Autres éditions - Tout afficher
Trial of Charles B. Huntington for Forgery: Principal Defence: Insanity
Charles Benjamin Huntington,James T. Roberts
Affichage du livre entier - 1857
60 Wall street accused alleged amount arrest asked Augustus L bank Barry believe bills Bishop Bishop & Co Bowyer Brady Bryan called cent charge Charles Belden collaterals committed counsel Court crime criminal defence of insanity deponent disease District Attorney Dodge dollars endorsed evidence examined fact firm forged paper forgery gave Gentlemen give guilty Halsey handwriting Harbeck Harbeck & Co horses Huntington indictment innocence intellectual intent to defraud judge juror jury justice knew learned friend loan mean mind monomania months moral insanity never notes Noyes opinion paid Parker party person Phelps present prisoner prosecution proved punishment question Randel reason received recollect reference sane signature suppose sworn tell testimony Thwing tion told transactions trial triers usury Wall street William H witness wrong Yonkers York
Page 430 - ... to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
Page 430 - What is the law respecting alleged crimes committed by persons afflicted with insane delusion in respect of one or more particular subjects or persons : as, for instance, where at the time of the commission of the alleged crime the accused knew he was acting contrary to law, but did the act complained of with a view, under the influence of insane delusion, of redressing or revenging some supposed grievance or injury, or of producing some supposed public benefit?
Page 260 - What are the proper questions to be submitted to the jury, where a person alleged to be afflicted with insane delusion respecting one or more particular subjects or persons, is charged with the commission of a crime (murder, for example), and insanity is set up as a defence?" And, thirdly, "In what terms ought the question to be left to the jury as to the prisoner's state of mind at the time when the act was committed?
Page 469 - ... notwithstanding the party accused did the act complained of with a view, under the influence of insane delusion, of redressing or revenging some supposed grievance or injury, or of producing some public benefit, he is nevertheless punishable, according to the nature of the crime committed, if he knew, at the time of committing such crime, that he was acting contrary to law, by which expression we understand your lordships to mean the law of the land.
Page 107 - Hamlet wrong'd Laertes ? Never Hamlet : If Hamlet from himself be ta'en away, And, when he's not himself, does wrong Laertes, Then Hamlet does it not, Hamlet denies it. Who does it then ? His madness ; if 't be so, Hamlet is of the faction that is wrong'd ; His madness is poor Hamlet's enemy.
Page 430 - The jury ought to be told, in all cases, that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary is proved...
Page 431 - ... he must be considered in the same situation as to responsibility as if the facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real. For example, if, under the influence of his delusion, he supposes another man to be in the act of attempting to take away his life, and he kills that man, as he supposes, in self-defence, he would be exempt from punishment.
Page 430 - Lordships' inquiries are confined to those persons who labor under such partial delusions only, and are not in other respects insane, we are of opinion that, notwithstanding the party accused did the act complained of with a view, under the influence of insane delusion, of redressing or revenging some supposed grievance or injury, or of producing some public benefit, he is nevertheless punishable according to the nature of the crime committed, if he knew...