Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-01-04

neglect Of Leander Ban tett. aged II.
member Of the Shilun colony.
A rescript of the full bench of the
supreme court having that effect was
handed down. today. ruling that the
| exceptions of the defendant to til"
| qualifications of the ruling of the pre-
| siding justice We're sustained.
Sanford was found guilty by jury
after the second trial ut Pennington.
Exceptions We're made TO certain testi
mony and a motion TO take the case to
| the law court WAS allowed.
The text of the rescript follows:
Franklin case, State Of Maine VS..
| Frank w. Sandford. ,tescript by Wis
| well. c. ].
The respondent was tried and con-
victed upon an indictmon ut charging him
With mansiaughter in causing the death
of one Leander Bartlett. young man
OF about IL years Of aga.
The contention OF the government
| was that bartlett, as Il member of the
community or religious sect at Shiloh
in the town Of Durham, was under the
| control and dominion Of the reSpon-
dent: that the situation was such that
l. the respondent owed him the duty of
] supplying him with proper and suffi-
| cient food, and with proper medical at
tcndanre and medical remedies when
sick that Bartlett became seriously
sick with jdirhtheril and was in great
| need of medical attendance and medi->
| cine. but that the rcSp0itt!en mt. although
| having full knowledge of the facts will
| fully neglected to provide, o. to allow
| others 10 provide. for him, medical at
| tendance or medical remedies of any
| kind and thereby caused II accelerated
| his death. 1t was also coEtended by the
| State that Bartlett, while, i'll the cOndi
ton of extreme exhaustion by reason
of his Sickness was obliged to submit
to an absolute fast for q long period
of time before his death. by reason of
the general or specific directions of the
| respondent. =
As to the contention OF the State that
the respondent failed to perform a
known duty owed by him to Bartlett.
by not nroviding medical attendance
and medical remedies for thu. latter in
the serious condition in which H.. then
| was there was no dispute whatever as
| 10 inc lItlS, tfl'' respondent DIS
! an answer to this contention upon an
alleged CONSCIENTIOUS disbelief in the
efficacy Of medical remedies. ana upon
| Il belief that the proper treatment OF
| the sick was by prayer. In relation TO
| this position of the defence, the follow
| ing instruction was requested ny the
| respondent: Failure to provide mcd:-
cal aid or the attendance of physi-
cidn with resulting death. in the alb
| sencc Of 4. statute requiring, medical aid
| or the attendance of a physician if tn,
action is under he boll f'de belief that
medical aid is not required and that
the proper methud of healing is by
prayer, i; not manslaughter."
The court had already taken this in
struction in substance. but had had the
| following qualifications: THAT is, it
must be a conscientious disbelief in
medicine a bona tide disbelief a real
| disbelief And if Il person having that
disbelief in medicine had some other
belief, or some other practice, or some
other way to help cure the sick which
he honestly believed, it would then be
| his duty to apply that other method.
| and so, if he believed in the prayer OF
| faith he ought to apply that. But if
| he failed to use the prayer of faith
| unless YOU believe that the lack of. il
| FASTENED the death, or caused the death
| Of the patient, the omission to use the
prayer of faith would not be criminal
| negligence, because it did not produce
any results. On the other hand, if you
believe that the omission to use the
prayer of faith did hasten the death of
| I.plnItr "a ". 40
honest belief of the defendant and he
failed knowing the circumstances
knowing his duty. why it would cor
| sttute a basis for manslaughtcr, would
be evidence of negligence When the
request for instructions was presented
to the presiding Justice he remarked:
II have already given instructions, with
| some qualifications. which | think must
stand These qualifications. therefore,
must be considered as subject to the
| respondents exceptions to the refus-
al to give the instruction without quail
| ificaton.
Held: That the instructions given as
| qualifications to the instructions re
1uested by the respondent, were erro-
| nCous. That under these instructions
| the conviction or acquittal of the re-
| spond"nt would depend, not upon the
jury's finding as to the truth of some
controverted fact about which there
was evidence for and against. not as to
the truth Of some scientific theory, as
to which those specially qualified by
| study and experience had testified,
questions which of course must be sub
mitted to the determination of the jury.
| but upon the belief of the individual
| members Of the jury upon the question
OF the efficacy Of prayer as means of
cure for the sick
Tried before one jury. a respondent
| would tie Convicted while before another,
he would BE- acquitted. upon precisely the
same stat" of facts. the result depending
entirely upon whether the jury. before
which respondent happened 10 lie tried.
entertained one belief or the otller upon
inns question conc erninE Wiilch tfe teSt,
monE OF no witness can 10" offered ana
| the reorganization OF which Is OUTSIDE oil
| the domain OF the law.
The guilt or innocence OF any person
accused OF crime, whatever MS belief may
be in this respect. and the result OF I
criminal trial. should not DEPEND upon me
| bellefS OF the members of 2 Jury on the
| question of the efficacy OF prayer as q