This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at|http : //books . google . com/
Li
•1
i
THE TRIAL
WILLIAM FREEMAN,
THE MURDER OF JOHN G. VAN NEST,
. xircun>iHo m
EVIDENCE AND THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL,
DBOISION OF THE 8T7PBEME COURT QRAMTINO A NEW TRIAL,
> AV ACCOVHT or TBI DIATH OF TBI PBaONIB, AWD OF TBI POBT-HOBTBH BZAMXHATIOB Of
Bia BODY BT AMAKIAB BBIOBAM, M .B., ABB OTHBBB.
^ REPORTED BY
BENJAMIN F. HALL,
OOUBBBLLOB AT LAW.
AUBURN:
DERBY, MILLER & CO^ PUBLISHERS.
1848. •
THE NEW YORK
PO^LlCliBRA^Y
AftOR, LENOX AND
T4LDEN FOUNDArK>NS.
189a
Altered Moonllsg to Act of Cangnn, In t&e jtut 1848,
Br DSRBT, WTT.T.HR St Go.,
In tbe dark's Ollloe of the IMstriot Oourt of the United Stetei Ibr the Nofthem
District of New Tork.
AUBUEir, H. T.
PBIHT1I» BT B. MOBTOailBBT.
TO THE PDBUC.
&ETNG advised by Legal and Medical men, that the trial of
William Freeman for the murder of John G. Van Nest was,
in view of the extraordinary character of that tragedy, the
mental condition and singular appearance of the prisoner, and
the important questions of medical jurisprudence inyolved in
the case, justly regarded by the profession as one of the most
remarkable that ever occurred in the United States ; and being
urgently desired to procure and publish an accurate report of
the same, together with an account of the post-mortem exami-
nation by Doctor's Brigham, McCall, Briggs, Dimon, Van
Epps, Fosgate and Hyde, made with reference to his probable
*
insanity, the publishers of this volume, soon after his death,
took measures to obtaui such a Report as seemed to be de-
manded, for publication.
That it might be free from suspicion of bias, it was deemed
advisable that it should be prepared by some gentleman other
than any of the judges or counsel connected with the trial.
Learning that it would be agreeable as well to the judges who
composed the Court of Oyer and Terminer, as the counsel re-
spectively employed in the case, to have the report prepared
by Benjamin F. Hall, Esq., a counsellor of this city, that gen-
tleman was solicited to prepare the work. We believe it has
been executed with fidelity. Our desire that the volume should
embrace the arguments of Gov. Seward and Attorney Greneral
Van Buren, induced us to delay the publication until a report of
both of them could be obtained. We now give to the public
IT TO THI PUBUO
the whole testimony and the speeches of both those eminent
counsel to Xhe jury. As it has been our purpose to give to the
learned professions and to the world an accurate and well exe-
cuted report of one of the most interesting and extraordinary
criminal trials that ever occurred in our country, and believing
that such purpose is answered in the following pages, we com-
mit the volume to the public with the hope that it will be found
in every respect interesting, truthful and satisfactory.
THE PUBLISHERS.
THE TRIAL
OF
WILLIAM FREEMAN.
THE CASE.
WiLUAM FbxemaVj the subject of this notice, was born at Auburn, in
the county of Cayuga, New- York, in the year 1824. His father was bom a
sUtc, but became a free man in 1815, by purchase of his time, under the
act for the gradual abolition of slavery in New- York. He died in 1827,
from disease of the brain, caused, as was supposed, by a faU from the dock
into the basin at Albany. Of his brothers and sisters two only survive, and
one of them has for twelve years past been a wandering lunatic ; one of
those that have died, a sister, was, for many years immediately preceding her
death, insane.
The wife of James, and mother of William, was a native of Berkshire,
Massachusetts, from which place she was transferred, as a house servant, to
Auburn in 1817. Her father was black, her mother a red woman of the
Stockbridge tribe, but in whose veins, however, ran some French blood, as
was said; so, that subject to that qualification, William was a quadroon of
Tartar and African descent, with a visage strongly marked with the dis-
tinctive features of the North American Indian.
So far as is now recoUected by those who observed him, William indica-
ted the possession of capacity equal to that of ordinary colored boys of his
age, until he attained the age of twelve or fourteen years, when he began to
display eccentricities in manners that were attributed rather to an extraoi^
dinary penchant fbr strolling than to any mental defect or depravity. As
he advanced in yean, however, a species of taciturnity seemed to mark his
behavior. This was observed by his empbyers, and es})ecially by his mother,
who, though a poor colored woman, had a care for Ins habits and wel&re.
From the best information that can now be obtained, it appears that when
18 THB TRIAL OV
William, as be is called, (Hannibal, as be was named,) arriyed at the age of
seven or eigbt years, be was placed in tbe famHj of Captain Alien Warden,
tben of Auburn, as a servant boy, wbere be lived about a year. He was
then transferred to tbe family of Ethan A. Warden, Esq., wbere be served
in the same capacity, until some time in 1833, when be was discharged on
account of an uncontrollable disposition for play with other colored boys,
which rendered his services valueless. Not long afler this, bis mother dty-^
tained ^ place for him in tbe family of Judge Satterlee, of Lyons, in Wayne
county, wbere it was hoped that lus habits might be corrected. But no
benefits resulted from removing him from his former associates. Although
sometimes obedient, he was inclined to wander and rove, and in respect to
this, exhibited a tact at strategy that was strikingly indicative of his Indian
maternity.
But notwithstanding his faults, be bad a buoyancy of spirit, a playfulness
of manner, and an elasticity of movement, that arrested attention and induced
a strong desire for bis retention as an errand boy and domestic. Tbe young
Indian, as be was sometimes called, however, could not be confined to either
kitchen or yard, nor did the rigor of any discipline tame his wildness or
repress bis inclination to rove. Nearly every attempt to abridge his liberty
was anticipated by a nimble bound over and beyond the pale designed for
bis imprisonment ; so that all the efforts of Judge S. to retain him in steady
service were unavailing.
These characteristics, then of UtUe moment, have mnce become tbe sub-
jects of medical ezaminatioB, in view of the probable effects of his subsequent
iD^>risonment, as in his veins coursed the blood of a race that has never been
restrained without difficulty — ^nev^r incarcerated without mental disaster.
After leaving the family of Judge S. he lived with and labored for sundry
persons in and about Auburn, among whom were Messrs. Cadwell, Jones,
Seeley, Curtis, Andrus, Smith, and Depuy, his brother-in-law, by most of
whom he was regarded as honest and faithful in tbe execution of particular
commands, but generally unsteady, and at times intemperate. For short
periods he served as a waiter at several hotels and in private families prior
to 1840, but those periods were alwa}^ brief. Although taciturn and morose
at times, be was ever ready for a frolic or a dance, and according to the
testimony of his sister, *< be acted very smart on such occasions."
