A. By no means. Q. Then did he not speak the truth? A. So far as the question is concerned, I have no doubt that he did. Q. He is deaf, is he not? A. I have no doubt he is; very deaf. Q. If he did not answer at all would you rather infer that he didn't hear or was sullen, than that he could not answer? A. I cannot say; it would depend upon other circumstances. Q. Would you infer that he was bewildered? A. If I inferred that he could answer some questions, and that he had answered as far as he could, and indicated embarrassment, I might, under some circumstances, infer that he was bewildered. But I don't think he could understand much if he did hear. Q. If he has been convicted by a court once, and by a court sentenced to the State Prison, do you not think he knows what a court is? A. I think he may know that this is a court, but I don't believe he knows what the effect of a court is. Q. Suppose him to have attended Wyatt's trial, last February, three days, would not that alter your opinion? A. It would not as to his capacity now for knowing the character or powers of this court. If he were here I don't think he heard. Q. Suppose he leaned forward and appeared to be listening? A. I don't think he heard from where they say he stood, unless his hearing was better then than it is now. JOSEPH L. RICHARDSON, (a member of the court,) was next called, and being sworn, testified: In September, 1840, I was first Judge of this county, and presided at the term at which one William Freeman was convicted of stealing a horse. I cannot positively state that the prisoner is the man who was then tried and convicted, but have not much doubt that he is. By reference to my minutes of that trial, I find that Martha Godfrey was the prosecutrix, and was a witness upon the trial. Marcus Doty and a colored man were also witnesses. It was proved on that trial that William Freeman was concerned in the offence, and he was convicted, and sentenced to confinement in the State Prison for five years. Mr. Seward here proposed to read the minutes of Judge R. to the jury. Objected to and objection sustained. DR. BLANCHARD FOSGATE, called and sworn, testified: I am a physician and surgeon, and reside in the village of Auburn. I commenced practice eleven years ago. On Monday, the sixteenth day of March last, I was called to visit the prisoner, who was then in jail, and to dress his arm. It had been severely wounded in the joint of the wrist, with some sharp instrument, which A. His whole appearance and behavior. Q. Did he appear the same as when he was arraigned? Q. What was there in his appearance and behavior at the time o raignment that made you think him insane? A. Why, his position, the expression of his face, his inability t stand much that was said to him-all was strange, and altogether h act like a sane man. Q. Did not you understand him? A. I think nobody could have understood much, nor do I believe make any body understand better than he did me. Q. Did you not understand him when in his cell? A. I did not fully, yet I finally made out some of his answers, testified. Q. If a month after you saw him in the cell he made others him, what would you think of that? A. I should think he was a different being from what he was him. Q. Was not his arraignment like other arraignments? Q. Wherein was it unlike others? A. When he was asked whether he demanded a trial, he an and when he was asked if he had counsel, he said, "I don't kn court directed the clerk to enter a plea for him. I had never arraignment before, and— Q. Would a guilty sane man, who knew that his offence cou want a trial? A. Some would; and I think any sane man would act and differently. Q. If a sane man did not know that he had counsel, would the prisoner did? A. A sane man would be likely to know whether he ha ployed or not. Q. If he were in doubt whether he had or had not retained he not express that doubt, if he said any thing? A. He might express it, but not in the manner the prison Q. Did his manner in court at the time of his arraignm sanity? A. It indicated that he had not changed for the better him in jail. Q. If a sane poor man were arra and could not pay counsel, would A. He would be Q. Do you Cour 233 kindly titude, r about iced of ons as to any case e eleven dical Solicine. 1 which I › carriage now. He he replies ew the in the natural after murhe would be nd the natun all the con is hand was ep it was cut. how he indi I presume was a knife. The tendons were cut off down to the radial artery. The artery itself was not wounded. [For also read not, in fourth line of page 49.] The wound was a bad one, and needed care. It had received one dressing then, but the bandages were displaced, and his arm and hand were considerably swollen. The adhesive straps were in their places, but had become very tight from swelling. I removed them and dressed the wound. In three days I called again and dressed it, and then there was considerable swelling. After the dressing it continued to get better. Whilst there, several circumstances attracted my attention. At my first visit he appeared very morose and perfectly indifferent. I concluded that as there were persons continually coming to the grating and calling him names, that that was the reason of his moroseness. People standing there, so much darkened the grate that it was