THE DEFENCE.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14829, 21 November 1913, Page 7

THE DEFENCE.

INSANITY ALLEGED. In opening for the defence Mr Donnelly .said that when counsel was asked by the Crown to defend a man in prisoner's position, it was his duty as a member of the Bar to do the best ho could for the accused. It would bo absurd for any counsel to endeavour to disturb the main facts of the case that the accused had attacked Mrs Lilley. But- as the Crown Prosecutor had pointed out all killing was not. murder, and it was for the jury to say whether accused came within the definition quoted as to the mental responsibility for the act. He would produce evidenco to show that at the time ho committed the act accused was not mentally responsible. It would be shown that accused came from tainted stock, and was also addicted to vicious habits. The attack on the woman was the result of one insane act on the part of accused.

Henry Biddlo, of Wellington, father of the prisoner, gave evidence that his mother s brother died in an asylum in England, where he had been for forty years. Witness's wife's brother poisoned himself at Wellington. These were the only two in the- family who wero mentally deficient.

To Mr Stringer: His son went to school at Wellington, and reached tho fourth standard. He left school when he was 12 or 13, and went to sea. Accused was a dull boy, and of a quiet disposition, the only one in the family. He had never noticed anything eccentric about the accused.

Dr. W. H. Symes gave evidence that he examined the accused on Saturday last, also the previous day. On the second occasion Dr. Newell, was with him. Tho accused at present was suffering from the effects of arsenical poison. There was distinct evidenco that accused was addicted to vicious habits. He did not consider the accused insane, but he belonged to the class known as the feeble-minded, and his history showed there . was degeneracy in both branches of the family. He did not suggest that the accused came within the legal standard of non-responsibility laid down. His Honour said the only value therefore of Dr. Symes's evidence and researches into the accused's family history would be for other purposes subsequent to the trial. As far as tho jury was concerned, there was nothing to go to them. The Jaw did not allow of elaborate speculations; it laid.down a definite standard, which Dr. Symes said did not apply to the accused." The man was sane in the eye of the law. Continuing, Dr. Symes said the accused was an undersized man with a poorly developed chest. -- His head was rather below the average size The brain appeared to be 1-13 smaller than the ordinary average brain. That was an approximate indication. The shape of the head was good, with the exception of a narrowness at the forehead. He answered questions intelligently, but slowly, and with hesitation. His memory was slightly defective, and he was certainly untruthful, for he alleged on one occasion he had not slept the nicht before, whereas the gaol "attendants said he had. The accused had also led a solitary life, and was averse to society. He belonged to the type known as morally feeble-minded. Witness then proceeded to offer an

