Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-06-06

Of judgment, due to the effects OF a sun
stroke from which the captain is still suf-
fering. AS the result OF the surgeons testi-
mony an adjournment was taken until to-
morrow morning.
The entire time today was taken up with
DR.. Deckers testimony. He went on the
stand at 10 o'clock
Last winter, he said he was in West In.
dian waters. and while there the accused.
consulted him professionally regarding his
health.
lie was suffering from attacks of over
exposure to the heat and sun" said the
surgeon.
L knew he had been under treatment
for the same trouble in north China Last
March he had been a two weeks shore
leave In Cuba and had a heat stroke I
treated him for headache, sleeplessness.
loss of appetite and general irritability. He
said he was deaf and had trouble in hear
Ing orders. / wanted him put on sick
leave, but he protested, saying that he
thought II would be a reflection on his
ability to do ordinary duty"
The Effects of Sunstroke.
Are you of the opinion that to this ex-
posure were due the symptoms you emu.
merate?"
II am"
Did this exposure leave any permanent
effect upon the accused?'
mot that | have heard but 1t is quite
probable that it did"
Would such an exposure and its conse-
quent effects tend TO aggravate on May u,
this year, any previous condition that he
was suffering from2'
The witness said that 1t might and that
1t would materially impair the accused's
judgment on the 21st of May. He thought,
hDy h0t hr
quent effects were not severe enough TO have
permanently impaired the accused's judg-
ment. He thought it might have aggra-
waited his condition on the day in ques-
tion.
What effect would sudden aggravation
have upon the accused?" was the next
question.
1T would warp his judgment and he
would be abnormally irritable" was the an
swer.
isn't that so with any ordinary human
beIng?"
The surgeon admitted that such was the
case, but that 1t would be even more so I'm
the defendants case.
Would Effect His Judgment
do you believe that on May 21 he was
not fully capable of Judging the ordinary
responsibility of an officer 10 obey the Or
, der of a superior oficerY'
His afiiction was not, in my opinion OF
itself severe enough to impair his judg-
ment to the degree that It would relieve
him of responsibility"
''Was the physical condition of the ac-
cused of such a nature as to limit his judg-
ment to receiving orders from his superior
officert"
'It was"
Through what was his condition on May
81 due. in so far as 1t limited his judg-
mentg'
ITO exposure of the sun and heat and
to over-exertion.'
HE was irresponsible to degree on May
21 as result Of heat" added the witness.
ITO what degree?"
.I believe that his physical condition is
| such that, after being frrftafed TO any con-
siderable extent his Judgment is not good
and that he Is correspondingiy irresponsible
under such conditions
do you believe that The accused Is moro
irritable than the average man.
II do"
"Do You believe that a grave irritation
would so impair his judgment that Il would
blind him to the fact that as u military
officer he is under obligations 10 obey the
orders of his superior?'
81 do." replied the witness enohasicaliy.
Sense of Obligation Impaired.
II believe that it would remove his sense
OF obligation"
rs this weakness of judgment perma-
nent distortion of the accused mans men-
tai equipment. or does # exist only when
he Is irritated?'
He Is less liable TO obey than an ordinary
oncer."