The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-02-01

f Z ST. s. y .
attempts Of Attorney Smith to reflect
on the witness In this connection.
DR.. DeJarnette said that II it had
been shown that the accused man
pas possessed of u hnllucinatio.i.
this would have made a difference In
his opinion, but he thought Burke
would have been subject to delirium
trcmens II he Ind had hallucinations.
Continuing, the witness said he had
known of Il man who drank as musl,
as n half-gallon OF whiskey day for
four years. This person did not becont
Insane until he Increased his drinking
ITO gallon a day, wnen he was brought
ITO the asylum. After four months
treatment he recovered. DIR. DcJarnette
did not think man ought to drink
but said that the average
man could safely drink three ounces
OF whiskey day without harmful re-
suits. Many men have taken much more
than that. and escaped injury, he said.
About 70 per cent, of insanity cases
arc connected with the habit OF drink
ing fwhiskey.
Mr.. Smith asked IL the witness had
seen the hypothetical question asked
Dr. Hodges by the defense. DR.. DeJar-
lIette stated that he had asked Judge
Lewis for it, but had not seen 1t. Judge
Lewis had stated that the defense had
not furnished him with a copy, A fiery
laltercation between the counsel was
cuelled by Judge Waddill in sharp
rebukc, especially directed against Mr..
smith, who. Judge Waddill declared.
Twas trying to put the court in false
light. Mr.. Smith disclaimed any such
Intention, and the incident passed.
Motion to Dismiss.
Here Judge Lewis rested the case
for the government
4 AS stated, Mr.. Hanson. of the de-
.lfense, then offered a motion, asking
the court to direct the jury to find a
verdict OF not guilty. on the ground
THAT nowhere In the evidence was the
letter addressed to Miss Annie Click
shown to be letter intended to be
conveyed by mall.
The point was argued at length In
1.-THE absence of the jury, Mr.. Hanson
Iquoting Mr.. Gordon's testimony that
iiif Burke failed to fall into the traE
laid for him he was instructed to re.
move the letter from the mail and re.
4 turn IL to the inspectors. The attorney
claimed that there had thus been nt
4 vio1ation of the statute, which distinct
4 ~ reads .tntended to be conveyed b.
mall He quoted Volume IS. Fedora
a Reporter. page $50, In support of hi:
1 position. He stated that he did no
tuke the position that decoy letter
could not be used as evidence. bu
that such a decoy letter should b,
intended for mailing. and that while
f. the dropping OF the letter In the slo
was prima facie evidence OF intent tt
mail. 1t was not conclusive evidence.
!, Judge Lewis replied at length. quot
ing liz United States Reports. In tn,
j case of Scott VS.. the United States. a.
a precedent.
i Judge Waddill reserved decision unit
this morning, and directed the attor
|neys to prepare their instructions 81
that the case could go to the jury a.
sool, as possible. Argument on the instruc
a items was heard by Judge Waddill in cham
bers. last night The discussion continues
uhti! late hour over the legal meanin
: o. insanity and the amount of weight to b
Z given to opinions of professional or exper
: witnesses The Instructions wcrc practI
! cilly agreed upon, and will be ready for pre-
: sentation this morning when the Judge ha
given his opinion on the point raised b
Mr.. Hanson.