But so little of popular favor has been accorded to the negro race since
the abolition of slavery in New- York, that not much information in detail can
be gathered of one so obscure as Freeman was, prior to his arrest and im-
prisonment for the offence of another man — ^for a crime, which it is conceded
on all hands, he never committed. Hence, he can be but faintly traced as
be passed along through the vicissitudes of his early life to the occurrence
which resulted in his imprisonment on a charge of larceny, and introduced
him to public notice as a felon.
la the spring of 1840, whilst Freeman was living with Depay, his brother-
WIIXIAM VKEXHAN. 19
in-law, a Mrs. Martha Godfi^y, of the town of Bennett, 0ome five milee
distant from Auburn, lost from her stable a horse, which she alleged to have
been, and which doubtless was, by some one, taken feloniously. For some
cause, Freeman was suspected and arrested, but protested his innocence, and
upon examination before Robert Cook, Esq., a ma^trate, he was discharged.
Some weeks afterward, the horse was found in the county of Chemung,
whither it had been taken and sold by a negro, as was alleged. The de-
scription given was supposed to answer to one Jack Furman, another negro,
who thereupon was arrested, examined, and committed to jail for want of
bail, to await an indictment by a grand jury. Bat knowing that Freeman
had been once arrested for the theft, Jack took occasion to renew the charge,
and to insist that he should be arrested again. This was finally done in
June, and from that time, with the exception of a fow days when Freeman
was absent, until September f<^owing, both of them were detained for the
same offence.
In July, Freeman broke the lock of his cell, and with another prisoner
escaped frt>m the jaiL His fellow was at once re-taken, but Freeman made
rapid flight to the woods, and was not captared until two weeks afterward,
when he was found at Lyons, wbere he had formerly lived. When arrested,
he protested his entire innocence, and excused his escape by the expression
of his fear tiiat Jack Furman would swear him into the State Prison. It
was known to the jailer that he had offered to do so upon the condition of
his own release.
In September he was indicted, as well for breaking jail as for the larceny
charged against him. He was also, at the same term of court, tried and con-
victed, mainly upon the oath of Jack, who gave his evidence for the people
in exoneration of himself. Three witnesses only were sworn on his trial :
Mrs. Godfrey, to the loss and recovery of her horse ; Mr. Doty, a neighbor,
that he saw a negro on the horse the night it was stolen, and Jack, that he
went with Freeman to the stable^ and saw him take it . The jury, under
charge of the court, found him giulty, whereupon he was sentenced to be
confined in the State Prison at Auburn, at hard labor, for the term of five
years. Jack received, as the reward of his perjury, a discharge.
But as it soon became reasonably certain that Freeman was at another
place all the night when the larceny was committed, and as Jack was soon
thereafter convicted for a similar offence, the public mind at once exonerar
ted Freeman from the febny for which he had been convicted. He was
donbdesB innocent of the offence.
The conviction of Freeman, therefore, appears to have been unjust, and to
have had a powerful influence upon his mind when in prison. He repeatedly
asserted his innocence to the constables, justice, and jailer, before, and to tlie
keepers of the prison after, his conviction, and vainly urged his release.
Unlikie most negro convicts, he never became in any degree reconciled to his
condition, until he had resisted the anthorities of the prison and received a
20 TBI niAi. or
blow, which* to use hiB own expressioii, " knocked all the hearing off, so that
it never came back to him again."
On being reprimanded by the contractor in whose shop he was placed, he
said he had " done nothing worthy of confinement — that Captain Tyler, the
keeper, was going to whip him, and he did not want to be punished when he
did'nt deserve it" To James £. Tyler, the keeper, he made similar com-
plaints, and at all times, when he had the opportunity, he protested his inno-
cence and complained of his imprisonment. Not doing as much work as he
was deemed capable of performing, he was ordered to do more, under the
penalty of the lash. This not having the effect desired, he was called up to
be flogged, when a scene occurred that was related by Tyler as follows : *< I
called him up and told him I had done talking to him — ^I was g^ing to punish
him. I told him to take his clothes off. I turned to get the <!at, and received
a blow on the beck part of the head from him. It started me a little. As I
looked around. Bill struck me on the back — I kicked at him and knocked
him partly over — perhi^ he fell dear down. He jumped up, went across
the shop, took up a knife and came at me. I took up a piece of board l3ring
on the desk, w«nt down and met him. It was a basswood board, two feet
long, fourteen inches wide and half an inch thick. It was a board one of the
convicts had laid on my desk, on which was a count of lumber, planed on
both sides. When I came in reach of him, I struck him on thr head*,
flatwise — split tiie board, and left a piece in my hand four inches wide."
He was then punished and sent to his work, but afterwards appeared
downcast and sad, and, as the witnesses testified, '^ went about with his head
down." His hearing was dull b^re, but heavier afterwards; and many have
«uppoeed that his auditory organs were then injured, notwithstanding the
confident opinion of Tyler "that the blow could not have hurt him." Cer-
tain it is that he was afterwards very deaf, and that the deafness continued
to increase while he remained in prison ; and upon a post mortem exami-
nation it was found that the drum of his left ear had been broken, and that
his left temporal bone was carious and diseased.
Freeman remained in the State Prison until the expiration of his sentence,
but was more stolid and dull after than before his difficulty with Tyler. He
had before been allowed to attend the Sunday schod, but after this occur-
rence that (^portunity was, fer some reason, denied him. Some of the police
appear to have conodered him too dangerous for such a liberty — some, that
by his resistance of authority he had forfeited the privilege — and others that
he was not susceptible of any instruction. Which consideration prompted
the denial to him of the advantages of the Sunday school is not known. He
never was permitted to go there afterwards.
After an unsuccessftil effort to exact from him a prescribed amount of
labor in the hame shop, he was given up by the contractor and permitted
to do miscellaneous work in the yard. In the fall of 1843 he was employed
in tiie dye house, where Captain "^P^^lliam P. Smith was foreman. Smith con-
WILLIAM FKDMAir. 21
ndexed him then *< a being of very low, degraded intellect ; hardly above a
brute, and treated him aooordingly," (vide his testimony ;) " that be was a
man of very quick passions ; would fly in a moment at any thing he thought
an insult;" that another convict changed the position of a pole on which
yam was hung, for which he fought him, was reported for so doing and was
flogged ; that he had greased a pair of shoes and set the same on a pile of
wood, which another convict caused to fall, when Freeman struck him, and
for which he was also flogged. After this he went to Captain Smith, crying,
and represented that he had been flogged veiy severely ; that a hole had
been cut between his ribs which he could lay his fingers in. He also told
Captain Smith that the flogging pained him so at night that he could not
neepk
As to his capacity at this time, it appears from all the witnesses sworn on
lus trial, that it was very limited ; that commands had to be repeated several
times befbre he could understand them sufficiently to obey ihem. Some
represent him as being weak and child-like ; some thought him a little shat-
tered, but all were willing to keep him at woric at such things as he had
opacity to execute. In this con<Htion he remained until the expiration of
his sentence, in September, 1645.
