United States v. Shults. operate as stated in the point, and we think the learned judge dealt with it properly in declining to affirm it. From a careful scrutiny of the whole case, we are constrained to say that we see no error in the record, and that we have no power to save the prisoner from the legal consequences of his acts. But we cannot dismiss the case without expressing astonishment at the criminal apathy on the part of a number of persons, men and women, who witnessed the assaults of the prisoner on the deceased, which resulted in death, without an effort to save her. This is as unusual amongst our people as it is unaccountable in this instance. We notice it to condemn it, not through any apprehensions that the example is likely ever to be followed. Our people, with this exception, have too much generosity and courage for this. Judgment affirmed and record remitted. EVIDENCE OF ACTS SHOWING SANITY. UNITED STATES v. SHULTS. [6 McLean, 121.] United States Circuit Court, Ohio, October Term, 1854. Before Hon. JOHN MCLEAN, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 1. Insanity-Test of Punishability. — An individual is liable to punishment when he can discriminate a right from a wrong act. 2. - Evidence of Acts Showing Sanity. - When insanity is set up as a defence, his liability to punishment is best ascertained by considering his acts. Thus, when a person is charged with theft of money, evidence of his concealment of the offence, his endeav ors to elude the officers of justice, and his use of the money stolen, goes far to show that he is sane, and to contradict contrary theories as to the state of his mind. This is an indictment against the defendant, charging him, while employed in carrying the mail of the United States, on a horse route, with the abstraction of certain letters, which contained bank-notes and other articles of value. Plea not guilty - jury sworn. John Keller, who is postmaster at Mount Ephraim post-office, Noble county, in Ohio, states that the defendant carried the mail from Sarahville, in Noble County, to Washington, in Guernsey County, a distance of twenty miles. In June, latter part, or first of July, witness mailed United States v. Shults. two letters for California, which were forwarded to the distributing office at Wheeling or Cleveland, directed to Nicewall. The envelope was returned to witness as being found in the road more than a month after it was mailed. The second letter was reported to have been found on defendant's route. Another letter was found on the same route, which had been mailed on the 6th or 7th of June. Mr. Chance says there must have been two violations of the mail while defendant carried it, which was about a week. Witness found a letter on the route on Friday after defendant commenced carrying the mail on the route. Another letter was found on the route which must have passed through the office of witness. Mr. Forman is postmaster at Senecaville. He designates a letter picked up on the route; another letter found on the road must have been a letter forwarded in the mail. Other witnesses proved that other letters were found on the route, which had been mailed by the postmasters on the route, and which, from their face, purported to have contained money. William Young saw defendant first of June, and received from him a debt of sixty or seventy dollars. He had a watch, and witness asked him how he got so much money; he replied that he had sold a colt for $60. Witness exchanged with him $10, giving silver for paper; next day he came and bought $30 in gold from witness. Mr. Renderneck arrested the defendant near Marietta, in a wood boat, at which time he admitted that he had taken from the mail $76. Several witnesses were examined to show mental imbecility in the defendant, so as to be incapable of committing a crime; and his defence rested on this ground. Several medical gentlemen were examined, who differed somewhat in their opinions, some of them stating that in their view he was not a proper subject of punishment. In the charge to the jury, the Court (MCLEAN, J.,) said: There seems to be no doubt that during the short time the defendant carried the mail he repeatedly violated it by abstracting letters from it. This is established by the numerous letters picked up on or near the route, which had been mailed at one of the post-offices on the route, or were carried on it; and by the confession of the defendant that he had taken from the mail $76. He was destitute of money before he was employed as carrier, after which it appears he had money to a considerable amount. All this evidence is uncontradicted, and the only ground of defence is mental imbecility. This defence has often been made, and much has been said and written upon the subject. Nothing is more common than for medical men to differ as to the fact of insanity, which should exculpate an individual Relevant to show Sanity. from punishment. Where the insanity is in a degree which destroys the reasoning faculty, there can be no difference of opinion amongst professional men or jurors. But where the individual is subject to occasional aberrations of mind, or where the mind seems to be under peculiar excitement and error on a particular subject, as is often the case, and rational on other subjects, or where the individual reasons illogically and strangely, which brings him to results in action which violate the law; in all these cases, and others which might be enumerated, a close investigation is required, and a wise discrimination should be exercised. In such cases, the important fact to be ascertained is, whether the person charged can discriminate between right and wrong. If he be unable to do this, he is not a proper subject of punishment. And this fact can be best ascertained, not by any medical theory, but by acts of the individual himself. Every person who commits a crime reasons badly. The propensity to steal in some persons is hard to resist. Where the moral development is weak and the passion of acquisitiveness strong, it will often prevail. This, in one sense, may be evidence of a partial insanity, but still the person is a proper subject of