many years, we are led to the conclusion that those who converse so correctly and shrewdly with the transient visitor, and never forget the common observances of life, are scarcely more capable of reporting what they see and hear, than those who cannot utter a single coherent sentence. The most circumscribed delusions, after having existed for a considerable time, are generally accompanied by a mental condition in which the most ordinary impressions are very imperfectly perceived. It would be difficult to characterize precisely the deficiency in question, because it differs, probably, in different individuals. It would seem as if in some, the impression were mingled with and distorted by the delusion, while in others, it does not receive the degree of attention necessary for fixing it firmly and clearly in the mind. Thus, without the least disposition to deceive, their statements are apt to be wide of the truth. In that other class of the insane, also, whose disorder is characterized by mental excitement and impropriety of conduct, while they entertain no delusions whatever, the competence to testify is completely annulled by an irresistible propensity to exaggerate and color, and frequently to lie without limitation or scruple. Now it is hardly a satisfactory answer to these objections, to say that these traits of the insane would be duly considered by the jury when brought to their notice, and that the only difference between us, is, that in one case it is the judge, and the other the jury, that decides the question of competency. The evidence, if coherently and plausibly given, will leave an impression upon the jury, though experts may testify that the witness is not reliable, and the instructions of the court may imply the same opinion. It does not appear that the credibility of the witness in the present case, was impeached in the slightest degree, while, on the other hand, a physician and some other witnesses thought him capable of giving a correct account of any transaction he may have observed. All this may have been quite correct, and the punishment of the offender well merited, but unless the physician were familiarly acquainted with the witness, his opinion ought not to have affected the general presumption against the evidence of this class of patients. § 429. It may not be out of place to notice one of the reasons offered by the court for admitting the testimony of Donelly, viz., that under a different rule, patients in asylums would be at the mercy of their attendants. It is quite as obvious that under the rule of the court, the attendants would be at the mercy of the patients; and if this were clearly understood, the most respectable and trust-worthy attendants in our asylums, would seek some other calling immediately. $430. Another consideration upon which the court relied, ought not to be passed over in silence, because it evinces a mistake not unfrequent among persons who have no professional knowledge of the subject. A rule which would exclude this witness, said the court, merely because he thought he had twenty thousand spirits, would equally have excluded Socrates who believed that a spirit always haunted him. If there were to be no distinction between a gross delusion admitted to be the offspring of disease, and a notion which, however opposed to the general belief of mankind, is the deliberate deduction of an acute and healthy mind, then, certainly, the reductio ad absurdum would be fairly made out. But where is the warrant for disregarding a distinction which the world has always made? In one instance, the witness is deemed to be incompetent, because laboring under a mental disease which is indicated by strong delusions as well as by other traits of character; in the other, the witness is admitted because of the unquestioned soundness of his mind, as evinced by its ordinary manifestations, though accompanied by a notion which may be extravagant but not absurd. In short, the two cases are separated by all the difference between health and disease, which, however difficult to be discerned sometimes, is obvious enough between Socrates and Donelly.1 § 431. In the subjects of general mania, all competence to testify is lost, except during what is called the lucid inter 1 15 Jurist, 470. Law Reporter, N. S. iv. 141. American Journal of Insanity, vii. 386. val, when they may testify in regard to transactions that occurred during a lucid interval, or at a time previous to their illness. Their evidence should be implicitly received, only when it relates to simple facts easily perceived, for their intellect may be hardly strong enough to bring to mind and expose in order, a complicated mass of details. § 432. In partial moral mania, there is nothing to incapacitate one from testifying, unless we except that kind of it where the individual labors under an uncontrollable propensity for lying. Of all the forms of mania, this really diminishes competence more than any other, but it will be long, probably, before it will be considered in this light, in courts of justice. § 433. In general moral mania, it has been seen that the intellectual powers are not perceptibly impaired, and that the patient loses none of his interest in what passes around him, nor of his power to observe and remember them with ordinary distinctness. Under such circumstances, there would be little reason for rejecting his evidence on the score of incapacity. Considering, however, the great derangement of the affective powers under which he labors, and the unfounded likes and dislikes which it produces, his veracity may be justly suspected, and his evidence should be entitled to little weight, except when limited to facts in regard to which it can be shown that his feelings are not interested. § 434. The competence of old men in the early stages of dementia to testify, is a point frequently discussed in courts of justice, and the want is severely felt, of some fixed principles that shall serve as a guide to correct decisions. In every stage of this affection, the impairment of the memory is more perceptible in regard to recent than remote impressions, and it often happens that a person may have a distinct recollection of things that occurred in his youth, while those of a month's or a year's date, are but imperfectly remembered, if at all. To test the strength of his memory respecting certain things, it is only necessary to ascertain if he remembers various other transactions of about the same date, in which he is known to have been engaged. If he can do this, it is a strong presumption in favor of his competency; if not, it is incumbent on the party offering his testimony to show why his memory should have been more faithful in the one case than in the other. This is rendered still more necessary by the fact, that the weakness of mind incident to this condition makes its subjects more easily swayed by the suggestions of others, and leads them to believe that they remember what they are told they ought to remember, or what they are assured they actually did remember till within a recent period. The slightest examination will show how much dependence can be placed on their recollections of recent events. CHAPTER XXIV. DRUNKENNESS. § 435. BEFORE We can properly appreciate the legal consequences of drunkenness, it is necessary to understand its immediate and remote effects on the mind, and the organism with which it is connected. Correct information of this kind will enable us to avoid many of the prevalent errors that have arisen from vague and imperfect notions respecting the nature of drunkenness. We shall first consider the symptoms, or immediate effects, of free indulgence in intoxicating drinks; for the following account of which we are chiefly indebted to Hoffbauer and Macnish.1 He § 436. The first effect of alcoholic liquors is to exalt the general sentiment of self-satisfaction, and diffuse an unusual serenity over the mind. The intellectual as well as physical powers act with increased vigor and activity, the thoughts flow with more facility and accuracy, and the individual becomes perfectly well pleased with himself and others. feels an exhilaration of spirits, a sense of warmth and gaiety, and his imagination is crowded with delightful images. The sight and hearing are very slightly affected; a low, humming sound is heard in the pauses of the conversation; and objects are enveloped in a slight mist which prevents them from being seen distinctly. Thus far there is no appearance of drunkenness. Soon the torrent of his ideas becomes more rapid and violent, and he can scarcely repress them. This is the moment of his happiest sallies, and he pours forth his thoughts with a force of expression and a richness of concep 1 Anatomy of Drunkenness. |