His mother never saw him during the time he was in prison, but occar
sion^y sent some one to see him, that his condition might be reported to
her. This was generally done by John Depuy, her 8on-in4aw, who says he
saw William five times during his confinement ] that his mother had heard
that somebody had struck him on lus head and that it was going to kill hinif
whereupon he went in to see him. He testified on the trial, that he ' found
Freeman with a knapsack on his back, walking back and forth in the yard ;
'* that he would walk a little way and turn round.** Depuy considered lum
deranged, and so told his wife and mother-in-law on his return.
On the morning when Freeman's sentence expired, Depuy went to the
State Prison for him and took him hmne. Thus ended- his imprisonment on
the charge of stealing Mrs. Godfrey's horse.
During the fall and winter he lived most of the time with his brother-in
law, but occasionally at the houses of other colored people. He was some-
times employed at sawing wood, but was generally sluggish, stupid and
indolent He talked but little, and gave but a confhsed relation of occurrences
in the prison when he was there. The injustice of his imprisonment and the
rencontre with lyier seemed to be uppermost in his mind, and formed about
the only topics of his conversation when he said any thing. He frequently
inquired for Jack Furman, and upon being told by Depuy that he was a
convict in the State Prison, replied, *^ he had not seen him.'' He said he
had been there five years for nothing, and he wanted pay for it.
After enquiring for ma^strates, he told Depuy that he must go down and
get a warrant for the folks, and that they must pay him ; that he could not
make any gain so, aad coold'nt Uve. He then applied to two magistralei,
:« THB TBUL or
Bortwick and Paiae, fat vrftiranto against tJie folks that sent him to prison^
bat the request was refttsecL He then returned to Depny's, where he said that
he ooold'nt do any thing with them ; that he could not get any thing ; would
have to lose it all. After working about at sundry little jobs of work, from
which he received but a trifling compensation, he went to board with a
colored washer-woman named Mary Ann Newark, at a place called New
Guinea, about a nule south of the village of Auburn. She had known him
before he was imprisoned, and had seen him in the street after his discharge,
but she was apparently unnoticed by him. She took him to board, that he
might help her carry her baskets of clothes to and from those in the village
for whom she woiked. Her account of him is, that he did not hear very
quick ; would put down his ear and want her to speak louder ; that he never
said much, and spoke only when spoken to ; that he never asked any ques-
tions himself, and answered those put to him very briefly.
Whilst living with her, and between the hours of six and seven o'clock on
the evening of the 12th day of March, 1846, WDUam went away, die knew
not whither, nor for what purpose.
On the western border of the Owaseo lake, in the town of Fleming, and
about three and a half miles south of the village of Auburn, there lived a
very respectable and worthy fanner, whose name was John G. Van Nest
He was a man of good education, of considerable wealth — had hM various
offices of honor and profit— was extensively known, and highly esteemed by
all who knew hhn. He was very exact in all his dealings, correct in his de-
portment, and exemplary in all his varied relations to the society of which
he was a member, and to the community in which he lived. His family
consisted of Mrs. Sarah Van Nest, his wife; Mrs. Phebe Wyckoff, his mother-
in-law ; Julia Van Nest, his daughter ; Peter Van Neat and George W. Van
Nest, his sons, t6e hitter about two years old, and Helen Hohnes, a young
woman who lived with them in the capacity of help ; there was also at his
house, on the night of the 12th of March, a Mr. Van Arsdale, — ^all being re-
spectable and very estimable persons. Any violence, therefore, to such a
fimuly, could not have failed to arouse the community far around, and to
have caused the offender to be ccmdignly punished if within their reach.
And when popular indignation for a trespass upon the rights, the property
or the lives of worthy citizens does not overleap the boundaries of that pro-
priety which the law establishes, it betokens well for the character of the
persons injured, and the virtue, the morals and the peace of society.
As the family of Mr. Van Nest were about retiring to rest on the 12th
day of March, a tragedy was enacted at his dwelling which is without a
parallel in the history of crime; an event that was horrid beyond all des-
cription, dreadful in its character and shocking to the community. Without
the least premonition of, or provocation for the act, John G. Van Nest, Sarah
Van Nest his wife, and George W., their son, were slain and left weltering
in their gore; Mrs. Phebe Wyckoff mortally and Van Arsdale severely
WILLIAM VEIBIAN. 28
wounded, by the band of an asMssin. The occurrence happened at about
half past nine o'clock, when all the family had retired to their rooms for the
night, except Mr. Van Nest, who was in his sitting room, and Mrs. Van
Nest, who had stepped into the yard in rear of the dwelling. At that point
of time, Mrs. Van Nest received a mortal wound inflicted with a knife^
guided by a negro, and shrieking, ran to the window of the room occupied
by Helen Holmes, who opened the door in that part of the house, through
which Mrs. Van Nest came in and died. Hearing the shriek of his wife, Mr.
Van Nest at once opened the door, when he received a fatal stab from the
•ame hand, and fbll without a struggle. Mrs. Wyckoff, in her attempt to
escape, received a mortal wound as the assassin passed to the stairs ascending
to the chamber. Afler stabbing an infant boy who was sleeping near thenif
he attempted to ascend the stairs, when he encountered Van Arsdale, whom
he severely wounded. But afber a severe struggle, the assassin was expelled
from the house, and procuring a horse from the stabte hard by, he mounted,
and made rapid flight from the scene of desolation and of blood* Thai
faorM soon felling him, he prooured another, with which he continued his
flight to the county of Oswego, a distance of forty miles, where he was taken
the next day by the officers in pursuit. He was found to be William Free-
The officers returned him, fettered and bound, to the house of Van Nest,
to which the magistrate repaired to take the proof of his identity and guilt,
from the lips of the survivors. Tidings of the awful afiair having, meanwhile,
been iddely spread, the inhabitants of the country far around rushed, en
masse, to the scene of slaughter. After beholding the lifeless forms ai the
fiither, mother and son, and at the same time learning that Mn. Wyckoff
had died from her wounds at a neighboring house, they were so shocked and
exasperated, that an irrepressible and tumultuous indignation burst forth
irom every mouth, and nearly overbore the authorities who had in chaige
the wretched assassin. The excitement of the occanon was unprecedented
in this section of the State. It was thou^t the course of justice marked out
by the law was too slow for the punishment of such an offender — that the
death of the family of Van Nest must be at once avenged. The populace sought
his blood, and madly and loudly called for the victim of their fliry that they
nught tear him to atoms. The gibbet, rack and flame were each proposed
for his immediate destruction. The rope and the lasso were ready for
snatching him from the officers of the law. But by a diveraipn artfully con-
trived by the officers, they escaped with their prisoner, and although pur-
sued, succeeded in lodging him in the county jaiL
Such an extraordinary excitement of such an immense concourse of people,
as might have been expected, <tid not immediately subside. The crowd dis-
persed only to fan the flame in other quarters. The blood of wives and children
ran cold at the recital, so that whole families, from the prattling child to the
tottering grandsire, spontaneously joined in the popular indignation.