explanation of the crime. The characteristic feature of the mental disorder accompanying the trouble from -which accused suffered way a tendency to uncontrollable acts of violence. He attributed tho crime to :i combination in the accused of vrith vice. At the moment tho murder was committed, the accused was probably unconscious of tho nature of the act, but that did not apply to the pe"™ ot premeditation before tho actual blow. There was a. great deal of evidence to show that at the commission oi similar crimes consciousness and conscience were susnended. To Mr* Donnelly: His opinion was that at the actual time accused strucK Mrs Lilley he did not know the nature and quality of his act. and did notknow right from wrong at ihat time. To his Honour: The sudden thwartI ing of accused's desire by the resistance of the woman would produce a nerve storm which temporarily obliterated consciousness, mental and moral. To Mr Donnelly: He would not use the word insane. An epileptic patient in a.fit was not conscious, but was not insane. , . To Mr Stringer: Up to the moment i of th& act of violence, accused's conduct was quite rational, but in a moment of passion his consciousness wa* temporarily suspended. Having regard to the definition of insanity laid down in tho code, he considered the accused responsible. He referred to his conduct just tiefore the 'blow was struck. . To his Honour: He thought accused was unconscious of the nature and quality of the act at the time ho struck the blow, not mentally unconscious, but morally. Mr Stringer: Do you think that he was responsible in the eyes of the law according to the definition laid down. Witness: Yes. Mr Donnelly: Did he know the nature and quality of the act at the time ho struck the woman. Witness: I don't think so. I think he had no sense of right or wrong. At this stage the Court adjourned (or lunch. When the Court resinned, Mr Donnelly stated that he had closed his case. ADDRESS FOR THE DEFENCE. Addressing tho jury, Mr Donnelly contended ho had shown that, accused carno from a tainted family, and that on both sides close down -there was a, strong strain of insanity. Ho had also shown that accused was addicted to a vice which had a*great influence on tho nervous system, of which tho brain formed part. The two sets of circumstances had pioduced in tho man a state of irresponsibility. That the man was irresponsible was further shown by the fact that immediately after tho tragedy he had attempted, to take liis own life. He asked tho jury to infer, therefore, that the accused was insane at the time he committed the offence. The, fact that tho man was .lane sometimes did not prove ho was sane when the tragedy happened. According to Dr. Symes the man did not know .the nature and quality of the act at the time he assart ltod thb womaii. All the defence had to show was that tho man was not sane at th© time he committed the crime. The fact of acquittal, on the ground of insanity; would not mean that the man would go free, but that he would he kept in custody for a long time to come." Ho maintained that the defenco of insanity had been fully made out. FOR ' THE CROWN. Mr Stringer, in tho course of his address for the prosecution, said the jury should not depend upon medical theories alone. The doctrine of brain storm and inevitable impulses had been a subject of criticism for years. Mr Stringer was proceeding to read extracts from "Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence," when Mr Donnelly objected, on the ground that a book which contained merely opinions of the writer was not evidence. . ._ . Mr Stringer quoted from the Evidence Act to show that any work of authority could be used. Continuing, Mr Stringer quoted aoi authority In which it was laid down that a clear distinction must be drawn between impulses which were not resisted and those, which were irresistible. In the present caso. Dr. Symes eaid that prior to the blow the man was sane, but that he Avas not in full consciousness when he struck tho blows. That, however, was a pure theory, and the facts did not bear it out. The man's own confession showed that he knew what was going.on; he appreciated what he had done, and the motive that would be alleged, and, in fact, he was fully conscious of what he was doing. The fact that the man came of tainted stock really did not affect the present case. That, with the other medical evidence given, might weigh with those to whom was ,referred the matter of exacting tho extreme penalty. It did not concern the jury at all. The fact that the man attempted to commit suicide after the murder-did not indicate insanity, but rather the reverse. It was the natural act of a man who realised what he had done. HIS HONOUR SUMS UP. In summing up his Honour emphasised the seriousness of the duty cast upon the jury. Tho case lie said, was peculiar in that the jury was relieved of the burden of determining whether there was a murder, whether the accused committed it, and bo on. Tho facts were undoubted, and the only question was whether the jury had been ( convinced that the man was irresponsible for his action. .Nothing had caused greater argument than as to what constituted insanity. It was with a view to putting anend to that uncertainty and having a clear standard, that the law was enacted that had been quoted earlier. If the accused was capable of knowing tho nature and quality of his act and that it was wrong he -was sane in law, no matter what medical theories . might bo put forward. Biddle was a degenerate, and his habits tended to develop a condition of erotic sensuality. There was no doubt that his actions were of a deliberately purposeful character. There was no evidence that he 'had ever been intellectually abnormal. Hβ had learned accidentally tnat the husband was not at home, and lie had gone to the house with a specious and ingenious story, and almost tho only excuse that a. woman would find for leaving her house and children at that time of night. The motive could only have been for a criminal purpose. Tho jury-did not know whether the act had been committed, but it was clear that the woman had been done to death after a struggle. In the face of the accused's statement it was a question whether he had lost his moral or mental consciousness. Ho was evidently cool enough to have moved his bicycle, although he did not remove the hammer. It 'fas absurd to suggest that every man who committed suicide or [ attempted it was insane. Often a man deliberately cho.se something he believed to bo better than life. If the jury were of opinion that at the time the man committed the act he did not know right from wrong they would acnuit him. If not, , they would convict him. It would be a dangerous thing to hold that purposeful acts could be overcome by the theory of a brain-wave causing xinconsciousness. After a quarter of an hoar's retirement. the jury returned a verdict . of "Gnilty of wilful murder." The accused sprawled ovor the front of the dock, and his hands worked convulsively. In reply to the question as to whether he had anything to say why sentence of death should not be pro- i nounced, accused said "No." SENTENCE OF DEATH. The usual proclamation preceding the passing of a death sentence was made by the crier. "His Honour plao&d the black cap

upon his head and, addressing tho prisoner, said:—"You , have been convicted of a murder as to the character of which I do not propose to comment. All I havo to do is to pass on you the only sentence which the law permits. The sentence of the Court is that you bo taken to the place of execution, and there hanged by the neck until you are dead." The prisoner received tho sentence in silence, and was lifted out of the dock by the two warders.