Q. Can you not conceive of such a being?

A. Not a being that I should call a man.

Q. Have you not seen a man bereft of all moral sense?

A. Not perfectly bereft of all moral sense, unless this man be one.

Q. Suppose him hard of hearing?

A. Although he might not hear he would manifest some desire to know what was going on.

Q. If a man were so deaf as not to know what was going on, would it be remarkable if he were inattentive?

A. It would be remarkable that he remained in that position without endeavoring to know what was going on.

Q. Does he not stoop forward as if giving attention and trying to hear? A. I said that I had noticed his stooping forward.

Q. Is there any thing singular in that?

A. Nothing singular in his stooping forward, but I think it singular that he remains so long in that position, and holds his arms as he does.

Q. If you should be told that both of his arms were wounded, would that make any difference in your opinion?

A. It would; yet he would not then hold them as he does. It would depend somewhat as to where they were wounded.

Q. Have you examined him in court to see where he is wounded?

A. I have out, but not in court.

Q. You have spoken of his smile. Do you know that he smiles without a cause?

A. I don't know that he smiles without any cause. I have said that his smile was indicative of unsoundness of mind.

Q. Can you not give the reason?

A. I can. If he possessed a perfect understanding of the relation he sustains here, and had a perfect moral sense, he would not smile as he does. Q. Suppose he had a perfect understanding, would he then be a sane man?

A. I suppose perfect sanity requires the healthful exercise of all the faculties.

Q. Suppose he had the possession of all his faculties, and saw a court and jury engaged six days in trying him, and very eminent counsel engaged in endeavoring to prove him to be insane, would it be remarkable that he should smile?

A. I think it would be, that he should smile as much as he does. RE-EXAMINATION.-On the morning of the second day of July, to which the court had been adjourned, the witness was interrogated by the counsel for the prisoner, as follows:

Q. Suppose you had found the prisoner unable to read, and yet believing that he could, would you regard that fact as bearing upon the question of his sanity?

A. I should regard it as one indication of insanity.

Q. Suppose that when he pretended to read he was told he could not read, but insisted that he did read, how would that bear upon the question? A. I should regard that, also, as indicative of unsoundness.

Q. Suppose he knew his letters and thought he could read, and when shown the word "Thompson" he called it "Cook," and when shown the word "admirable" he called it "woman?"

A. I should regard that, also, as evidence of insanity.

Q. Suppose a man at the age of twenty-two, brought up in this country, who can count twenty-eight, and then passes to the mention of other numbers, irregularly?

A. I should regard that, also, as evidence of unsoundness.

Q. Suppose he should be asked how much twice three was, and he answered "sixty-four ?"

A. In the same light; as one proof of an insane mind.

Q. Suppose him to have committed the butchery of four persons, and when asked why he did it, he should answer, "I had my work to do?" A. That would be evidence of the same character.

Q. If asked why he did not begin at another house, he answered, “I did not think it time to begin yet?"

A. The same.

Q. If he said he had been unjustly sent to prison for five years, and he knew the persons whom he had slain had no connection with the affair? A. I should regard that as evidence of delusion; a misjudging; the assumption of false facts.

Q. Is delusion a symptom of insanity?

A. It is a prominent trait of an insane mind.

Q. Suppose a person in childhood to have been smart, playful, lively and active, and to have possessed his hearing; to have been at sixteen confined in a State Prison five years, to come out dull, stupid and ignorant; to speak generally only in answer to questions, and then only by yes or no, or in the simplest form; unable to take up a narrative and relate it without being prompted by leading questions, what would it indicate?

A. I should regard it as evidence of insanity.

Q. Suppose a person who had been sent to the State Prison five years ago, should go to the party upon whose evidence he had been convicted, and thereupon being asked what he wanted, should say he did not know; should eat there, and afterwards kill four other persons?

A I should regard that, also, as evidence of unsoundness.

Q. Suppose a person who had slaughtered four persons who had not in any way injured him, should answer, in respect to the deed, that he thought he was doing right?

A. That would be an evidence of unsoundness.

Q. Suppose such a person to be in jail for such an act, and when asked

what he expected would become of him, he should answer that he expected to go to heaven because he was good, what would that indicate?

A. It would indicate a delusion.

Q. Suppose a person under indictment for murder should say that he meant to kill all he could?

A. I should regard it in the same view.

Q. Suppose you found such a person on trial for his life, remaining three entire days without making one word of inquiry as to the cause, so deaf he could not hear a word, sound asleep after going out of court?

A. That, also, I should regard as evidence of insanity.

Q. Suppose you found his pulse variable, and ranging from sixty-seven to one hundred and fifteen, what would that indicate?

A. It would be an indication of insanity.

Q. Suppose he had an aunt who had died of insanity, and an uncle living who had been ten years insane, would the knowledge of the fact strengthen your convictions of insanity that were occasioned by his appearance?

A. I should regard it as a corroboration, as insanity is often hereditary. Q. If he should say his hearing was knocked off and went down his throat, what would you infer from that?

A. I should regard that as evidence of delusion.

Q. If the person having been in prison five years and discharged by expiration of sentence, should, upon breaking his knife, say he was to be taken back five years for that offence, what would that indicate?