*Z% TBB TEIAL OF
A jury in another capital case (that of Henry Wyatt) having disagreed
about the sanity of a prisoner, that was brought into the excitement and
vehemently discussed in connection with this. Judges, jurors and counsel
ware alternately upbraided, reproached and defended. The lives of the
people were considered in jeopardy. The mention of insanity in connection
with Freeman was rebuked as presumptuous, and dangerous to tihe safety of
the conmiunity.
Next in th^ order of events, came the funeral obsequies over the bocBes of
the slain. That was truly a mournful, a thrilling occasion. Hie presence
of the four encoffined dead ; the deep and ptervading anguish of the mourning
relatives ; the mighty concourse of anxious friends and acquinntances in at-
tendance; all contributed to render it as extraordinary as was the event
which had occasioned the exercises. The sermon was delivered with great
effect by the Rev. A. B. Wii^eM, pastor of the church of which the deceased
were members, from 1 PluSipians, i. 21 ; concluding with the following pe-
roration:
** If ever there was a just rebuke upon the fhlsely so-called sympathy of
the day, here it is. Let any man in his senses look at this horrible sight,
and then think of the spirit with which it was perpetrated, and, unless he
loves the murderer more than his murdered victims^ he will, he must confess,
that the law of God which requires (Jiat ' he that sheddeth man's blood by
man shall his bhod be shed* is right, is just, is reasonable. Is this the way
to prevent murder; by sympathy ? It encounq^ it It steels the heart and
nerves the arm of the assassin !
^ But capital punishment is said to be barbarous, cruel, savage. What does
this amount to? Why, that God commands that which is barbarous j cruel
and savage! Most daring blasphemy 1 But all punishment is for the good
of the culprit, or else it is tyrannical ! The wretch who committed this horrid
deed has been in the school of a State Prison for five years, and yet comes
out a murderer! Besides, it is an undeniable fact, that murder has increased
with the increase of this anti-capital punishment spirit It awakens a hope
in the wretch, that by adroit counsel, law may be perverted, and jurors be-
wildered or melted by sympathy ; that by jodges infected with it, their whole
charges may be in favor of the accused ; that by the lavishment of money,
appeals might be multiplied, and, by putdng off the trial, witnesses may die.
Why, none of us are safe under such a false sympathy as this ; for the mur-
derer is almost certain of being acquitted I If I shoot a man to prevent him
breaking into my house and killing my family, these gentlemen will say I did
right But if he succeeds, and murders my whole family, then it would be
barbarous to put him to death ! Oh, shame, shame ! 1 appeal to this vast
assembly to maintain the laws of their country inviolate, and cause the mur-
derer to be punished."
However inappropriate such an appeal may have been for the day and
occasion, it was nevertheless responded to by the excited auditory, and a
^ WILLIAM IBBBMAM. ' 25
copy thereof solicited for pulipcation. The request was granted ; the sermon
printed, and thousands thereof gratuitously circulated throughout the bodj
of the State. The press announced the murder in glaring, startling capitals,
and <tid its part in awakening the community to the awful consequences of
sympathy for such an offender. Nor was this excitement local. As the
tidings of the affair went forth in the public prints, the people of the whole
State, in very considerable degree, partook of the feeling that perraded the
masses in Cayuga.
Such had beennhe tragedy ; such the excitement; such was the con<Htion
of the puUic mind, when, at the May term of the Cayuga general sessions,
four indictments for murder were found against Freeman, and presented
by the grand jury. That for the murder of John G. Van Nest, being the
one upon which he was tried, was in the words and figures following.
THE INDICTMENT.
At a court of general sessions <^ the peace, held at the court house, in
tlie Tillage of Auburn, in and for the county of Cayuga, on the eighteenth
day of May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and forty-
six, before Joseph L. Richardson, Isaac Sisson, Elisha W. Sheldon, Esquires,
and others, their associates, judges and justices, assigned to keep* the peace
in the said county of Cayuga, and to hear and determine divers felonies, tres-
passes, and other misdemeanors, in the said county, committed :
Cayuga County, w: The jurors for the people of the State of New York,
in and for the body <^ the county of Cayuga, to wit : Samuel S. Coonley,
Ezra Willits, Phineas F. Wilson, William Beach, Henry H. Cooley, William
Bidwell, James Congdon, Charles Paddock, Leonard D. Harmon, John
O'Hara, John A. Carter, Charles Lester, Jacob Cuykendall, Daniel R.
Books, WlUiam Moore, Jacob Sharpsteen, Thomas E. Loomis, good and
lawful men of the same county, being then and there sworn and charged
upon their oath, present : That William Freeman, late of the town of Auburn,
in the county of Cayuga, laborer, on the twelAh day of March, in the year
of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and forty six, with force and aims,
at the town of Fleming, in the county aforesaid, in and upon one John 6.
Van Nest, in tbe peace of God and the people of the State of New York
then and there being, feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought,
and from a premeditated design to effect the death of the said John G. Van
Nest, did make an assault ; and that the said William Freeman, with a certain
knife, of the value of twenty-five cents, which he, the said William Freeman,
in his right hand then and there had and held, the said John G. Van Nest,
in and upon the breast at the left side of the breast bone, between the third
20 ' THB TBIAL Off
and fourth ribs of him, the said John G. Van Nest, then and there feloniooslj,
wilfully, and of his m^ce aforethought, and from a premeditated design to
effect the death of the said John G. Van Nest, did strike, stab and ihrost,
giying to the said John G. Van Nest, then and there, with the knife afore-
said, in and upon the breast at the left side of the breast bone, between the
third and fourth ribs of him, the said John G. Van Nest, one mortal wound
of the breadth of one inch and of the depth <^ five inches, of which said mortal
wound the said John G. Van Nest then and there instantly died. And so
the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say that«the said William
Freeman, the said John G. Van Nest, in manner and form aforesaid, l^o-
niously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, and from a premeditated
d€«ign to effect the death of the said John G. Van Nest, did kill and murder,
against the peace and dignity of the people of the State of New York.
LuMAN Sherwood, Dist. Atfy.
(A true Bill.)
Samuel S. Coonlet, Foreman.
