The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1907-01-29

man that his wife is being pursued or
annoyed by another would not be such
prosocation as to reduce a homicide
to manslaughteH Furthermore, un-
der the present statute in New York.
a homicide cannot be classed as man
SLAUGHTER, except when there was no
design to effect death; when that pur.
pose Is present the crime Is murder
In one Of Its degrees, unless il Is ex.
icusabie or jnstifable. IN. Y. Penal
Code, Sections 1888. 1ss. 1893; People
VS.. Beckwith, 1903 N. Y. 800
Nor was the homicide excusabie
or tustifiable either at common law
or under the New York statute. for.
to be excusable, 1t must have been
committed by accident IN doing a law
full act, and to be iustifabie 1t must
have been In the lawful defense of
Thaw or his wife, when there was
reasonable ground to apprehend a de.
sign on the part OF the person slain to
commit felony. or to do some great
personal injury etc, and when there
was imminent danger of such design
being Accomplished IN. Y. Pen. Code.
Sections. 2os. 2o5, See 81 cYc, 7s4,
St2, s26.) 4
Plea Of Insanity,
with respect to the defense of in.
sanity, IL Thaw was insane when he
killed White. he not only cannot be
punished, but he was guilty Of no
crime. and this is true, although he
may have been sane before he COM
mftted the act, ana may be sane now.
itt2 cYc te5. 81 eye e6s.) Whether
or not he was insane is, of course, a
question of fact which must be de.
termined by the Jury from the evi,
dence; but there are certain tests es.
tablished by law in this State, as else
where. for determination OF the ques.
ton whether. IL he was TO some ex.
tent insane, his insanity was sufficient
to exempt him from responsibility.
I'm the first place, 1t is everywhere
the settled law, In New York by ex.
press statutory provision, that II
Thaw, Mt the time he killed White,
was so insane that he did not know
the nature and quality of his act, or
that he did not know the act was
wrong. he is not responsible, and must
be acquitted. IN. Y. Pen. Code, Sec
tons 90. 81; 12 eye 1866, 81 eye $685.,
I'm the second place, It is equally
well settled that mere moral or emo
tional insanity, or frenzy produced by
anger. jealousy or other like passion,
is not such insanity as will exempt
from responsibility, where the per-
son knew the nature and quality Of
his act, and that # was wrong; and
this is true, it has been held, although,
he may be unable to control his pas
sion, and even though some mental de-
feet makes him more. liable to yield
to passion than IL he were mentally.
sound. d2 eye 10. t21 eye eseo
Proof Of such condition, however,
by excluding the clemnts OF dellber-
alton and generalization, II the eyi.
dence shows that II. did so. but not 9TH
erwise. will reduce the homicide to
murder in the second degree. CPeople
vs.. Barberi, 149 N. Y. 256, 81 eye
1928
Perhaps there may be such a thing
as genuine insanity, produced by an.
ger. jealousy or revenge, and il there
is. which is question OF fact to be
determined from the evidence, then 1t
Is defense to the same extent as in.
sanity produced by any other cause;
but it must be genuine insanity as
distinguished from turbulence Of pas.
sion produced by a desire for re.
venge. people VS.. Foy. 1873 N. Y,
6e6. G6), and it must, as is express.
ly required by section q Of the Penal
Code, have been such us to render the
accused incapable of knowing the
nature and quality Of his act or OF
knowing that it was wrong. The
heat of passion and feeling produced
by motives OF anger, hatred or re.
venge is not insanity and affords no
ground of exemption from RESPONSE.
bility. People VS.. Foy, 1888 N. Y,
G66, G67.)
Irresistible Impulse.
'tIn some States phase of insan.
ity known as insane irresistible i'm.
pulse. resulting from mental defect or
disease, is recognized as ground of
exemption from responsibility for a
crime committed under its influence, 1t
hains. hall L. thaaa S+ata.. +ha. Il q.