The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-11-29
Present Instruction Which
They Ask Court to Give.
COVERMANSLAUGHTER
No Reference Made to Murder
in Any Degree.
Prosecution Puts Its Experts
on the Stand.

opening OF nGr lTld4 IOOdy SIG AOOACN
about curiously, appearing to take
special interest in noting the large
number of women present Formerly
she has entered the room with down
cast eyes and made her way to her
chair without noticing any one. Be
fore the trial was Degun little Arthur
Brown. Mrs. Bradley's son, was
brought to the court house to see his
mother.
On the opening of court District
Attorney Baker submitted the prayers
of the prosecution of the court, saying
they did not cover the points of muir
der in first or second degrees and that
he would prefer leaving that matter
to be covered by the Judge in the in
structions to the jury. The prayers OF
the defense will be submitted later.
The governments prayers are as
follows:
1.-THE Jury are instructed that
sane person has no right. to kill an
other, no matter how much he may
have been wronged by announcer, no
matter how much reason the person
doing the killing may have for hating
and despising that person, no matter
how wild may be the anger and pas
sion under which the person may De
1aboring. The law does not recognize
the theory that any person may have
an Irresistible impulse to do such an
act as that unless the Impulse is the
product of diseased mind
THE jury are further instructed
tending to show the treatment of this
defendant by Arthur Brown can be
considered by them to justify, excuse
or palliate her act.
"2-The jury are Instructed as
matter of law, that insanity, as an ex-
cuse for a criminal act, Is a disease of
that organ of the human body where |
in reside the faculties of intellect and
OF volition-the brain and that NOR |
bid state of the affections or passions, |
Iir10 NJ Ia
the mental faculties remaining mean |
while in normal condition, is not |
such a form of insanity that the law
recognizes as valid excuse for a |
criminal act.
"S-The jury are instructed as mat |
ter of law, that II they find from the /
evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt I
that up to the time OF committing the |
crime charged in the Indictment the |
defendant was sane and shall further |
find beyond a reasonable doubt that |
Immediately thereafter the defendant |
was sane. then it Is strong presump- |
ton that the defendant was sane at |
the time of the commission OF the |
crime charged in the Indictment.
"+Ths jury are instructed that all |
evidence Of the mistreatment OF the |
defendant by Arthur Brown, whether
by word or act, whether testified by the |
defendant or other witnesses was ad-
rnitted solely as bearing on the sanity |
or insanity of the defendant at the time
of the shooting and Is not to be consid-
cred by the jury in any other way.
'5@The jury are instructed that If
they believe from the evidence beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant
threatened and menaced the deceased
with loaded pistol for the purpose OF
compelling him to marry her, or for any
other purpose and while so threatening
and menacing the deceased said pistol
was unintentionally or accidentally dis
charged and the deceased received
fnv HA M v-h ia
then the jury should find the defend
ant guilty of manslaughter."
Jail Physician Testif1es.
DR.. D. K. Shute, the Jail physician,
who began his testimony Wednesday.
resumed the stand and on cross exam |
ination reiterated his statement that in
his opinion Mrs. Bradley was not In
sane. The defense sought to contradict
the witness by previous statement
made to them that Mrs Bradley was
not mentally responsible, but on OBJ
lection by the government, the state
ment was altered and DR.. Shute said
his later opinion was based on his per-
sonal observation Of the defendant
Edward Mclean son of John R. Nc
Lean. OF this city and Cincinnati, who
was reporter upon q local paper In De-
cember last, saw Mrs. Bradley after she
shot Senator Brown. but nothing about
her sugggested that she was Insane. She
was rational and talked coherently.
Hhe did not appear specially pale or
unusual In any way.
Rev. David Utter, pastor Of the Uni
tartan church at Denver, Colo. who
was in Salt Lake City in November,
1905. exchanging pulpits with a minis
ter of that place was called to the
stand and asked to testify concerning
a conversation he had with Mrs. Brad
ley. He said he went to see the de-
fendant. because Of her trouble.
The defense objected to the reception ,
OF his testimony on the ground that IL !
he was called to contradict the defend
ants testimony. the government would {
have to submit specific statements to
him and could not examine him con-
cerning his talk with Mrs. Bradley.
The court called counsel on both sides :
to the bench and after a long confer
ence with them the attorneys retired to
an ante-room for a further conference
During the internission in the pro-
ceedings Mrs. Bradley intensely eyed
DR.. Utter. who avoided looking at her.
When counsel returned. DR.. Utter was !
placed on the stand DR.. Utter testified I
that during a conversation with Mrs
Bradley he expressed to her his belief
that Brown would not marry her. He
urged her to give up her idea of mar
rying Brown. She replied: When 1t !
comes to test and the gun is pointed /
at him Brown will accede"
DR.. Utter said that during a conver
sation with Mrs Bradley in 1908 hA
expressed the opinion that Brown would
not marry her and he said that NJ | /
Bradley declared she would force him ,
to do So Mrs. Bradley did not saw she
would shoot Brown herself and the wit
ness got the impression that In order
to justify the children either Mrs.
Bradley's brother, father or sonebodyI
else would do Brown bodily harm
Mrs. Bradley's reputation for peace