incident which is particularized has not appeared in evidence, then certainly it can have no bearing on the mental condition of the party, while, on the other hand, even if it have thus appeared, its effect must still be the same, unless supposed to be true. The opinion of the expert, therefore, touching the case on trial, must be formed upon a consideration of all the incidents, and whether he learns them from counsel who have picked them out of the evidence and stated them in their own words, or directly from the witnesses on the stand, the result must obviously be the same. The latter has this advantage, perhaps, that the statements of witnesses are necessarily affected in some degree, by their tones, gestures, and expression, and therefore are deprived of part of their value in passing through the mouth of another. § 525. It cannot be denied, however, that the course permitted by our courts is encumbered by a practical difficulty which should be carefully considered. It not unfrequently happens that discrepances and contradictions appear in the testimony, quite inconsistent with the idea of its being all true. Having no right to decide for himself, between the true and the false, what is the expert to do? We can only say that where these contradictions are of a trivial character and confined to subordinate points, they may be overlooked, apparently without any impropriety; but where they involve the main facts at issue, it is not easy to see how he can arrive at any conclusions without assuming the functions of the jury. In this contingency, he can only candidly state his embarrassment and show how the testimony clashes, describe the bearing which its several portions may have on his opinion, and leave the farther disposal of the matter to the court. § 526. It often happens, too, that the evidence, without involving any manifest contradiction of facts, bears the marks of high coloring, of exaggerated statement, or unintentional omissions. Different witnesses, we well know, seldom state the same facts precisely alike. There will be something either of addition or omission, in the testimony of each, calculated to leave an impression different from that produced by the rest. Here the expert is permitted, if not re quired, to make such allowances as are naturally made by every other person around him, otherwise he would be for ever debarred from giving an opinion in a judicial inquiry. But the expert must never forget, that it is the whole evidence on which his opinion must be founded, and if it be contradictory or deficient, he will best consult his own reputation and promote the ends of justice, by candidly stating the fact. Allison on the test of right and wrong, 20; on delusion, 20; on drunk- enness as an excuse for crime, 461. Arnold, case of, 10. Arithmetical acquirements, not proof of capacity, 76, 104. Association of ideas in the insane, 247. B. Barbier, case of homicidal insanity, 196. Barclay, case of, 97. Bagster, case of, 76. Beauquaire, his will established, 105. Beck, on McDonough's case, 449. Bell, on insanity from masturbation, 161; on the plea of insanity, 261; case of Colonel M., 160; case of simulation, 362. Bellingham, case of, 15, 37, 44. Ben Johnson's hallucination, 129. Bertet, case of, 257. Bichat, picture of old age, 292. Billings, Allis v., 263 et seq. Birdsell, case of, 466. Brain, small and diseased in idiocy, 52; the seat of mania, 109; how af- British and Foreign Medical Review on Miss Bagster's case, 77; on Brixey, case of, 195. Brown, Rev. Simon, his delusion, 136. Brown, Wm., case of, 186. Brougham, Lord, on the plea of insanity in criminal cases, 37; on the test Broussonnet, case of, 139. C. Campbell, Lord, on the plea of insanity, 37; on competency to testify, 427. Cartwright v. Cartwright, 336. Castelli, case of, 405 et seq. Character, change of, a proof of insanity, 115. Charolais, Count, case of, 74. Chitty, on right and wrong, 19; on moral insanity, 23. Classification of mental diseases, 3, 49. Coke on insanity, 3; on drunkenness, 454. Combe on change of character, 115; on lucid intervals, 332. Commission of lunacy, its proper duty, 5. Committees of physicians, apt to differ in their conclusions, 373 et seq. Conolly, definition of insanity, 131; on simulated insanity, 342, 359; Contracts of the insane, 7; of somnambulists, 414; of imbeciles, 106. Cory, decision in his case, 40. Cox, on moral mania, 143. Crawford, case of moral imbecility, 71. Crime, distinguished from passion, 25. Criminal law of insanity, why so slowly improved in England, 14; ex- pounded by English judges, 26 et seq.; debate on, in the House of Cumming, Mrs. allusion to her case, 373. Cunning, active in the insane, 21; in imbecility, 70. Curability of insanity at different periods, 315. D. D'Aguesseau on lucid intervals, 325, 334. · Davies, case of, 487 et seq. Deafness in old age, 292. Delay in trying cases of insanity, enjoined, 256. Delepine, case of, 89 et seq. Delirium tremens described, 438; cases of, 441 et seq. Delusions, considered as a test of insanity, 22; of monomaniacs, 135 et Denman, Lord, decision in Oxford's case, 26. Dennet and wife v. Dow, 296 et seq. Design not a test of insanity, 21. Dewy. Clarke, 235. Dewey, Judge, charge in Allis v. Billings, 270. Dipsomania, Esquirol on, 443; cases of, 443 et seq.; Marc on, 447. Donelly, case of, 427. Dolus and culpa in relation to drunkenness, 451, 455. Dreaming, compared with insanity, 247. Depression, alternating with excitement, 145 et seq. Drew, case of, 463. Dyce Sombre, case of, 373. E. Eccentricity, its relation to insanity, 114. Ecstasis, 409. Education of idiots, 54; neglected, a cause of ignorance, not imbe- Eldon, Lord, his definition of an unsound mind, 5; on lucid intervals, Epidemic character of homicidal insanity, 253 et seq.; of suicide, 395. Errington, case of, 22. Erskine, Lord, his objection to a verdict, 5; distinguishes between civil E. S., case of, 71. Esquirol, on hallucinations and illusions, 129; case of impaired language, Evans, on partial mania, 233, 425. Evidence of medical men, 44, 45. Excitement alternating with depression, 145 et seq. Experts, their duties defined, 44; the necessity of, illustrated, 301. |