The Birmingham age-herald., 1920-12-12
WADE GIVEN LIMIT OF THE LAW BY FORT
 IN MAYHEM CHARGE
(Continued from Page Fivc)

(Contfnued from Page Fivc) tion, and that you left your em moloy- ment and went to drinking, and that this drinking was on the morning of the alleged assault. to some extent. To what extent. the evidence did not dis- close, except there was testimony you had been drinking that day when the officers went out there.
 Now, the law does not recognize that man has the right to take the law into his own hands and to go and deliberately emasculate another man. however grevious may have been his fault, because if the law took that point of view, if the law reco gnized any such right on the part of any |citzen in the state, we would have, in- stead of civilization, savagery; we would have. instead of judicial deter imitation of right and wrong, which the courts are constituted to carry out in calm, impartial way, we would have nasty, cruel and extreme meas- ures of vengeance and redress.
 The law intends to protect every citizen in his rights; the law ioes throw it's shield about those who are wronged if they apply to the law in the right spirit, or to the courts in the right spirit, and come in and give every man who has injured you a chance to be heard before redress is inflicted.
 'I can conceive of few reasons of any kind why the offense of mayhem sucn as was committed in this case, would be extenuated by any circumstance Why? Because. in order to constitute mayhem, there must be malice; ther, must be deliberaton and intention; il must be a carefully worked out plan, and lin this case the evidence did disclose tha, | this man was handcuffed, at the poini of a pistol; was taken from your ia ither's store at some distance down the iblocll-half block-carried up to you own home, and there. in Spite of appeals made to staysyo hand; in spite of whai your own employe was endeavoring tt do to shield the victim, with his feet tiec with a strap. with a pistol there tc threaten life itself, with the aid or as sistance of another man-either of thu men in golved perhaps being more power ful than the man assaulted--he was. il 1 the course of half an hour. robbed O his sexual power |. .
 CRUEL VENGEANCE
 'sNow, just take that situation and consider for a moment what is best fol l public justice. What ought to be done Can man say that he has the right, il he is of sound mind, to take the law into his own hands and inflict cruel all. unusual punishment upon another, how ever wrong or guilty that man may have been? If that is. the law, if thai were the custom, why we would have frequently such cruel vengeance in flicted, and the defense that injury was committed to justify it, the courts woul' be of no use; justice would fail; every man would feel that he would have the right, in savage fashion, to destroy, tf maim. to injure for life,
 "Consequently, as 1 see the case. taking into consideration the fact that I believe you did, at the time, believe that this particular man injured you, the circum- stances were not sufficient in my tudg- ment,. to prove that he did, but you be- lieved evidently your wife, of whom you apparently were strongly jealous-whal reasons you had for that was not full.' disclosed by the evidence-but evidently you knew her as well, or better, than anyone else, and had reason to know whether or not her story, under compu'- sion and duress made to you on the morning of the tragedy. was true. re-
 liable and sufficient to give you real ground of grievance.
 "It is not the first time that man has been led into crime by woman whose conduct is not what it should be. It is not the first time that man has had
 to suffer on account of condition wrought by an evil influence; but there is just one thing that cannot be done m this country as long as we have govern ment-a man cannot go out and deiiber- ately inflict cruel and permanent injury upon another and then be justified un-
 les he was as matter of Iact insane
 WILFUL ACT
 Now. on that subject. 1 recognize
 that you were acting doubtlessly under strong passion, but sufficient time was given, sufficient appeals were made to you. sufficient opportunity given for
 reflection before the act was consum- mated-yet you wilfully, and as the jury found, maliciously inflicted the
 injury As to insanity, the law does not recognize emotional insanity not connected with a diseased mind. The law does not recognize that a man can go out and kill CT inflict se- rious injury on another because his
 temper got the better of him. because the jaw says you must control your temper: however great the provocation you must resort to law and to the courts.
 Insanity, as is known by the legal profession. as it is established in this state by able decisions, means that a man is afflicted with disease of the mind proper. as distinguished from sthe emotions. and where he is so in the grasp or power of that disease that he does not know right from wrong with reference to the particular act In ques- ton, or if he does know right from wrong. that his will power is so en- chained. is so overthrown by the strong controlling grip of the dis ease that he cannot restrain the do- ing of the act in question on account of that disease solely.
 T do not believe that the evidence in this case justified the view that the defendant was insane as the law understands insanity, I do not believe that it would be safe for the law to be otherwise, because IF the law was that a man could, on account of uncontrol- able passion, reek vengeance on an- other and not be insane at the time Tot afflicted with any disease. but