SUPREME COURT.

Evening Post, Volume L, Issue 36, 10 August 1895, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SKSSIONS. (Boforo His Honour the Chief Justice.) YISMBDAT. THI MASTERTON MURDER CASK. On the trial of Andrew John Somerville for the murder of Arthur Herbort at Masterton in Juno last, the following evidence was taken yesterday afternoon : — Johann Anderson had worked with the aoonsod for abont six months, previous to May last, and occupied the game tent. He was very childish and stubborn. He harped continually on the subject of the .£l9 whioh he said Herbert owed him on the contract. He hod spoken to witness about going to Coalgatdie. Dr. Chappie stated that ho had seen and examined the prisoner on tiro occasions Ho had had experience of oases of mental disease. He found the prisoner dull of comprehension, very slow in his mental processes, suspicious in his manner. He did not seem to appreciate his snrronndinga. There appeared no attempt on his part to feign insanity. He was slightly deaf, the result, prisoner said, cf a kick on his head. There were indications of such an injury. Judged him to be of low mental order. It wasli well-recognised foot that alcohol intensified the susceptibility of persons suffering from in juryj ury to the head, and that such persons sometimes became porfect maniaos. The snioidal impulse occurred in all form of insanity. If mental disease was hereditary, the consumption of alcohol would intensify it. Sudden loss of self-control, leading to acts of violence, was a marked feature of impulsive insanity, symptoms of which comprised total disregard for life or the destruction of property, absence of any idea of the gravity of an offence or its consequences. The habitual drunkenness of parents would predispose their offspring to insanity. Medical science now reoognised the heredity of alcohol. The prisoner's family history and his temperament vranld cortainly create a tendency in the individual to insanity, and such facts would be taken into consideration when examining him dentally, but hereditary tendency was nothing by itself, and they could not conclnde that a man was insane merely because there was hereditary insanity in his family. Witness was next asked -in view of the whole facts proved, the piisoner's antecedents, his own tejnporament, and the result of witness 1 own examination — whether these did not indicate insanity at th 9 time he committed the act. Mr. Gully submitted that the witness would be usurping the fnnction of the jury in answering the question ; but his Honour ruled that it might be answered. Witness said he assumed the absence of any sufficient motivo for any serious enmity against the deceased, and the existence of violence, were strong indications of insanity at the tirao of the tiring of the shot. Such acts were generally known as impulsive insauity. Icpulbivo insanity need not neoeasarily bo associated with imbecility. The demeanour of the prisoner at the time of firing the shot, and after, was consistent with either sanity or insanity. Some criminals ofton committed such aats, and a sane person would conduct himself similarly to the accused provided there was snffioiont motive. Cross-examined— Such an aot of violence, without motive, was a strong indication of insanity. Still it would not be safe in all oases to say that absence of motive was proof of insanity. The fact that the prisoner proourcd a loaded rovolver three houra and a half before using it did not necessarily indicate preoonceived intention. A man might bo seized with an impulse whioh it might take him days to accomplish. The aut once committed, the man usually resnmed his normal condition of mind. Men seized with violent impulses had been known to surrender th°mselvea to justice, because they knen they could not oontrol themselves. This was a common experience. The man's acts and utterances after the committal of the act were consistent with either sanity or insanity. The prisoner, when witness questioned him, waß conscious that he had shot a man. Mr. Gully quoted the Criminal Code, and asked whether the prisoner was labouring nnder natural imbeoility or disease of the mind to such an extent as to be incapable of understanding the nature and quality of the act, and of knowing that suoh aot was wrong. The witness replied that he did not think so, but a man's consciousness that the act waa wrong was not inconsistent with the loss of self-control. The Court at 5.10 p.m. adjourned until 10 o'clock next morning. This Dat. Dr. Pollen deposed that he had had experience of insane persons. Asked whether a person who had suffered a disappointment or financial loss, or was weak with illness or from any other cause, was liable to develop any hereditary disease of the mind, the witness replied that it depended mainly upon the hereditary tendency. Loss of selfcontrol was sometimes a form of insanity, and a person suffering from any delusion would be likely to be affected sooner than another person. In cases of idiocy and imbecility