On the presentation of the above, with the other indictments against
William Freeman, and on motion of the district attqmey, it was ordered by
the said court of general sessions that the said indictments be sent to the
court of oyer and terminer for trial.
Henry Wyatt and William Freeman both being in jail on charges for
capital offences, a commission was issued by the Governor for the holding of
a special court of oyer and terminer by the Hon. Bowen Whiting, and the
county judges of Cayuga, on the first Monday of June next thereafter, at
. the court house in Auburn, for the trial of said prisoners.
THE AKRAIGNMENT.
On the first day of June, 1846, the Hon. Bowen Whiting, with the other
judges composing said commission, convened at the court house in Auburn^
and then and there opened and held a special court of oyer and terminer.
After the usual proclamations, the sheriff was directed to bring in William
Freeman for arraignment The prisoner having been brought to the bar,
L. Sherwood, Esq., district attorney, proceeded to amugn him upon the
several indictments for murder, whereupon the Hon. William H. Seward
appeared in court and tendered in behalf of the prisoner a plea of insanity,
upon which the district attorney took issue.
His honor, the presiding judge, then remarked, that as the statute ex-
pressly declared that no insane person can be tried, the issue which had
been joined upon the mental condition of the prisoner must be disposed of
before any further proceedings could be had on the indictment How that
WILLIAM f BESICAN. 27
iffue was to be detennii^ed, he was not, without some reflection, prepared
to decide. A plea of insanity went to the right of the court to trj the pri-
soner during the continuance of that disability, if it in fact existed. The
court, therefore, mu^t adopt such a method for determining that issue as
would be satisfactory to the judges composing it. Until he consulted with
his brethren, he was unprepared to announce the method to be adopted.
As it was a matter resting in the discretion of the court, he would hear
the views of counsel, if they desired to make any suggestions.
Mr. Sherwood obserred, that in his opinion the court might determine the
present sanity of the prisoner, either by a personal inspection and ezamina-
^n, with or without the aid of physicians, or by a jury to be empanelled
for that purpose. He was unable to say what method the court would prefer,
or which woi^ld be the most satisfactory. As he had, from observation of
and conversation with the prisoner, satisfied himself that he was not insane,
it appeared to him that a simikr examination might satisfy the conscience
of the court
Mr. Seward regarded insanity as a fact that should be determined as
other questions of fact are required to be, in criminal cases. In that view
he suggested a trial of the issue by a jury. It was important to the people
as well as the prisoner, that such an investigation be made as shall be entirely
satisfactory to the court and to the public. If the prisoner be insane, as the
plea alleges, he ought not to be required to answer ; if he be sane, he should
be tried^ Whilst the examination of the district attorney had convinced
him that Freeman was sane, his (Mr. Seward's) examination had convinced
him that he was insane. Others, with equal advantages for arriving at the
truth, corroborated his opinion. If a trial by jury were the right of a sane
man, ought it not to be accorded to one who cannot hear you nor make any
election in the premises himself?
The court reserved the question for advisement, and ordered the arraign-
ment to be suspended, and the prisoner to be remanded to the county jaiL
DECISION OP THE COURT.
On the twenty-fourth day of the same month, the court announced its
detennination to inform its conscience concerning the insanity of tffe pri-
soner, by the verdict of a jury, and thereupon directed the Clerk to draw
such jury from the box containing the names of jurors summoned to attend
Bud court, and to empanel the same for the trial of that issue.
Hon. John Van Buren, attorney general, and Luman Sherwood, Esq.,
28 THI TBIAL OP
district attomej, i^peared as oonnsel for the people; Hon. Williain H.
Seward, DaTid Wright, Christopher Morgan, and Samuel BUitchford, Esqrs.,
took their seats as counsel in behalf of the prisoner. ^<
THE JURORS AND THEIR EXAMINATION.
Ezra Stonb was then drawn by the clerk as a juror, and answering,
was thereupon challenged for principal cause bj the counsel for tbfe prisoner.
After being sworn to answer, &c., touching his indifference, &c., he testified
as follows : I reside in Cato. Have not formed any opinion concerning the
sanity of the prisoner. Have heard the subject spoken of. Have seen him
in his cell, but have formed no opinion. Have no impressions on my mind
either way.
Question. Have you not formed and expressed a fixed and deliberate opin-
ion that the prisoner at the bar is guilty of murder ? Objected to by attorney
general, and objection sustained.
Q. Have you not formed and expressed an opinion that the prisoner
ought to be hanged ? Objected to by attorney general, and objection sus-
tained.
The court overruled the challenge for principal cause, and thereupon the
prisoner's counsel challenged the juror for favor. Counsellors Hulbert and
Andms were appointed triors, before whom the juror was further examined
as follows : I have heard of the murders in Fleming. Saw an account of
them. Mr. Ives, of Weedsport, told me about them. Ives told that the
prisoner was a negro, and that his name was Freeman. It was said there
were others concerned with him. Heard a man, who saw the bodies, give
the particulars of the transaction. Think it likely that an opinion was ex-
pressed. It was said that there was talk about Lynching him. There was
considerable excitement I have not had doubts of his guilt ; of his having
committed the murders. Have said that if he was guilty he ought to be
punished. Have said he ought to be brought to trial and to justice. I par-
took of the excitement I had supposed him sane until I came here. I have
heard it asked whether they would not try to prove him morally insane.
Don't know as I thought he ought to have been Lynched. I may have said
that it might have been as well if he had been.
Q. iy the triors. When you testified that you had no doubt the prisoner
committed the murders, did you mean to intimate an opinion that he was
eapable of committing murders, or merely that he had taken the lives of
those persons ?
Answer. That he took their lives. I knew notihing of his ability.
whjjam FBmf an. w
Verdict of triors — " that they find the jnror indifferent upon the lasue of
inunity.'*
The prisoner's coansel insisted that the verdict /hould be whether the
juror is indifferent between the people and the prisoner. Whereupon the
court remarked that the verdict of the triors was equivalent to that, and
thereupon the triors say, that under such instruction, their verdict is that the
juror is indifferent
The said juror was then challenged peremptorily. To this the attorney
general objected. The court decided that the prisoner on this issue was not
entitled to a peremptory challenge. Ezra Stone was then sworn to try the
issue. (1.)
SiMOir Hawes was next drawn by the clerk as a juror, and answering,
was thereupon challenged for principal cause, and he being sworn, testified
as follows : I have seen the prisoner. Have heard the question of his in-
sanity several times spoken of. I saw him in jail this morning. Thompson
and Wood, also jurors, were with me. There was a man in the cell with the
prisoner doing something. Have made up no mind as to his insanity. Have
not much of an impression. Have formed no opinion.
Q. Have you formed and expressed an opinion that the prisoner is guilty
of the murders charged again^ him ? Objected to by attorney general,
and objection sustained.
