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


an officer; consider his manner and meth
cd adopted to cover ZIP his act, If you be-
lieve from the evidence that such was
his conduct consider his confessions, his
manner in making said confessions, and
his statements as detailed by witnesses
from the witness stand; consider all these
facts and circumstances, 1 say in con-
nection with all the testimony in the
case In order that you may determine
whether or not the defendant was sane
at tho time of the commission of the Of
Tense, remembering that the test of re-
sponsiblity, where insanity is asserted.
is the capacity to distinguish between
right and wrong with respect to the act,
and the absence of insane decisions re-
spectng the same.
There Is evidence In this case tending
to show that Chsom believed he could
control the cotton market. Upon this
phase of the case you are instructed If
the evidence shows that the defendant
had such belief and that it was the re-
suit of his belief that he could control
the cotton market and not an insane de-
fusion and that he acted upon that belief
thinking that he had the right to take
the money from the bank in order to
carry out his belief, but at the same
time no knew II was violation of hui
therefor in that event, 1t would not be
an insane delusion upon the part of
Chisolm, but would be an erroneous con-
clusion and being would not excuse
him from the consequences of his act
And also, If you further believe from the
evidence that he came to the conclusion
that he could control the cotton market
and this conclusion OF his that he could
control the cotton market was the sole
inducement that caused him to take the
money, he would not be guiltless and
would be responsible therefor. Upon the
other hand. / charge you that IL you
should find from the evidence in this
case that Alexander r. Chisolm. the de-
PENDANT, was possessed OF a delusion that
he believed that he could control the
cotton market, and If you further find
that such delusion and belief on the part
of Alexander X. Chlsom was the product
of diseased brain, or il you have n
reasonable doubt that such condition of
brain existed at the time of the taking OF
the money and that his act was at that
time the result of such diseased brain,
you will acquit him.
AS | have already said. If yous have a
reasonable doubt OF the guilt Of the de-
PENDANT a reasonable doubt of the de-
PENDANTS sanity at the time Of the COM
mission of the offense, yon must give him
the benefit of the doubt and acquit him.
The doctrine of the reasonable doubt is n
legal right almost as old as law itself.
Its purpose Is to shield the innocent. and
not n cloak for the guilty. A reasonable
doubt is doubt which a reasonable man
may have. You must not go out into the
field of speculation to- discover a doubt
as to this defendants guilt or innocence,
nor must you go beyond the domain OF
the testimony in this case, but such
doubt must be a doubt only that may be
engendered in the mind Of a reasonable
as~f,I in ba
trial of this cause. II must not be merely
a possible or speculative doubt. but an
actual and substantial doubt, arising out
of the evidence, which is consistent with
sound reason. The question you must de-
eide is, did the defendant have the mental
ability at the time Of the commission OF
the crime to discriminate between right
and wrong with respect TO the offense
charged In the Indictment. Did he know
the nature and quality of his act when he
committed It, and that 1t was wrong and
a violation of the law of the land for
which he would be punished? You must
find the answer to these questions in the
testimony alone.
In conclusion gentlemen, aud in addi-
ton to what ! have said to you in refer
ence to the facts In this case, you are to
determine the following questions; First
was the defendant, Chisolm at the time
he committed the act. or acts, of taking
the money laboring under an insane de-
fusion produced by an impaired brain.
aud did 1t go to the extent for the time
being OF controlling his will power, re-
Fiction reason and judgment and was
the act committed by. reason of such in
sane decisions? II the proof has shown
beyond a reasonable doubt that such was
not tine case you will convict the de-
fendant; but If there is a reasonable
doubt as to such mental condition you
will resolve such doubt in favor of the
defendant and acquit him. Second, did
Chisolm commit the act, or acts, of taking
the money not laboring under an insane
delusion, but believing that he could con-
troll the cotton market. and at the time
of taking the money he took the same
solely upin such belief and for the pur-
pose of carrying out his belief that ne
could control the cotton market, and
was not laboring under an insane de-
fusion? If you believe this state of case
existed, and so believe it beyond rea-
sonable doubt, you viii find the defend
ant guilty as charged in this indictment.
Upon the whole case, therefore. II you
are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt
that at the time he took this money ne
knew what he was doing and knew IL
was wrong to do Ii, and he was not SUD-
i iect of an Irresistible impulse sprinsing
| from diseased mind you should render
verdict Of guilty as charged in the IN
J dctment. II you are not so satisfied you
| should return a verdict of not guilty.
Hoods Sarsaparilla is peculiar to IT.