homicidal impnlsea ofton ooourred. He hid examined the prisoner on three occasions wittin the lait three weeks. Physically ho was in perfect health. His appearance indicated feeble intellectual development. He 'spoke very slowly, and it took him some time to comprehend the drift of a question. His memory was defective, and he wonld remember things which occurred years ago while forgetting rooont events. Witness would say he was a man of very feeble intellect, and his appearance pointed to congenital imbecility. Witness' impression was that he was a man who would be liable to attaoks of melancholia. He did not appear to be feigning insanity. The effect of inebriety on a person suffering from congenital imbecility wonld bo to render him more liable to acute mental attaoks than in the case of another person. The prisoner's family history was a very bad one, and would strengthen witness' view that ha would be liable to attacks of acute insanity. The man's temperament and aots as a boy and man all point to a condition of imbecility coupled with a liability to periodical attacks of want of solf-control. Loss of self-control coupled with congenital imbecility was a form of insanity. Considering tho general history of the accused and the whole facts of the case, he should say it was a record of a typical cas9 of insanity, and he could not reconcile with it tho idei that the prisoner had a complete knowledge of rifht or wrong at the time of the commission of the act. Cross-examined— He was assnming that that the prisoner had no adequate motive for the act. He had taken into account tho statements made by the prisoner about the time of the commission of the aot. It did not follow that the paroxysm of insanity was completely over when tho prisoner made the statement that he had deliberately Bhot the man and would hang for it, and that all the solicitors in Mew Zealand would not save him. Taking the whole oiroumstances into consideration, he did not think the prisoner was responsible for what he did or said. The deliberation of the accused in purchasing the rovolver some time before bo used it was qnite consistent with an aot of insanity. Without the act itsolf, or some strong delnBion, he wonld not be prepared to Bay th*t he would certify tho man as boing fit for a lunatio asylum. The prisoner was weakminded, and a good type of an imbecile. He hod sufficient intelligence to go through his day'B work, but very little boyond that, and but littlo self-control. When witness saw him his whole mind was blank as to his having shot a man Askod whether, if the prisonor was subject to attaoks of impulsive insanity, it was not extraordinary that thii had not developed before, th_ witness eaid it was perhaps unusual, but not extraordinary. Re-examined — The time varied in which a subject relapsed into his normal condition of mind after having committed the explosive aot. In oases of impulsive insanity the subsequent recognition by the man of the nature of his aot was no oriterion as to the state of the man's mind when he oommifcted the aot. James M'Cauelaud, coachman, Hastings, said he knew the prisoner in Ireland, and went to school with him for about five yeara. Somerville was dull, stupid, and bad-tem-pered, and the other boys used to keep clear of him. Once he tried to ohoko his brother on aoconnt of a quarrel, and when he was about 18 he attempted to strike witness' father with an axe beoause ho told him he was late for work. Cross-examined — Prisoner' as a boy hod no oontrol over his temper. Dr. Teaie, Gaol Surgeon, Baid he had ooncluded that the prisoner was a man of defective mental organisation. A person who had suffered a disappointment or financial loss, or was weak from illness or other cause, was liable to develop hereditary disease of the mind. The absence of self-control was a marked feature of impulsive insanity, and a porson liable to hereditary disease of tho mind was liable to show irritability. The Court at this stage adjourned for lnnnheon. On resuming, witness Slid it was possible for latent tendencies of insanity to exist without disclosing any overt evidence of their existonoe. Homicidal and suicidal tendencies were, generally speaking, symptoms of insanity. When he examined the prisoner he found him taciturn, unoommunicative, and slightly deaf. He did not appear to appreciate his serious position. He was self - absorbed, and ■took little interest in what was going on around him. Witness thought his intellect defeotive. His manner appeared natural, and ho did not seem to be feigning. Taking into account the prisoner's family history, and the result of his examination, he' formed the opinion that prisoner was not of. sound mind. Tho man's own history up till May last helped materially in confirming that opinion. If a man with such a history committed a sorious act of violence he would have no hesitation in certifying him to be nsine, but he would also take ,into, consideration the oiroumstanoea whioh prompted the aot of violence. I Left sitting.]