The court then overruled the challenge for principal cause, and thereupon
the prisoner's counsel challenged the said juror for favor. Same triors as be-
fore. The juror being further examined, testified: I have formed an
opinion that the prisoner is guilty, if he is the man he Is said to be ; that
he is guilty of the murder of the Van Nest family. If he is the man who
killed them, he is guilty, of course. I have formed an opinion from what I
have heard and read that he is the man. This has been my opinion since I
heard of the affair. My opinion at present is as much of a deliberate opinion
as any other that I have formed from reading and hearing. I have read
accounts of the murder in the newspapers. I have heard it conversed about
oflen, and have always expressed this opinion. Guess I never expressed
the opinion that he ought to be hung. If he is guilty he ought to be hung,
and I have formed the opinion that he ought to be hung.
Q. by the court Have you ever thought about his being insane ?
A. Yes, I have thought and said he ought to have a fair trial I feel
indifferent on the question of insanity.
Q. by district attorney. Have you had any means of forming any opin-
ion whether the prisoner is sane or insane ?
A. I have not My mind is open to a fair consideration of the testimony
upon that subject I did not take into consideration his responsibility for
his acts, when I said he was guilty of murder.
His honor, the presiding juc^, then charged the triors that the question
80 VHB TRIAL OV
for them to determine was, whether the juror's mind is in a condition fairly
to try this issue of the sanity or insanity of the prisoner ; to try whether the
prisoner shall be tried on the main issue. He has expiressed a belief that
the prisoner is guilty of the killing which is charged against him as murder;
yet that is not the question now on trial, and we do not see that an opinion
on that disqualifies a juror upon this issue. If he has a fixed and deliberate
opinion that the prisoner is guilty of the crime charged, he is not disqualified
as a juror on this issue, if he has not made up his mind as to the sanity or
insanity of the prisoner/ Evidence of his opinion of the prisoner^ guilt oonld
have no influence in deciding upon the indifference of the juror only aa it
was evidence of his bias against him, and that if the triors believed that such
opinion was evidence of bias agunst the prisoner, they would find the juror
not indifferent
Verdict of jurors — that he was indifferent; the court deciding that no
peremptory challenge would be allowed, Simon Hawes was then sworn to
try the issue. (2.)
Ezra Moseman was then drawn, but discharged on his own application,
for cause shown on oath.
Andrews Preston was next drawn as a juror, and answering, was
thereupon challenged for principal cause, and being sworn, testified : I have
formed an opinion that Freeman took the lives of the Van Nest family.
Whether it was legally murder or not, I cannot say. If he was of sound
mind, I should suppose that it was murder ; otherwise, not I do not know
but that his inind is sound. Have seen him in jail and in court, but had no
conversation with him. Others had. From what I have seen of him and
heard about him, an impression has been made on my mind that he is not
insane. I have no prejudice or bias against him, and would be willing to
have his insanity tested fairly. I have not had the means of forming a de^
cided opinion on that point
The court overruled the challenge for principal cause, and the juror was
thereupon challenged to the favor. Same triors.
Q. Have you any doubts as to the accountability of the prisoner?
A. I think I should have some reason to doubt his accountability. I
suppose him to be a man of very weak intellect, very indeed. I should,
however, make a distinction between imbecility of mind and insanity. I
heard of the murders ; read most and perhaps all that was published on the
subject My mind was not prejudiced by what I read, if I understand the
true definition of that word. I understand prejudice to mean the judpng
before hand, without proper examination. I heard of the attempt to Lynch
the prisoner. Don't know but I heard from an eye witness, soon afler it
occurred. I presume I expressed an opinion upon the subject then, and
that was in favor of a strict observance of the law.
The court chai^d in substance as before, and triors find the juror not
indifferent
WILUAM fBXBMAN. 81
John O'Haba was then drawn as a juror, and answering, said thai John
G. Van Nest was his brother-in-law. He was excused.
Abraham Gutchess was next drawn as a juror, and answering, waa
thereupon challenged for piineipal cause, and being sworn testified : I have
heard of the murders, but never heard any one say that he was insane.
Don't know how that is, but my belief is that the prisoner is sane. Shall
continue so to believe until the contrary is proved. Have seen him in court,
but never looked at him with reference to his insanity. Can't say whether
I ever heard that he was crazy, or that he was not
The court overruled the challenge for principal cause, whereupon the
prisoner's counsel challenged the juror for favor. The juror further testi-
fied : I have formed no opinion as to junsoner being a murderer. Think
he killed the Van Nest family ; have no doubt about that. Heard that af-
ter Freeman was arrested, there was a vote of the people taken to L3mch
him. Did not hear that a halter was taken to Van Nest's house to hang the
prisoner with. Never said he ought to be hanged ; but have stud that if
he was a sane man he ought to be hung. I always pat in that qualification.
The thought of his insanity entered my mind when I read the account of
the murder, and I thought that he might have been or might not have been
insane. I pondered that in my mind, and I thought whether he was sane
or insane, but I came to no particular conclusion. The fact itself of his
committing so many murders, raised a doubt in my mind at first about his
sanity. I cannot say that I came to the conclusion that he was sane. Don't
know but my impresssion was as much one way as the other ; but my present
impression is that he was sane.
Q. by attorney general. Did you ever see the prisoner until you came
to court ?
A. No ; and never except in court Never spoke to or with him. Have
had no opportunity for making up an opinion whether he is sane or insane.
I should believe him sane until I heard something to the contrary. Have
no feeling against him.
Afler a charge, in substance as before, the triors found the juror indiffer-
ent Abraham Gutchess was then sworn as a juror. (3.)
Sheldon Goodrich was next drawn, and not being challenged, was
sworn as a juror. (4.)
Henry Acker was next drawn, and answering, was challenged for prin-
cipal cause, and being sworn, testified as follows : Have heard it said by
some that Freeman was insane, and by others that he was not Have read
about the murder in the Cayuga Tocsin. That paper described the murder,
the time, and circumstances of it I take that paper. Never saw the pri-
soner except in court Can't say that I have made up my mind. When I
heard it, I supposed he was as other men are, with reasonable faculties for
the commissbn of crime. I have some reason to doubt that, as I have heard
it contradicted. Have no bias on my mind at present I think from ap-
S2 f THs'TuiL or
pearance of the prinoner that he is rather a weak minded man. I have
thought he killed the Van Nest family, and that he was a murderer, unless
he shall be proved insane. Have talked about it, but don't know as I have
said he murdered the fanuly. Have said I believed he killed them. Have
heard of the attempt to Lynch him. Thought ho ought to have the benefit
of law. Have thought that if he was guilty he ought to be hung. I thought
him guilty till I heard of his insanity. Have no opinion on the subject of
his insanity, but think if he is insane he ought not to be hung.
