The Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1???-1928, 1907-03-03
SLAYERS CHANGE
PLEA TO INSANITY
JUDGE SAYS UNWRITTEN LAW IS
NOT A JUSTIFICATION OF
MURDER.
CRIME WAS DELIBERATE
And Emotional Defense May Receive
Serious Set 8ack--Lawyers Argue
Long on Hypothetical
Questions.

Questions.
Cupopper, va. March 1.-THE de-
Tense in the Strother trial today shift
ed from the "unwr.ttea law to "emo
tional insanity" and almos the entire
day was devoted to argument on he
| propcy form of hypothetical question
which was asked by DR., Charles CLARK
of ST. Elijah tbs government hoapita
! for the insane in Washington.
In ruling that DR.. ClarE's testimony
was admissible, although the hypothe-
/ tical quest ion should be modified
! Judge Harr son referred to the 'un
written law" saying With emphasis
| that if it is meant that any person can
| take in his own hands the righting OF
| his wrc ngs the plea can be offered on.
| ly in mitigation of the offense, not in
| justification. He sa d that there is
10 law CT precedent in Virginia on
| which to rest a plea of that kind
Judge Harrison's words Sc med to
cut the ground from under the "vn.
written law" line Of defense and made
it plain tha, Philip and James Stroth
er must submit othsr grounds Of de-
Tense against The charge Of killing By
waters, their brother-inlaw Of an
hou
Act Done Deliberately,
DR. Charles H. Clark Of st Eliza
bcths government asylum for the in.
sane in Washington was the first wit
II SIS today.
Mr. Moore of the defense submitted
a leng ny hypothetical question rect
ing all of the facts in the pending
case as claimed by the defense. and
concluding by asking the witness how
he would characterize the act of homi-
eide committed under such circums
stance@. Before the witness could re.l
ply Mr.. Keith objected on the ground
that the qteslion did MOI rscite all the
facts, and especially that the defend
ants were armed and had all along
intended 10 do, under certain conli-
tions, that which they did do
The jury was withdrawn in order
that the court might hear argum nts
on the admissibiity of the question |
The effort of the defense to establish |
insanity as a plea evidently |
did not surprise the prosecution.
AS AttOrn Y K. Walton concluded |
the pre- entation OF his array cf legal
prccedcnts to establish the admissi. |
b lity of DR. Clph's expert testimony
Micaiah Wood. for the prosecution, he.
gan an argument against the introduc.
ton of he testimony, II argued that
inasmuch as The physician was not
acquainted With the facts in the case
he was not competent to testify The
two StrCther boys had ample time to
contemplate their decd on the night
Of the shooting. he declared. and the
fact that their act was done deliher-
ttely showed conclusively that they
no emot onal insanity.
IF these men are to be freed te
cause their act was conceived in
frenzy Of excitement as tn y have
said, it will serve to let loose all the
awless elements in this community"
le declared
Only in Mitigation.
Attorney MOC' for the defense.
hen quoted reference TO the case
If Gen. Daniel Il Sickles. tried in
Wa hington many years ago for the
nrrder of Barton Key which. h do
'lared establ shed all the precedent
Necessary in the Strothcr case
Judge Harrison ruled that Df |
'larks testimony was admisslbla. tho
hypothetical questions TO be modified
Some refo cncc sal dthe cour
has been made TO the 'HcFriltnu law
want to say most cmpharicqily that
% far as anv court in th sta is
there is no lay or prc~c1on'
IN the subiec il bv IAat it, meant
hat any person can take in bis bands
he right ng of his wroggs This OK
,lanation can only be- submitted iu
al igation Of the oil nso. not in justl
ication That question is not presen
d here
The court can simply lay down tn
ule Of law-that no mailer how grca /
he provocation NAV have been. i'll
he of ndirg person T. of responsible
mind and capable o. responsible ac.
ons these acts can only bc cons jor
u in mitiga ion e inc oiIense and NOT
IS EXCUSE c~ justification
tic aldcI that Tho aH -tion of ir
anity often had bccn elab3ra.eIv ~
ved before him. and that be bad iO- e.
knee reached conclusions a.-or. it On
ubs;arcc be thought that "thc>e arr
matters Of fact" Tho Testimony should
lxass be that laid down in 'Ea Da
are "a cas- He did Mt. 1o said |
hiHh the question was IN the province
{ Gear; 20 decide d ives for tfc ilry
p otc.ee whether az the time the actt
ras committed ths parry was re-
ann, Dis agent or not