Arizona republican., 1903-10-15
THE DEFENSE IS INSANITY.
A Disclosure in the Case of the Ter
 ritory Against Eckel.

What the defense in the case of the territory against William L. Ecllel was relying upon mainly was disclosed yes terday afternoon. Until then there was belief that an attempt would be made to show that Eckel had not ab- ducted the fourteen-year-old daughter of his brother but that she had made up her mind to go to California and that he merely permitted her to go with him.
 The case was resumed in the morn ing with Claude Eckel. a brother of the girl on the stand. His testimony was very much the same as that of his father and mother the day before and related to what he had observed of the attentions his uncle had shown to his sister. Other witnesses were w. Werner, a motorman of the Brill ad- diton line. Mrs. Mary M'Fan and Frank Ainsworth of the Home Savings Bank. all of whom testified regarding the reappearance ot Eckel in the city after his first departure. The two former had seen, him hanging about the neighborhood of the residence of his brother. evidently trying not to be seen. The testimony of Mir. Ainsworth. . concerned transaction with the de- fendart at the bank.
 The first witness for the defense was Mrs. Alice M'Clintock with whom Eckel had boarded after leaving the , home of his brother. She was asked regarding his manner of living and re- piled that he kept himself in the house the most O fthe time. appeared to be in i'll health and seemed to be afraid of some ore. He believed that his medicine of which he used d great deal had beer "dopad'' in the interest of his , brother and that when he should come | under the influence of it he would be taken away and locked up. The wit ness had frequently heeard him crying In the night.
 Eckel had also boarded and lodged at the house of MT and Mrs. R. W. Seaman. Both of them were put on the stand and they testified to the same actions of the defendant that Mrs. M'Clintock had described.
 MT. Seaman was the last of the three on the stand. It was during his tes- timony that the question of insanity came up distinctly. He was asked if he believed Eckel to be of sound mind. The witness believed from his conduct
 that he was not well balanced. On cross examination he was asked if he
 
 | if at the time of buying it he believed he was dealing with an insane man. The witness replied that he had bought house and lot of him. | The rest of the day was given almost wholly to expert testimony on the sub ject of insa nifty. It was shown that the i defendant had been an inmate of a California insane asylum and that he had been discharged as late as last i November. Dr. O. F.. Plath was called to the stand. He said he had treated | Eckel previous to last June and he had then formed the impression that l he was mentally unbalanced. He was ! given to weeping and had fear of d grave disease he did not know what
 and for which the witness could find 1 TO foundation.
 1 At last the defense framed a hypo- 1 thetiCal question which after many ob- l iections and some notifications went l to the witness. It included the sub l stance of the testimony of the three l previous witnesses regarding the con i duct of the defendant. the observations | of the witness himself and the fact of 1 the previous residence of the defendant 1 in an insane asylum. In reply he said i he believed that the defendant was not | wholly Sanes
 He could not be shaken from this i declaration on cross-eXaminatio nor could he be brought to admit that q | man might be insane on one point and ! still have a knowledge of right and 1 wrong on others.
 1 John O. Eckel was called to the stand
 to testify in favor of the man who had abducted his daughter but he was i expected to prove that there was a
 strain of incanity in the family which l had broken out in his sister. MT. Eckel | described the case and at the conclu-
 sion of his testimony said that he had | not seen his sister insane but he had heard that she was insane. All this
 testimony was then stricken out.