punishment. And there is no other test on this point, except the knowledge of the individual between right and wrong. And this knowledge is best ascertained by the acts of the individual in the commission of the offence, and subsequently. Does the individual commit the offence by embracing the most favorable opportunity, in the absence of witnesses, and under circumstances likely to avoid detection? And if he steal money does he account for the possession of it in an honest way? And does he, under an apprehension of an arrest, endeavor to elude the officers of the law? All this conduced to show a knowledge that he had not only done wrong, but that he was liable to punishment. The defendant in this case accounted for the amount of money he had in possession by saying he received it as the price of a colt. He changed the notes he had for gold and silver, knowing that the notes might not be current at the place to which he might go. Or he might fear that the notes might be identified by those who forwarded them in the mail. On either supposition it showed a sound reflection on the consequence of his acts should he be arrested. He absconded, and was arrested several miles from home, on his way to the West. He was found in a close room of a boat, the door of which was locked; and it is proved that when he came to the boat the previous evening, he engaged the room and requested that the door should not be opened to any United States v. Shults. one. This shows an apprehension that he would be pursued, and a desire to escape the pursuit. These acts would seem to be unmistakable evidence of a sense of guilt, and a desire to escape punishment. He acted under a motive which usually influences culprits. When carrying the mail, on a suggestion being made to him that he might steal from the mail, the penitentiary immediately occurred to his mind. He bought and sold articles, and evidenced in such matters no deficiency of mind. He knew the value of money, and understood the matter of exchange, and the uncurrency in remote parts of bank notes. Upon the whole, gentlemen, if you think from the evidence in the case that the defendant in violating the mail knew he was doing wrong, and that he was liable to be punished for the act, he is a proper subject for punishment. It is true he did not conceal the letters he took from the mail, but left many of them scattered along the road he travelled, which shows a great want of caution, still, if the other qualities of his mind were in such rational exercise as to enable him to discriminate right from wrong, you will find him guilty. The jury found the defendant guilty, and the court sentenced him to ten years in the penitentiary. In the Supreme Court of North Carolina, December Term, 1855. Hon. FREDERICK NASH, Chief Justice. 66 RICHMOND M. PEARSON,} Judges. WILLIAM H. BATTLE, 1. Delirium Tremens-Temporary Insanity-No Presumption of Continuance.Delirium tremens to be available as a defence must be shown to exist at the time the act was done. In the case of temporary insanity there is no presumption of continu. ance. 2. The Capacity to Distinguish between the Right and Wrong of the Act is the test of unpunishable insanity. Indictment for murder; tried before his Honor Judge SAUNDERS, at the fall term, 1855, of Perquimons Superior Court. Evidence in the Case. The circumstances of this case disclosed the fact that the prisoner had shot an old free negro woman (aged about 60) in the eyes and face. with a pistol; that about an hour afterwards, he was found on a pallet with her, and there were indications that he had ravished her as she lay insensible. There was a jug of liquor on the same pallet. There was no question in this court as to the fact of the killing, and therefore the voluminous and minute evidence sent up as part of the case in relation to the transactions connected with the crime is not reported. The defence of the prisoner was insanity, and upon this point the evidence was as follows: David Beach swore he saw the prisoner on the Wednesday morning before the act, which was done on the following Friday night. He came on the morning previous, and stopped a the hotel where witness lived; he seemed very tremulous, could not use one hand, and had to be helped at the supper table. The next morning, just before the prisoner left, while the witness was at breakfast, he came up behind him stealthily, seized his cup of coffee, and drank it. Witness did not think the prisoner was in his right mind. He had no other reason for coming to that conclusion, except his taking the coffee in the manner he described, his tremulousness, and the wildness of his eyes; but from these things, he did think so. Several witnesses testi fied that on the way to the jail, he begged the persons about him not to hurt him, or that he should not be hurt. At other times he asked them to hang him. Dr. Parker testified that he resided at the South Mills in Camden County; that he was called to attend the prisoner about two weeks before the homicide; that the prisoner had been drinking very hard, and had delirium tremens and inflammation of the stomach; that he talked incoherently, gave inconsistent answers to his questions, and made foolish remarks. The witness gave it as his opinion that the pris oner was then insane. The prisoner got better in three or four days, and left the house, being driven off by the landlord. When he left the prisoner, he advised him to desist from drinking, for that a very little indulgence would bring back the same results. He stated that, generally, insanity from this cause was of short duration, but not always so. Thomas Garret testified that in January or February preceding the homicide, which was on the 13th of April, the prisoner came to his house in Camden County, apparently intoxicated; he had been drinking very freely, and was so tremulous that he could not clean some furniture which he undertook to clean and which was his occupation. Witness saw him catching at something near the fire, on one occasion, and asked him what he meant; to which he replied that his jaws were locked, and he wanted to get the tongs to unfasten them. One Wigginston stated |