MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER OR MADNESS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XVI, Issue 5105, 16 August 1895, Page 3

MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER OR MADNESS.

THE OASE OF SOMERVILLE, [A Contributed Article.] There seems to be ft clear opinion on the parL of those who had 110 previoudjftiowledgo of the case, but who werfl present in the Supreme Court, Wellington, during the whole of the Somerville trial, that, on the flvidenco presented to it tlio Jury could not possibly bring in any other verdict than the one they did—(lnsanity. Thoso who dissent are '' either people who draw their conclusions from knowledge of tho man and the crime certainly not brought out in Court; or else are those who, bringing a professional mind to bear, maintain that the finding was not in strict accord with law. These latter point out, as the did—indeed, this was the esaenco of his obargo to the jurythat madness in the opinion of oxperts in lunacy does not necessarily constitute insanity as laid , down by law: that to be legally mad a person must bo absolutely unconscious that he is committing a crime —must havo no knowledge of the nature of the deed. This is exactly tlio point that affected the decision in Somerville's ensosuftbs Crown Prosecutor maintainefHßit the circumstances clearly indicated that the prisoner's act was not motiveless, there being a fancied wrong, and that the general and special surroundings plainly proved

that Somorville knew what he was 'doing. But the evidence on the defendant's side, as to his family history, his past life, aud his present condition, was in direct conflict with this; and tho medical testimony mora than endorsed the refutation of the arguments and deductions of the prosecution which ultimately ensued. The only conclusion that an impartial onlooker in the Court could come to was that tlio whole thing was merely a matter of degree: that ft man could be a criminal lunatic and still have some perception of what lie was doing, but that really the test—from a .doctor's point of view—lies in his appreciation of the gravity of the deed. A madman, iu his sense of realising the act, it seems, would use a knife, a crowbar, or a pistil, with less liesit&tionjjfcu lin ordinary person would nnderfffifilarconditions resort to his fists, and although he might not possess that absolute ignorance of tho performance of an act of retaliation or castigation that the law demands, ho could still consistently be quite unawaro of tho serious nature of his action—that he had committed a grievious crime, or that he was liable to condign punishment. Indeed, it is this absolute ignoranco of the penalty to bo paid—this very recklessness either as to result or as to tho possibility of any retribution—that the expert cites as one of the distinguishing features of impulsive insanity. Tho Judge had said that there can

be no question of manslaughter: that the prisoner must be declared either a roadman or a murderer. And the Jury, impressed also by the i general evidence,foltbound to accept tho positive opinions of medical men, backed up by an expert in lunacy, thus it Returned the verdict it did: Not Gwty on theground of Insanity. 'Aswimvc remarked, the Jury could only deal with thefacts brought before it in Court; and if there has been a miscarriage of justice it is in this direction it must be looked for—mind we don't say thero has been, although public opinion with its superficial knowledge loudly asserts as a positive fact what may after all prove to be only wrong conclusions drawn from faulty facts. 0 The counsel for Someiville, Mr E. G. Jellicoe, came to Court with a remarkably complete defence, he had unearthed a wonderful chain of evidence, and, with singularly sagacious witnesses he traced the prisoner's career from boyhood to the present day, upholding in evei;y respect the theory he undertook to demonstrate. Not a witness tripped him up—he bad a fair-wind passage; and with all his well-known adroitness he made the most of it. Had there been af>y doubt, Dr Fooks removed it. The Medical Superintendent of the Wellington Lunatic Asylum was Mr Jellicoe's trump card and lie played him at exactly the right momJEjr Three Doctors had been calledfwho said Somerville was insane. They inserted the rivet. Then came the expert, and he with Lis definite statements and positive science drove that rivet home with conviction to the jury and clenched

it. That was bow the case was wo by Mr Jcllicoe! It was in tlio preparatory stag* that the defence got such a lead, li Court, Mr Gujly was capable am clever, mho always is; but as Crovvi Prosecutor briefs only reach liin jhorfly before a'trial, and lie has ti depend to a considerable extent iipoi - the Police to properly work up th caso ijefore band, and to provide wit nesses and other material for tin jjglit, whereas counsel hai the privilege of' Skirmishing rouni for 'himself. In the instance of s gmart lawyer, who leaves 110 sfom pturned in the endeavour toi>ethi! pjienj) off and who glories in a sen success, this ad vantage is no ijeglected. Ip Someryille's trial th baa ammunition it need hardly b paid was not on the defending side "P» u'as litem ho rebutting medico eiiitfice I It must mean either tfaa none J&fsougbt-a very grave omis J;on..li the part of the Croryn-o else that Somervillc's disorder ijieut&l condition was so apparen incontrovertible tl|at nomedica man could be found to certify to hi ■ eanity. It is admitted that th Orown assumes every man is sail until be is proved otherwise, ye expert must be at hand to nice expert before any negative proof cai be accepted. Why, then, did n Doctor appear for the Crown ? Another element affecting the re suit in such a trial as Somervillo' fs ttyNfury. At best it is a seleciio: by chance—sometimes miscbanc iq 'that 'the' right of ck) lengo free)y exercised and _\y ' pometimes get, "instead, qf a per ' qeptive and discriminating bpdy o men absolutely above suspioion, i tribunal of very different oharacto , indeed one far from free o reproach. _ The Crown it is said lias 110 righ ' (jf a pnpjl against the verdict in J : criminlPpase such as Somerville's Still, the justice of the decision ear ■'!' yet he confirmed in a very simple manner. In subjecting him to the ' ordinary examination that as a candidate for the Lunatic Asylum will still' have touudorgo, other aoeto than those who appeared in . fte're&iit trial should be chosen- . jnen witti special'qualificatibn-and Jf independently, they 'give Somer; Ville 'a certificate' of entry little 06ubfc need theif"b# 'felt 'as to his . condition,

■ Aftor all, is it not often the case tbafc latent lunacy, previously unsuspected, is first made evident by some deed of violence-not necessarily the consummation of a tragedy such us Herbert's murder, but by somo frustrated offort at self-injury or attempt to do bodily harm to a fel-low-being, In one instance that we are acquainted with, amanapparently sano was subsequently found when symtoms of madness had developed, to have for months previous carried a loaded pistol about with him ready to discharge in an emergency, which would not have called forany resentment or self-protective measures on tlio part of any ordinary person, Fortunately no provocation had occurred, and the man's condition being detected as his mental aberration increased, ho was placed in a lunatic asylum for safe custody. Yet this mail with his pistoMiad walked the streets and associated with many people as a perfectly sano individual!

All this goes to prove that unless fresh evidence is forthcoming and new facts can be brought to light thero are absolutely no grounds for the unqualified condemnation of tho .fury's verdict which is being made by people whose knowledge of the circumstances must be by 110 means complete. Moreover, anyone who observed Somerville continuously during the throe days he sat in the prisoner's box in the Supreme Court—how lie kept his head rigid the whole time, looking neither "to the right nor to the left; spasmodically blinked his eyes, peering corner-ways through the apertures; how impassive in countenance, sleeping, or nearly so, during the Judge's summing-up ; and relapsing for the only timo into animation and joviality when such was most uncalled for, while immediately awaiting the verdict —anyone, we say, who thus noted Somerville's extraordinary demeanour—and the prisoner was plainly not acting -could not reasonably have any doubt as to his insanity. Then add the evidence and the incidents of the trial, and what other verdict than the one they did render could any intelligent jury be expected to return.