The Hawaiian gazette., 1906-04-13
DENIES He
is EXPERT
Fro,u Thursday, Adyer,lser)

= never said ! MAS an expert !
MAS draEged iu here"
Thus Dr. ! T. 81, Donald reiorged
upon Attorney Genera, Patefs. when
the latter Nas pressing him Tor posi-
tive opinion on the question of defend
ants sanity. just before the mid-after-
noon recess Ia the johnson murder
trial yesterday. The Attorney General
tainted the witness with claiming to
be an expert. and therefore not enti-
tied TO require definitions IA questions.
Then the quoted rotor popped ouh
II took a long time 10 get the hypo-
theticai question started. The inter-
royatory fills twelve pages OF close
iypeNriting. with space marked In II
besides for certain medical testimony
IN full from the stenographer's notes.
Mr.. Peters began the fight over IL by
obJecting 10 the question as a whole
both for things omitted and things
contained. What II does contain n
matter that has been adequately re-
ported In the Advertiser from day to
day Of the trial.
Judge Robinson did not require a
reply from Mr.. Harrison, but ruled
thus: I'VE have spent u day and a
half IN arranging this hypothetical
question, and the Attorney Generals
objections may properly be the subject
Of cross-examination OF the witnesses
called to answer the question. The
objections are oyerruled.
mr.. Peters next disputed DR.. Nc
DOnald's qualification az an expert and
cross-examined the doctor on the mat
ter. Besides his general medical prac-
tice of twenty years, witness said he
had attended the entire course OF lee
lures OF DR.. Allen starr, an eminent
alienist, at Columbia University, New
York, IN 1893. He took coplous notes
of these lectures and studied them as
slduously though along with other
subjects at the same university on
that occasion.
Judge Robinson oyerruled the obJec-
lions, saying that rule for experts
here should be less strict than IN San
| Francisco, where there were specialists
| In all medical branches.
Mr. Harrison having read the hypo-
tbetlcal question, asked "what was the
state OF mind" OF the hypothetical
P'Ib"h "tScilp'u "eIeH'
~ McDonalnh eVloence III reply ~
this and succeeding questions, render
ed amidst many battling objections
was partly TO the following effect: II
was n pretty. difficult question tc
answer offhandedly. First they want
I'd definition OF insanity. Some au.
thorlties held that imbecIlity or feeble.
nlndedness whs species or insanity
| Othefb 10 the contrary 80 ihr as I'M
hSmp"ms OF the hypothe,ical pefsoi
were gwen, all the way through VIII
nebses talked or him AS silly ana mos
OF theni SAID ne was frequently druhk
Others TESTIFIED That he was actini
silly when not under the influence o
lntoxlcants'
The most important part Of the tes
limony 10 Witness was the fact OF M
kllIlhs the BOY because he 'Dr' NC
Dohhlul couId not ma any HlotlVe 10
inc hIllnB' Adu 10 mat the deiectiV
mentality OF the man before and nfte
me kllllnB OF the boy, and he woul'
nave grave doubts OF his sanity
Mr. Peters was sustained In objectln
10 the use OF the word 'delusloh' In
question about the lost watch becaus
mere was no mention OF "deluslon' u
the testimony.
NJ the Time the subject thought j
saw the watch In the river, the wit
ness resumed, the testimony was ina
he had been drinking. A long con
tlhued hablt or drinking alcoholic
would predlspose MN 10 attacks
inhnla-wonld upset his mind-that u
; man OF MS CALDER. witness ala no
. Nnow now long such attacks woul
Ihsl' u was merely speculation.
Mr.. Peters was brought up roundl
ny the court when he started III
eross-cxhmlnatlon' backing Mr Harr
Sons objection that Witness had nc
: hhid on direct examination that N
subject was insane IL came out, no"
ever. mat although not In answer
the hypothetical question on subs'
, queht examination ne hnd SAID niue
'hc same ming ~ Mr. Peters quote
I FROM the Hypothetical question
inc Witness Said' i would not say u
, man was insane, but ! would nav
grave uoupts or MS SANITY
Hpnrl from we kllihs' mere WI
not ohousn !" tne hypotheu'hl que'