The Newtown bee., 1903-05-29

Thus before a conviction of the defen- dants can be had it must be found as a fact, that these strangers to the rec ord, who have neither the privilege or opportunity to be heard in their own defence, belong to that unfortunate class whose individual and social rights and liberties are curtailed by this law. Under thece conditions itappears nec- essary that the utmost caution should be used, as it can readily be seen that in case of the conviction and punish ment of the defendants herein, that the mental condition of the :aforemen- tioned parties might become an issue in a proceeding in which they were parties to the record, and facts be found differing from these essentials to the success of this prosecution: in which event the defendants would have suffered for an offence they never committed. The complaint presents number of distinct issues, each com plete in itself, but so interrelated in this proceeding that each and every one must be affirmatively established before the state has made it's conteL- tiOn good. These issues are as follow: 1. That Alfred Simons and Mary Brit ton intermarried at the time alleged. 3. That Mary Britton was female under 45 years of age. 3. That Alfred Simons was imbecile and feeble mind- ed. 4. That Mary Britton was imbecile and feeble minded. 5. That the de- fendants did unlawfully aid, advise, abet, cause and assist in procuring said marriage. 6. That the defendants at the time of the said acts on their part, knew of the imbecility and feeble mindedness of said Alfred Simons and Mary Britton. The first two issues are incontestably established by abun- dant proof; in fact are tacitly admitted disposed of the burden is upon the State to prove affirmatively, by con- petent evidence the abnormal mental characters of both Alfred SimonS and Mary Britton, and that the defendants knew of such infirmities. and having said knowledge did certain acts in pro- curing said marriage, that brings them within the provision of this statute. The logical arrangement of
 the disputed issues makes the imbecll-
 tion, and it may be stated as a pre- liminary to the examination of this question that by common law every
 man is presumed to be sane until the contrary is proved. This proposition
 is affirmed by the Supreme Court in State vs. HOyt, 46 Connecticut 337,
 where it says: "The law presumes every person of mature years to be of sound mindS.'' Therefore the State must overcome this presumption by
 mons and Brtton are of upsound
 mind.
 Ia supporting the allegation of u e
 imbecility of Allied Simons, the pros
 ecuticn has submitted the testimony
 of Daniel B. Mallory, Charles A. Nal
 lory, George A. Barnes, Charles c.
 Stevens, Frank llungertord, Frank
 Simons, Dr J. N. Woodruff and Nelson
 Hungerford, all of Sherman, and Henry
 Wildman of BrOokield. The first
 eight of these having qualified as wit
 nesses by proof of acquaintance with
 said Simons, residence in the same
 town and opportunities for observa.
 tion of, and conversations by and with
 him; Henry Wildman having been ar employer of him in Brooktield. Eacf
 of these have in effect expressed ar
 opinion that Simons is an imbecile ol r feeble-minded person. This array O. evidence opposed by that of William B Roe and Dr J. F. Smith of Brook field l Silas and Charles Vincent and Michae } Kelly of New Fairfield. Tie evidenc' } so submitted both for and against i , mainly the opinion of the several wit , nesses, and from facts or circumstance 5 being given from which deduction , can be made. The evidence of Henr, Wildman, when considered in connec r tion with that of William B. Roe, lose l considerable of it's force, as his testi l mony concerning SimOnS' intelligence ) and efficiency as farm hand is incon , sistent with his claim made to Select , man Roe regarding the value of Si
 mons services as road worker, to pether with Simons' employment as {