The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1909-05-12

~ 49, ooeaN os
Al OF the jurymen except Craft declined
q discuss the verdict and the making OF
1t. Graft admitted that he was n OF
the SIX who had voted three times for
conviction on The first degree murder
larry were Sundling. the foreman; Hig-
bic. No. 2; Nilsson, No. 3; !Schoubluth.
No. Q. and Kuecke, the twelfth man In
tho box.
Craft. the laxative juror. said that the
sunwritten law had not been considered
IN the short deliberations Of the jury,
because that element had not entered In
the case. he added, however, that there
wac some talk by individuals among the
twelve to the effect that "Annis got what
was coming to him." and that any other
man besides Capt. Hams would have done
the same thing. All were convinced Of
the truth Of the story. that had been
tive to his wife's infdelity, although JUS
tice Garretsop had explicitly warned In
his instructions that this was not a matter
within the province Of the jury to de-
eide.
.We gave the expert testimony for
3 both sldes equal Weigh said &c, Cra IT.
alienists did their work because they were
paid for it. We did not give much
oredence to one alienist because OF the
seeming lack Of his knowledge, and an
other We discounted TO an equal extent
because he did not agree with the standard
works On alianism.'
Gen. Hams seemed bitterly disappointed
ut the result of the trial. Il cannot say
q word as to the verdict he said.
Major Hams said that the family Of
!, che Captain had been greatly surprised
ut the verdict and that he was at a loss
20 interpret the mental operations OF the
L->- kI .>As.I .,-L ~.lt
upon the evidence. before them. Mr..
Mcintyre declared that he had expected
either an ncquittal or a disagreement.
The only defence interposed was
that OF insanity" said the attorney.
I'VE feel that ample proof Of the Captains
fnaanity at the time Of the shooting wal
offered. We made no effort to invoke the
funwritten law knowing as we did that
under ordinary circumstances such a
defence could not avail in New York
State.
Had Capt. Hams been acquitted on
b ground OF insanity neither his attor-
neys nor his family would have taken
they were convinced that the form Of
insanity from which he was a sufferer
and IL now q sufferer was durable.
In q motion for a new trial we will
contend that the conduct Of the District
Attorney in asking Thornton Hams under
cross-eIanination whether he had shot
il man years ago was so violent a de-
parture from court procedure as to
constitute a ~prejudicial error in the trial
of Capt Hams. We will cite that as a
akrong oauee for setting aside the present
verdict and ordering a new trial"
The jury received final instructions
from Justice Garretson in the morning,
arbiters, OF facts retired. The Justice
occupied an hour and a half with his
instructions. At 1880 O'clock. when
Special Prosecutor Gregg had finished
summing up for the State, the Judge be-
gan in al even. m~ethodical fashion to
set before the jury the law in the case,
Il would admonish you said the
diets open to finding, that II you find
the defendant not guilty on the grounds
Of insanity you must state those grounds
In your verdict"
Counsel for both sides expressed un-
qualified approval OF Justice Garretson's
partial, the lawyers said.
In opening Justice Garretson said:
This defendant is charged with one of
the sravest crimes. The charge as act
forth In the indictment is a mere accusation
and raises no intimstion Of guilt. The de.
.endant offers what may be properly charac.
terized a. q special plea. that he was unable
20 know the nature and quality OF the act
upon which he stands accused.
You must regard this man IS Innocent
until you shall have reached a conclusion
on the case and shall have agreed upon q
verdict.
You have noticed that minor disagree
ments have occurred between counsel.
You must not regard the rulings OF the
Court In these instances as indicative of
any NrIninn opkopfatood hv the Co,,rf nc
to the guilt or innocence OF the accused.
The ruling OF the Court Upon the motions
Of counsel for the defence for dismissal OF
the case we're made solely upon the Court 8
determination that the present action did
not hinge UPON a question OF law only hut
that proof Of crime should be adduced.
Justice Garretson continued to say that
first the direct charge of the killing Of
Annis must have beer proved. and proof
also that Capt. Hams is responsible for
the murder. This would constitute merely
q homicide, be charged. but certain other
elements OF evidence have to be put
conclusively to prove the charge of muir
'You are the sole judges of fact he
continued. whatever misstatements OF
facts the counsel may inadvertently have
made In the purse of their arguments are
not to be considered binding as facts | n
~ -ou NoSi NVpStu tkoDi
Individual recollection OF the salient
features OF the evidence
After explaining the various degrees
Of murder and manslaughter. Justice
0arretson continued:
There Is nothing in this case to show
that there were any j~ustifiable circum-
stances attending the shooting; no evil
dence Of justification in the eyes Of the
law has been introduced
Justice Garretson explained the meaning
Of the terms deliberation and premedita-
ton, qualifying the definition of murder
In the first degree.
Does the testimony in this ease pre-
sent to you generalization and delibera-
tion proceeding the preparation Of the
crime? Considering the history Of this
pase from the beginning, even down to
the events following the shooting. does
there appear to have been a felonious
design IL the mind Of the defendant"
The Judge said that he was compelled
by law TO explain murder in the second
degree and the degrees OF manslaughter,
whatever may have been the trend OF the
testimony. in the present case. He then
elaborated upon the definitions he had
already given. He said definitely that the
degree. The st ate had only to prove
guilt clearly enough for a reasonable
man to accept. Then he took up the quee-
ton OF insanity. saying:
II you find the defendant not responsible
bscsuse Of his lunacy. no matter what the
other evidence may be you must acauit.
The defendant is not 10 be held irreeporsi-
bic under the law unless IL is proven that at
the time Of the commission OF the crime he
wss not able 10 know the nature and quality