The court overruled the challenge for principal cause, and the counsel for
prisoner then challenged him for favor. Same triors.
Prisoner's counsel asks that Mr. Goodrich, he being the first unchallenged
juror, be sworn as a trior. Objected to by attorney general. Court denies
request Previous testimony read to the triors, and the same charge in sub-
stance delivered as before, except that his honor added, that the oath does
not mean absolute indifference as to the murder, but only indifference as to
the question of present sanity or insanity of the prisoner. The prisoner may
have been sane then, but insane now ; guilty of murder, yet unfit to be
tried.
The triors found the juror indifferent Heniy Acker was then sworn as
a juror to try the issue. (5.)
Benjamin Clark was next drawn, and answering, was challenged by
counsel for the people, but the same withdrawn and juror sworn. (6#)
Abijah p. Olmstej) was next drawn, and answering, was interrogated
by counsel ; not challenged, but was sworn. (7.)
Samuel Bell was next drawn, and answering to the call, took his seat
as a juror. (8.)
Thomas J. Slater was next drawn, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause by prisoner's counsel. On examination, juror said : I have
seen the prisoner in court since the commencement of this suit Have heard
about him from several persons. Have expressed an opinion that he is sane,
and that is my present ojHnion.
Q. by district attorney. On what did you form that opinion ?
A. From his appearance and his preparation of tools for the butchery.
The court decide the challenge well taken.
Martin J. Van Buren was next drawn, and answering, was challenged
. by prisoner's counsel for principal cause. The juror being sworn, testified :
I have not formed an opinion of the prisoner's sanity. Not hearing any
thing to the contrary, I had supposed him competent to commit murder
until I came here. Have thought of it a good deal since. Can't say that
I should judge correctly, but it looked to me like a very curious circumstance
that a sane man should murder a whole family.
Challenge withdrawn, and juror sworn. (9.)
Cyrus H. Davis was next drawn, and not being challenged by either
party, was sworn to try the issue. (10.)
wiLUAM yExnuK. 88
John E. Kkum was next drawn by the clez^ and answering, was chal- *
lenged for principal cause ; bot the same, on brief examination, was with-
drawn. He was then sworn. (11.)
Darwin Cady was next drawn, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause, and being sworn, testified : There has been a good deal of
excitement in my neighborhood about this murder. I have formed an opin*
ion that prisoner is guilty. I saw prisoner stand up to be arraigned, and
thought from the way he managed that he was not very insane. The cir-
cumstances of the murder prove that he is not insane, and that is the bias of
my opinion. I should want testimony to remove that opinion. If he is
deranged I cannot see it in his eye. Don't feel exactly towards him as I
would towards one not accused of crime.
Set aside by consent of attorney general
William Ross was next drawn, and answering, was challenged fot
principal cause, and having formed an opinion, was set aside.
John Vosler was next drawn, and answering, was challenged for prin-
cipa! cause by the prisoner's counsel, and after being sworn, testified : Heard
the plea of insanity put in. Have seen prisoner in court Was never in the
jail. Have heard it remarked that the plea was merely a pretence. Have
heard it ridiculed frequently. Have heaid that he was, and also that he was
not insane. I have looked at him, but cannot tell whether he is insane or
not. I have seen no appearance of insanity. My impression is that the
plea of insanity is groundless. Think so from his fixing his knifis, taking the
horse, time of night, and all I have heard. In my mind this man is guilty
Qf murder, and that ho is responsible for his acts. If he sharpened the
knife, committed the murders, and then took a horse and run away, he ought
to be responsible.
The court sustained the challenge.
James H. Wood was next drawn by the clerk, and answering, was
challenged for principal cause by the counsel for prisoner, and being sworn
he testified : I have an opinion that four persons were killed, and that
whoever did it was a murderer. Heard that Freeman was arrested for it
Have heard very little about it{ have some. Heard that knife was sharp-
ened before hand, and that he went and stabbed all of them ; and that he
then took a horse and cleared, and got to Fulton. The impression on my
mind is that Freeman was the man, and if the facts are so I know of no
reason why he is not accountable. Think I have never heard the facts
contradicted. Have heard the counsel censured for putting in a plea of
insanity for the prisoner. I think from ithe precaution he took, and the
escape he made, he is an accountable being, and that is my mind now. I
presume he la sane.
The court overruled the challenge, whereupon the prisoner's counsel
challenged the juror for favor, and appointed counsellors Hulbert and An-
drus trion.
84 THX TEIAL or
On the preceding evidence to them read, the triors found the juror not
indifferent
John Conger was next drawn, and answering, was chaDenged for prin-
cipal cause, and being sworn, testified : Have seen the prisoner in court
No where else. Have read part of the facts and circumstances, and have
heard them talked orer. Concluded that he was guilty of murder, if what
I liad read and heard was true. Do not know that ihe question of sanity
arose in my mind. I took it for granted that it was an atrocious murder.
I never heard the prisoner's sanity questioned until he was brought into
court Have looked at him with reference to his sanity. I was a good deal
disappointed on seeing the man, for I had supposed him an athletic, ferocious
man. I have not any opinion about his sanity, yet the bias of my mind is
that he is now responsible, saying nothing about what I have heard here.
See nothing in his appearance to change the impression. He don't appear,
however, to be a man of any knowledge.
Challenge withdrawn, and juror sworn to try the issue of insanity. (12.)
Court then adjourned for the day.
TRIAL OF THE QUESTION OF INSANITY.
In court, June 25, 1846. Present, judges and counsel as yesterday.
On a call, the junors decided competent to try the issue upon the plea of
insanity, responded, and entered the box, to wit :
1.
Ezra Stone,
7.
Abijah p. Olmsted,
2.
Simon Hawes,
8.
Samuel Bell,
8.
Abraham GtiTCHESs,
9.
Martin J. Van Buren,
4.
Sheldon Goodrich,
10.
Cyrus H. Davis,
5.
Henrt Acker,
11.
John E. Krum,
6.
Benjamin Clark,
12.
John Conger.
Mr. Wright, for the prisoner, then opened the caie to the jury. Whilst
he was impressed with the belief that the prisoner was insane, he wa.s not
without information that others differed with him in opinion. T!ie circum-
stances of the massacre, however, were themselTcs indicadve of insanity
rather than of depravity. There was such an absence of motive on the part
of the prisoner for the commission of an act so dreadful and revolting, that
the first mention of the case awoke in his mind suspicion of insanity. With
others, he had been confirmed in that impression after seeing the prisoner,
and learning more of his history and behavior. He had heard that insanity
was hereditary in his family ; that being predisposed to that disease, some of
his ancestors had become insane for causes apparently trivial ; that Freeman
had himself been imprisoned for another's crime, and bad been subjected to
WILLIAM rSXlMAN. 86
the lash for pretended ofTences. He had heard too of the blow which had
injured hid hearing, and he had seen him in his cell, deaf, indifferent to his
fate, and unconscious of danger. He had observed his vacant stare and
idiotic smile. Whilst he was shocked at his deeds, he was moved with pity
for his condition. He believed him a proper object of sympathy rather than
of prejudice and indignation. At the request of Gov. Seward he had been
assigned by the court as counsel in his behalf. An unsought responsibility
now rested upon him as counsel ; a responsibility that was akin to that rest-
ing upon them as jurors. It was a responsibility that must be borne in the
discharge of his duty, without fear, favor, or the hope of any reward, save
that which would arise from seeing justice dispensed and the law vindicated.
