The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1908-09-11

rules that apply TO other witnesse:
} apply to the defendant when he be
comes a witness in his own behalf
His good character win stand as a
witness for him.
The Court then presented the re
i spectiFe theories of the State and the
defense in the order named. He first
explained at length and in detail the
theory of the State as adduced by the
evidence, concluding with the state
ment: If you believe this insistence
true and think these facts proven be-
/ yond a reasonable doubt, then it will
be your duty to convict"
4 Fhe Court next presented the theory
of the defense. In doing this Judge
Hart adopted almost i'll its entirety
/ the hypothetical question which the
defense had submitted to the alien
/ lists. The defense admits the killing,
but denies the theory of the State in
so far as that theory duplicates de-
PENDANT in any criminal offense. 1t
is also denied by the defendant that
at the time Of the killing he was a
person of sound mind and memory,
but that because of certain facts his
mind, with reference to the defendant,
had become unbalanced to such an
extent that he was incapable Of dis
tinguishing right from wrong 1t is
not insisted, said the Court, that the
defendant had any form Of. perma-
nent insanity, nor is it necessary that
| the proof should show a permanent
mental arrangement in order to show
that at the time of the killing the de-
PENDANTS mind was unbalanced and
deranged. The Court followed this
with a definition of what in the legal
sense constituted sound memory and
discretion.
1t is insisted. said the court, that
when the defendant came upon the
deceased and killed him, that it was
the result of an irresistible and I'M
comfortable Impulse upon his part, the
result of mental arrangement. Now
the defendant may have been IN a
normal condition of mind as to other
things, explained the Court, yet at the
time of the killing his mind may have
been in such deranged condition with
reference to the deceased as to render
him incapable of controlling his ac-
tions. What the mental condition of
the defendant toward the deceased
was at the time Of the killing, is a !
question for the jury to determine
from all the facts as adduced in the
proof.
The Court then gave in charge the
law with respect to the testimony of
experts. He said that the jury was
not bound to accept the opinion of !
the experts as binding and conclusive
as to the matters about which they
had testified. All expert testimony,
continued the Court, more or less in
vades the realms of speculation, and
for that reason all opinions of ex-
perts should be received with caution
and investigated with care, He then
gave the jury rules by which they
were to determine the weight of this
character of testimony He said
that the law recognized the right of
experts to charge for their services.
After concluding the theory for the
defense the Court stated that he mad
not admitted proof as to the falsity or
ruth Of reports that were conveyed
70 defendant with reference to his
wifes relations to the deceased, for
he reason that it was immaterial
whether these reports were true or
alse, since this testimony was COM
,etent alone to show the mental con-
lition of the defendant at the time OF
he killing. II
In conclusion the Court said that 1t {
vas only fair to both the State and '
he, defense to say that the character
# the defendants Wife was not on
rial in this case. He stated that a
-erdict either way will not be a con- 9
a,,nofioo - a ,,fpdioatior ~ har 4