A. It would indicate unsoundness of mind.

Q. If he should get up in the night, talk about his wrongs, sing, dance and go through a mummery as if trying to read, what would that indicate? A. I should regard such actions as evidence of unsoundness.

Q. If he had slaughtered four persons within three miles of this town; should then make flight on horses to a place where he was well known; then desist from further flight; offer to sell his horse, and be entirely unconcerned about being taken, what bearing would that have on the question?

A. I should regard that as evidence of unsoundness.

Q. Suppose that when arrested and charged with the crime of murder by the officers, he quietly proceeded to finish his supper?

A. That would at least be very unnatural.

Q. If he had received a severe wound on his wrist by which a tendon had been cut off, and were chained with a heavy iron on his ankles that pressed very unequally, and yet made no complaint of it, what would such a condition indicate?

A. If would be very unnatural, and would indicate unsoundness.

Q. Suppose he lived a mile from his sister's house, and should frequently run there with great violence; when there he should speak to no person; but after staying a minute or two, turn and run back to the place whence he started, what would such freaks indicate?

A. They would indicate aberrations of mind.

Q. If he killed, for revenge, a family in no wise connected with the cause of his injury, would that circumstance have any influence on the question ? A. It would. I should think it very unnatural, and that it was an evidence of unsoundness. [Witness was further examined by Mr. Seward and cross examined by Mr. Van Buren at great length, on the subject of insanity, his theory concerning it and the grounds of his opinion of the prisoner's mind, but the remainder of his testimony was in substance the same as upon the traverse. See trial.]

DR. CHARLES B. COVENTRY, Sworn for the prisoner, testified as follows: I am a physician, and reside at Utica. Am the professor of medical jurisprudence at Geneva College. I visited the prisoner in the jail, yesterday, when Dr. Bigelow was there. I made such an examination of him as, together with that made in my presence by Dr. Bigelow, satisfied me that his mind was impaired.

Q. In your opinion is the prisoner sane or insane?

A. It is my opinion that he is insane.

CROSS EXAMINATION.-Dr. Bigelow has testified to much that took place at the examination of the prisoner. So far as he went in his account of it I think his statement was correct. Dr. B. also asked the prisoner whether a trial was not going on in the court house. He said he did not know. He said he thought he saw some person sworn. Dr. B. asked the prisoner what compensation he would accept for his claim while in the State Prison. He said he didn't know. He was then shown my gold watch by Dr. Bigelow, and asked if he would accept that. He answered No. He was then asked if he would take a thousand dollars. He answered No. He was asked if he stopped at any other house except Van Nest's. He said he did, at the house this side. He was asked why he did not go in. He replied that the door was fast. I recollect of nothing more that was said which was not related by Dr. Bigelow.

Q. Are you aware that it is a very common notion among convicts that they are entitled to pay for their services whilst in prison, particularly if innocent?

A. I was not, before coming here as a witness to attend this trial. Mr. Townsend and Dr. Bigelow have so testified, I believe.

Q. Was there any remark of his that indicated insanity except that about pay?

A. There were several that were indicative of weakness of intellect, but the delusion about pay was the prominent one.

Q. Do you remember any other remark indicating delusion?

A. I do not remember any, unless in connection with the desire for pay. Q. Was not that examination a very unsatisfactory one to form an opinion from?

A. No, sir, I think not.

Q. How do

you

define insanity?

95

A. It is not capable of any short, concise definition that would embrace all species of insanity. Insanity, strictly speaking, is a symptom of a deranged function of the brain, or some portion of it. In all cases there is a defect, either original or the effect of disease.

Q. Which of these defects occurs in the prisoner?

A. Perhaps I shall be better understood if I give you the divisions. Original defects of the brain constitute idiocy, and are most frequently accompanied with a malformation of the head. This is one form of insanity. The second form is where the brain is not originally defective, but imperfectly developed. This constitutes imbecility. The third form is where the intellect was originally perfect, but where from disease or other cause the functions of the brain are destroyed. This constitutes dementia. The fourth form of insanity is mania. This is accompanied with an exalted state of the brain. Mania may be divided into general mania, intellectual mania, and moral mania. Intellectual and moral mania may be divided into general mania and partial mania.

Q. Having given the divisions of insanity, under what head do you class the prisoner?

A. His appears to be a mixed case of dementia and partial mania.

Q. Do you think yourself competent to detect dementia without knowing the previous condition of the patient?

A. I cannot speak positively, without knowing his former history, as to whether the case is one of dementia or imbecility.

Q. From your brief examinations would it be safe to infer that the prisoner has dementia and partial mania, without knowing his former mental condition?

A. It would be safe to infer that he has dementia or imbecility.

Q. On what authority do you give your classification of insanity?

A. Guy's Medical Jurisprudence.

Q. In a case of imbecility from an imperfectly developed brain, can you say whether it arises from a neglected education or from disease?

A. I cannot, in all cases.

Q. Is incoherence a common symptom of dementia?

A. It cannot be said to be a common, but it is a frequent attendant of dementia.

Q. Is a defective memory a common symptom?

A. It is a frequent, but not a common one.

Q. Is an apparent inability to give attention to a subject a common symptom?

A. It is.

Q. Were you aware, at the time you made your examination, that the prisoner was deaf or partially so?

A. I was, sir.