with difficulty I could see to dress his hand. On my next visit I observed that his demeanor had changed. He had an idiotic smile on his face, without any perceptible cause. He seemed to manifest no sense of pain. He seemed to have no conversational powers, and answered only in monosyllables. I asked him if he had enough to eat. He said Yes. I asked what they gave him. He said pork. I asked what else. He said potatoes. I asked what else. He said bread. He had heavy irons on his feet. I inquired whether his feet were hurt. He said No. I asked whether there was pain in his arm from the wound. He said No. I asked how many blankets he had to sleep on. He said two. I inquired if his hand was better. I remember no reply, but he never complained. He never asked whether it was better; whether it would get well, or whether he would ever recover the use of his hand; nor did he even speak to me unless spoken to. Dr. Hurd asked him what he killed those folks for; whether he went for money. He replied, "They put me in State Prison." Dr. Hurd repeated the question. I heard no reply. I look upon him as a person who is sinking into idiocy. I think he does not comprehend the idea of right and wrong-that he has no moral sense of accountability. As to his capacity to distiniguish between the consequences of killing a man or a beast, I should think it was immaterial to him; and that he was incapable of distinguishing between the moral consequences of the two acts. I think him incapable of comprehending his situation and accountability. My reasons for this opinion are, his insensibility to pain, for he must have suffered a very great degree of pain, judging from others in similar circumstances; his never inquiring relative to the prospect of his hand recovering, seeing he had to live by work; his irresistible propensity to laugh, under the circumstances in which he is placed, his laugh amounting only to a smile; his indifference to remorse or fear; and his indifference to sympathy. I recollect telling him one day, if he wanted any thing, and would let me know, I would get it for him; or if he was sick, and would tell the jailer to send for me, I would come up; and although I spoke as kindly as I should to one of my own children, he made no manifestation of gratitude, nor did he say any thing in reply. CROSS EXAMINATION.-I have practised ten or eleven years. For about four years I had regular practice; the remainder of the time I practiced officially. When I was practicing without going out, by giving opinions as to patients or diseases, I was in the drug business. I gave opinions on any case brought before me. I was licensed to practice, and took my degree eleven years ago. Four or five years ago I became a member of the Medical Society in this county. My degree gave me authority to practice medicine. I don't recollect whether there was any thing else, of note, on which I founded my opinion, without it is the similarity of his manner-the carriage of his head, motions and actions-to other insane persons whom I know. He holds his head in a dejected position, merely raising his eyes when he replies to questions. I do not recollect any thing else from which I drew the inference that he was insane. I presume he now holds his head in the natural position of persons in his condition of mind. I think a sane man, after murdering four people, would sometimes hold his head up. Whether he would be talkative or silent, would depend upon his disposition and habits, and the natural character of his mind. As near as I can recollect, I have given all the conversation that I swore to on the former trial. I think he said his hand was better. He tried to move it, at my direction. I asked how deep it was cut. He gave me to understand that the joint moved. I cannot say how he indicated it—whether by talking, or showing me his hand. I swore before that I asked if he slept warm, and he said Yes. I at one time asked if he had enough to eat. I do not know whether he had pork, or bread, or potatoes. I infer insanity from every thing together; not from those answers alone. All the answers I knew of, were correct, with the exception relative to pain. I did not infer that he was a brute. I take him to be a human being, with some intellect, and that in a measure deranged. I consider idiocy a species of insanity. I know Dr. Brigham. When I know he is correct, I think he is good authority. When my own knowledge does not contradict his opinion, I think his authority as to insanity is of the very highest order. I understand idiocy to be partial dementia, or entire dementia, or fatuity. If Dr. Brigham thought differently, I should think the difference consisted mainly in a different classification of diseases. If the law should say that idiocy was not insanity, then I should think that the law could not impose any rules or regulations upon the human constitution, as it is given by the Almighty, and would not make any difference with the fact. I think the fact of his indifference to pain, taken with every thing else, is evidence of derangement. A sane person, suffering as he must have done, would not have endured it without complaint. If it should be proved that he complained of pain, and requested a doctor, it would not change my mind. I said I didn't think he knew the difference between killing a man |