEEN
: | ty-two years at 456 East Washington street
! | said he had known Alexander for five or ST,
: years and had found his reputation for in
= | tegrity and honesty of purpose TO be good.
. Charles F. Gregg, an engineer, now il
: | charge of the Marion county power house
, also testified to the good of DR.. Alexander
: | character and general reputation TIL
: | next witness was DR.. John A. Anderson.
He said he was a physician OF eight year
: practice and an alumnus of the Indian;
= | Medical College. He said My Office is il
= | the Newton Claypool building. is next doc
u to DR.. Alexanders The telephone for on
joint use and our cards are kept in a re
| ception room between our Offices On tn
d 18th day of last October, in the morning,
| was called up by telephone by Ruff
Cantrell-I judge it him by his voice
n L afterward learned that Rufus Cantre
n was before the grand jury at that time
he said to me, DIR. Anderson, will you Civ
:, DR.. Alexander this message? Tell him no
u | n that i going tn tpStif
o against the guilty ones, but not him. II
also said Tell him / sorry L testifie
against him and / will swear to-day so tina
n he will go free. Tell him all that / hav
: said and that which have done 1 did TO
= the money there was in it, -
In cross-examination, by W. +. Brown
: Dr. Anderson said he and Alexander wer
e very friendly. He said he was positive tha
e the 18th was the day in October betwee
o because he had written IL down and mem
orized it. He said he had learned CantreG'
d voice by hearing him speak when he wa
S in Alexander's office.
o He said he had seen Cantrell in the offic
n several times-he didn't know the exaC
II number. He also said he had seen othe
r coIored men in the Office and i'm the lobb,
!. but he did not know IL IL was when Cantre
e was there or not. He said he knew Waite
s nell Sam Martin. The witness said tha
e he never prescribed for colored people an
d had not written prescription for a colore
IS man. The court sustained an objection
is further questioning along that line
II Attorney Spaan asked DR.. Anderson III 4
III | had not notified Alexander of the messaa
$. and the State objected to the question. TT
49, ~