Court Opinion

ID: 3552659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:04:48.548276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:21.419044
License: Public Domain

I think it is shown by proofs which fall little, if at all, short of demonstration, that the doctrine excluding the opinions of non-experts on the question of insanity has grown up in this state within the memory of men now living in the professional; that it had no place in *Page 253 
the common law brought here from England, nor in the jurisprudence or practice in this state, from the constitution down to a comparatively recent date; that it is contrary to reason, extremely difficult of application, and inconvenient in practice; that the great weight of judicial opinion and authority outside this state is against it; and that, even if we look at the condition of authority as shown by the expression of judicial opinion and practice in this state, the balance cannot fairly be said to be in favor of the rule. No titles are to be disturbed by adopting a rule more consonant with reason, and which accords with the almost universal practice in jurisdictions where the common law is used the world over. I therefore concur fully with my brother FOSTER in the conclusions at which he has arrived.
CUSHING, C. J., concurred.
Case discharged.