The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1908-09-04

Judge Hart said he did not see how
the defendant could be done any in
Justice by the request Of the state
and the State will be allowed to cross
examine these witnesses later IN the
trial, The defense excepted and Dr.
w r Glenn. of Nashville, was called
as an expert for the defense.
Witness lives in Nashville, where
he has lived all his life, except six
wears that he lived at Gallatin. he
is a physician and has been one for
thirty-five years. He was educated at
the University of Nashville and at
BELLEVUE in New York, one OF the
hest in United States. For twenty
seven years he was connected with
the medical departments OF the UNI
versity of Tennessee and Vanderoilt
university. He has had good deal
of experience in the treatment OF men-
TAI troubles and he has given soOa
deal Of attention and study to mental
troubles, owing to his own condition.
which is that of a very nervous man.
The counsel for defendant, Mr..
Hughes. then submitted to DIR. Glenn
the same Identical hypothetical CUES
tion that was submitted on Saturday
to DR.. Padgett. This question begun
with the birth of the defendant
described his marriage to his wiie'
their removal to st. Louis, their life
there: the birth of their son and theii
return to Tennessee and other facts
in the proof of defendant were then
set forth in detail AS was the case
Saturday the question embraced al
the details of the life of defendant and
wife at Mt. Pleasant; her alleged rela
tions with the deceased, his and hei
conduct and finally the separation
the changed disposition of defendan'
after that event as testified to by In
Inmates and members of the family
The question then covered in detai
the life and conduct of the deten
dant down to the very moment OF th'
tragedy The effect of reports con
corning the wife of defendant and TN
deceased on the mind and dispositioi
Of defendant as detailed in the eVl
dence of defendant were set fortl
lust as proven on the trial by member
Of the family.
i At the conclusion of the reading 9
the long hypothetical question, MI
Hughes asked, assuming all tines
facts to be true, was the killing OF tn
deceased the act of sane MIND!
Ale was deranged man at IN
moment of the killing"
OF will ask you whether IN you
oninion the Young man was in such
: state of mind that he could distinguls
right from wrong.
A-s'No. He had brain explosion
Ram impulse that was not controlapl'
The will had no influence over Tn
! mind: it was an automatic. action
: the mind
n O-Was the killing the result OF
6 fixed determination and delibera'
! nurpose or the result of an irresistaD
= influence that it was not possible
control?"
Att was not premeditated or !
q territorial, but an irresistible impul'
. that acted upon his mind when he sa
4 deceased and acted to such an extel
}. mon his mind that 1t was not possib
q for him to tell what he was doing"
. Q-"Did the fact that he had take
q a bottle and half Of beer an hour
!. so before the killing have any enc
upon his mind at the time OF the ira
e edy?"
"a Ar think not--not at ALL
i, The state reserved the cross-exal
= alton of witness. The defense tn
!. announced that its evidence-in-chi
q was all in and the court adjourn
10 until 1880 O'Clock to give the State
"a opportunity to secure the attendan
,s of its witnesses in rebuttal.
ia Afternoon Session.
n. Judge Hart came in at 1:25 o'clo
"a and at the appointed hour called I
Court to order. The jury was poll
"a and Judge Hart told the Jury that
,e defense had closed its evidence
OF chief and the state had asked for
n. postponement until tomorrow. w
be the understanding that there would
X. no further delay the Court granted
4. motion for an adjournment. ]
he Court said that II there was no
ar lection the Jury could visit the pict'
he show Court then adjourned VI
$3.50 o'clock tomorrow.