Dresden enterprise and Sharon tribune. (Dresden, Tenn.) 1907-1997, 1916-03-17
IN FAMOUS GROOMs- RACHES SUIT,

night, for which act he was tried anc
acquitted on plea Of insanity. Onthe
otherhand, the proof showed in mat
ter OF business he was thoroughly ca
pable OF contracting, and SO held and
the case was never appealed, although
several thousand dollars were involv'
ed. Now, a number OF witnesses In
troduced by compliments relate 9
number 81 incidents and circumstan'
ces from which they conclude that ht
was insane, but where is the witness
that says that hs was 80 deranged-
such ali imbecile- -or his mind SO inn
paired that he was incapable Of max
ing a binding contractS Where is the
witness that says that his wild look d
the eye or his outburst Of temper OF
his inability to properly draw legal
papers, was constant and continuous
and covered the period OF the transac-
ton in question? recall that sew
eral witnesses Of complainant say that
at the particular time detailed they
considered him unsoudd.
The law is we'll settled that when a
man is insane, but has lucid intervals
the presumption is, in the absence OF
proof, that the contract was executed
during a lucid interval. Is there a
single witness in this case says Esq.
Rachels was permanently insane?
And if there is such proof, isn't the
evidence overwhelming that this is
not the case? From notes made as
were being read, find
that twenty-five witnesses testify that
Esq. Rachels was insane. Some OF
these witnesses base their conclusion
on the fact that he was lost at some
particular time; some on the fact that
at particular time he looked wild
out OF his eyes: some on the fact that
particular times he could not draw
legal papers, etc., and they may be
correct in their conclusions, but from
these circumstances would the court
be justified in holding that he was in
sane all the time, and that he was the
time in question incapable OF making
a binding contract? OF these twenty
FIVE Witnesses / find that fifteen were
related to compliments either by mar
rage or by blood, or are parties to the
suit. On the other hand, defendants
have introduced sixty witnesses, only
four Of whom are either interested or
related to defendant, who testify that
at the time in question Esq. Rrchels
was Of sound mind. To say least
Of it, these sixty witnesses had just as
good an opportunity to Judge Of the
mental condition Of this man as the
complainants and their witnesses
had. They represent the best citizens
in the county men OF experience and
affairs-many Of them close friends,
associates in county matters, neigh
bors, residents OF the same locality,
and many of them with whom Esq,
Rachels was trading and dealing. Is
it possible that all OF these men could
be mistaken and the complainants
witnesses correct2 Taking all the
facts and circumstance, think the
proof is overwhelming on this issue.
There is another very strange circum-
stance. 1t is insisted by complainants
that Esq, Rachels was insane for many
years. The proof shows that during
these years he had a great many
business transactions, yet there is not
a suggestion, so fer 80 recall, where
it is ever claimed that ne laade bad
contract other than the one inquestion.
There is one witness Mays-that testi-
fed that Esq. Rachels was unsound,
based on the fact that ESQ. Rachels
sold him COW for SIS. 90 that was worth
$500, ! have disregarded this testi-
mony for the reason that ! do not
believe man is worthy Of credit who
would swindle an insane person.
There is a theory upon which the