The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1906-11-16
DOCTORS TESTIFY
IN CH|SOLM CASE
Differ on the Subject of His
Mental Condition
TROUBLED WITH DELUSI0NS
Evidence of Technical Nature BY
Medical Experts Submitted to
the Jury for Its Con-
sideration.
TROUBLED WITH DELUSl0NS

case of Alexander r. Chisolm, formerly
paying teller of the First National bank
of Birmingham, and who is charged WIN
embezzling certain funds of the bank, was
temporarily suspended, while an inves-
tigation was being made into the defend
ants present mental condition.
The announcement made by Capt Frank
S. White on Wednesday, to the effect
that Chisolm was mentally incapable of
further directing counsel for his defense,
caused the court to take a recess until
yesterday morning, so as to afford the
judge time to decide upon what e@~rse
he would follow
A big crowd was present in court at
10 O'Clock yesterday morning to hear the
testimony of the experts. who were ex-
pected to testify in the case An an
rouncement was made that the court
would not convene until Il o'clock, and
1t was IL when Judge Jones took his seat
on the bench.
A private session had been held in
Judge Jones chambers during the fore
noon at which none but the attorneys
and doctors were present.
Immediately upon taking his seat on
the bench Judge Jones dismissed the jur-
ors not engaged in the trial until 10
o'clock this morning, and then called the
attorneys before him. After a short con-
sultation with them, Judge Jones, adj
dressing the jury upon the subject which
was about to be presented to them, said:
"Since the trial commenced upon the
defendants plea of not guilty, his coun
sci have suggested for reasons detailed
to the court, that he is not now COM
petent to make a rational defense, and.
therefore the trial upon the indictment
ought not to continue. That, the govern
ment denies.
1.-The inquiry the court now submits
to you is to satisfy its conscience upon
a disputed question of fact, whether the
defendant has now sufficient capacity to
make proper defense. The inquiry now
submitted to you does not involve any
question of the prisoners guilt or inno-
cence of the charge against MIN, nor
whether he was sane or insane at the
time the indictment alleged the offense
was committed. The sole inquiry for you
on this inquisition is what is the pris-
oner's mental status and capacity 2 this
time; whether the prisoner is now compe-
tent to make a rational defense.
1--WE are not concerned on this inquiry
with mere names. The term insanity, as
used by me, includes all forms of mem
tai weakness or impairment or imbecility
which deprive a prisoner of the power 10
distinguish between right and wrong, and
also that condition of mind in which, al
Al. |. tAttS
that what he is doing Is wrong and crinl-
inal, yet, owing to the defect or impair
ment of his mind, he Is in such condition
that he is impelled by an impulse which
he cannot resist to do that which he
knows to be wrong. In such case. to
use the language of II distinguished judge.
If although the prisoner was conscious
that the thing done was criminal yet,
il some controlling disease or impairment
of the mind was in truth the acting
power within him which he could not re-
sist, then he will not be criminally re-
sponsible."
You are to bear in mind however that
this is not the precise phase of the mental
condition of the prisoner with which you
are now called on to deal on this inquiry.
The question, l repeat, which you are now
to determine is, whether the prisoner is
at this time in proper mental condition
to make a defense An insane man cam
not plead to an indictment. If such
plea be made for him, and it afterwards
be ascertained before the end OF the trial
that the prisoner was insane at the time
his plea was put IN. and so continues, it
becomes the duty of the court to arrest
the trial of the case until ii can be
determined whether the prisoners pres
ent mental condition Is such that he is
capable of making "A rational defense;
whether he is in such mental condition
as to be capable of approaching the ex
igencies of the trial and properly pre-
pairing for it, Among the rights which
the defendant now has. and which he
did not have at common law is that Of
tcstifyng in his own behalf, II he so
chooses, and the exercise of that privi-
lege is a part of the rights which go TO
make up a fair presentation of the de-
fendants defense; and on the issue now
submitted to you in respect of his abll-
ity on this point, along with other ques-
tons, you should inquire into the pris-
oners mental condition, and in view of
all the evidence which will be submitted
10 you. whether he Is now in such mem
tai vigor and possesses such conference
of ideas as would enable him to avail
himself of that right
after you have heard the evidence,
the court will instruct you further as
to the particular lines of inquiry upon
which you should proceed in determining
the issue submitted to you, to-wit. wheth-
err the prisoner at this time is in such
condition as to be capable of comprehend
ing the position In which he is placed.
and to employ ordinarily intelligent means
to set forth his defense. The court gives
YOU these general preliminary instructions
in order that you may at the outset
more intelligently understand the bear
ing of the facts as they will be submit
ted to you on this issue. When the
evidence is closed the court will then
instruct you more specifically as to such
matters Of law and fact, as seem per-
tinent and proper when the whole evil
dence Is before you
Addressing the attorneys for the de-
Tense, Judge Jones said that in this case
the burden of proof was on the defendant
to make out the allegation OF mental
incapacity and directed that the witnesses
be called The following witnesses were
then called by the defendant and duly
sworn: Drs. Wyman. McAdory, Rosser
Grace. whelan. Morris, Clarke and Scar
.,1 In, Il