The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1907-05-07


but must state only facts within their
knowledge and leave the jury to draw
their own conclusions under proper in
structions) from the facts. However,
upon questions of mental diseases the
jury are given the benefit of the profess
sional opinion of skilled witnesses who
have peculiar knowledge of such diseases
and of their effect on the faculties of the
mind, and of symptoms indicating the
presence species and degree of mental
disorder. but of course, you must I'M
derstand that these opinions of these
physicians, both for the government and
for the defense, are only a part of the
proof. And while you are to consider
this part of the proof, as every other
part of it, carefully, the opinions of these
witnesses do not control you in your
verdict; you do not and cannot surren-
der your right to pass upon the whole
proof yourselves. nor can you avoid the
duty of judging for yourselves on this
question of the responsibility of the de-
PENDANT on the whole proof In this case.
Here, as is always the case In Jury
trials. you are required to judge of the
weight of the testimony and find your
conclusions of guilt or not from your
own view of the whole proof under the
instructions given you by the court.
During the progress of this trial 1t has
been my province to decide what of the
testimony It was proper should be offered
you for consldera ton. and by the whole
testimony In this case / mean that you
must consider only that testimony which
! have permitted to go to you. and none
of that which | have withdrawing from
your consideration. 1t was my province
to decide what testimony should be pre-
scented to you tending to prove the Is
sues here submitted, and it is your prov
ince exclusively to decide whether any
given part of the testimony Is true, how
far It is true, what it does in fact, prove,
al well as to decide what the whole tes-
tlmony proves. 1t is my province. too,
to sum up the testimony to you when
ever and as far as | may deem 1t neces-
sary or proper. but this does not exclude
or relieve you from bearing in mind every
part OF the testimony that your own rec
objection retains, nor does any view of
the weight or value of the testimony
which my summary may seem to imply in
any manner bind you or qualify your
right and duty to Judge for yourselves
of the value of the testimony which has
been admitted.
The testimony In this case tends to
show that the defendant was paying teller
in The First National bank of Birmngha IN
at the time he took the money; that he
was a young man of fine character. indus
trious and efficient In his particular limo
of employment; that he became engaged
In specializing in cotton futures and
stocks; that In order to carry on his spec
ulations In this regard he distracted from
the vault of the bank various sums at
various times, aggregating over $2200f0,
and that he recpuped of his losses during
the period Of his speculations the sum of
about $4,000, thus practically leaving his
Qho In round n m hpre al
of 10000; that after he took this money
he left on a vacation, going to Atlantic
City, where he remained for a period of
time. and during his absence the taking
of the money was discovered by the bank
officials who awaited his return, and on
his arrival IN this city he was met by Il
private detective and some of the bank
officials. and going TO a room, he was first
confronted with the fact of the missing
money At first he strenuously denied all
knowledge Of 1t, but after a time, when
confronted with certain facts connected
with his relation with the bank and the
relations of others thereto, he confessed
that he had taken the money. which he
had used In speculation and also expressed
contrtlon for his conduct in the prem
ises. Although the defendant admitted
the taking of the money, ] permitted the
government to produce witnesses on the
possession In relation to the acts of the
defendant in taking this money. I
permitted this proof on the part of
the government for a two-fold rea-
son; first, m the absence of a general
plea of guilty by the defendant. the gov
eminent had right to present Its case
In its own manner, in keeping. of COURSE
with the proper rules Of evidence: second
this evidence was relevant and proper
ubf IN haEp "A hNnOthptipal d
ton to be presented to the medical ex-
perts whom / knew were to be examined
In this case. upon the question of sanity
vel non,
Again the conduct of the defendant
during the time he took the money, his
statements made on his arrival from his
vacation, his confession and the manner
of his confession are all evidence to be
taken into consideration by the Jury in
connection with the other evidence in the
case In assisting them in determining the
question Of the defendants sanity at the
time of the commission of the offense.
When the experts were placed upon the
stand they were interrogated by hypothet-
zeal questions detailing in substance GER
tain facts I'm the case in relation to the
mental condition OF the defendant. This
was competent testimony. and Is the usual
way Of presenting evidence of experts,
but the value of testimony based upor by
pothetical questions depends upon
whether the statements in the hypotheti-
cal questions are sustained by proof In
the lease. You must In this connection
take and consider the testimony of these
experts, In connection with the other tes-
timony In the case, as bearing upon the
question of the sanity or insanity of
This defendant at the time he took the
money But the testimony Of these ex-
perts is not all the evidence by any