He and they must dispel from their minds every semblance of prejudice, and
proceed to inquire whether the wretched prisoner at the bar be a sane or
insane man. It was an investigation that would require time, labor, patience
and care. The prisoner's counsel have, in the honest dischaige of their duty,
deemed it just to plead for him a plea tliat he cannot understand. Aa
little did he (the prisoner) understand the nature of this investigation or the
proof to be made. He is here because the law requires it ; not to dictate a
defence of which he is aa ignorant as the posts which support the dome
under which you sit What is done by us, comes from no agency of his,
but, from the dictates of conscience and the promptings of hunuinity. We
ask, then, your best attention whilst we spread before you the condition of
his mind by the testimony of witnesses, remembering that human life pro-
bably hangs upon the issue.
Ira Curtis was then called aa a witness on behalf of the prisoner, who,
after being duly sworn, testified : I reside in Auburn ; am fifly-two yean
of age, and by occupation a merchant I know the priaoner, and am deci-
dedly of opinion that he ia a part of the time an idiot; both idiotic and
insane. My opinion is formed from talking with him. At one dme I would
think him insane, at another that he was an idiot I first saw him some
years ago. I employed him about the Western Exchange ; the kitchen and
yard. If he had any capacity, I waa unable to ascertain it He was of no
use to me ; if I sent him for any little thing five rods, he would be just as
likely to bring me something else. He was a dull, morose, stupid, stubborn
boy. I have talked to him in his cell ; saw htm first on first day of June
instant ; went into hia cell and found him in a tremor, wonderfully agitated.
I mentioned to him that they were going to take him out to hang him. He
gave me to understand that they were going to kill hLoi. I asked him if he
knew they were going to take him out to try him. He said he supposed to
kill him. I said no ; that they were to take him out to have a trial ; a fair
trial. I said this to allay the fear he waa laboring under.
I asked Freeman if he could read. He said he could. About that time
Mr. Austin, a clergyman of this village, came into the cell where we were*
He took up a testament that was laying there, opened it, handed it to Free-
do THB TUAt or
man and asked him to read in it He undertook to do 80, and commenced
by repeating the words, O, Lord, Jesus Christ, Almighty, mercy Moses, and
continued in the same way, but sometimes using words that I could not un*
derstand and which I doubt were to be found in any language ; certainly
not in the English. He used some proper English words, but others were
not They were words that I never heard before, and probably never shall
hear again. I took the book from his hand and said to him, ^* you do not
read right" He replied that he did. I looked at the place where he was
pretending to read, and found it waa the chapter beginning with, *'• In those
dtLjs came John the Baptist, preaching in the wiidemesa," &c. I said again
to him, " you cannot read." He said, " yes I can." I said, " you don't read
right" He said, "yes I do."
Finding that he could not read in the Testament, I took from my hat a
leaf of a Bank Note Detector, and pointed to the word " admirable" that was
upon the leaf, and asked him what it was. He looked up with a silly ex-
pression, and said " woman." I said, No it is'nt He said, Yes it is. I then
pilt the point of my knife to the word ** Thompson," for it was Thompson's
Bank Note Detector, and said, '' What is that. Bill." Cook, said he. I then
directed his attention to a capital A, which he called A, and he also called
the letters to E correctly. Mr. Austin asked me to tell him to count One
or both of us did so request him. He said he could count, and commenced
counting his fingers. He counted to " five" and hesitated ; and again when
he got to " eleven" and " thirteen," and at a number of places. When he
got to twenty, he began one, two, three, &c., and kept on to seven, and from
that went to eighty. Next he got in sixty-six and seventy-two before I
slopped him.
During all this time he was in a tremor from head to foot Finding ha
eould not count correctly, I entered into a conversation with him, about his
going up to the Lake. I asked him what he went up to the Lake for; to
which he replied that he did not really know what he did go for; as if he
had no particular object in going. I asked him how far he went He an-
swered, quite a piece, or something like tiiat I asked him where he stopped,
or if he stopped in any other house. He said he stopped once at a house
beyond. I inquired what for. He said to get a drink of water. I asked
him what he went into the other house for. His answer amounted to this :
that he did not know. I asked how he came to kill those folks. He said ha
did'nt know, or " Oh, I don't know." I asked him if he was af%er tiieir
money. He said, " No ; didn't know they had any." I asked if he knew the
family. He said. No. I asked how he came to kill that child. Here he
exhibited some feeling. He answered, " They say, I know, I killed a child ;
but Mr. Curtis, no, I did'nt; I never killed a child." I asked him what he
UUed the otiiers for. " Why," said he, drawling, " you know I had my work
to da" I said, nonsense, don't talk so foolishly ; and repeated the question
load and distinct; to which he answered, " Well, I don't know ; can't tell."
WILLIAM FBBBfAN. 87
I asked him if he knew the man, or had any thing against him. He tuld No,
he didn't know him, nor know who lived there. He said he thought it wai
time to begin. Said he did*iit go in to kill them ; thought it wasn't time to
begin yet I asked him if he went in to murder them. He said "'No, I
tliought it wasn't time to begin." He spoke about having worked for the
State five years, and had not got his pay ; that they had got to pay, or some-
body had got to pay him. I felt that there was no attempt on his part to
deceiye. I have no doubt that he was really sincere in what he said. I
have no doubt of it What I saw of him gave me the impression that he
was crazy, or was a fool, or both.
Crosb Examikation. — ^When I asked him what he killed those people for,
he said, You know that I have worked five years for nothing, and they have
got to pay ; or, I liave not got my pay for it He did not live with me long.
I did not suspect he was crasy at that time ; thought him more knave than
fool then ; that he was capable of doing better than he did. When I set
him at any thing, he would almost always do it wrong. I take it for granted,
a person I employ has common sense ; if not I don't employ him ; and that
was my impression about this man. Can't say how many times I saw him
afler he came from prison. I have recollection of having seen him once or
twice. Can't recollect any particular time or place, but am satisfied I was
in the habit of seeing him from time to time ; possibly as often as once a
week. I knew him by name, and have no doubt that he knew me. Never
qioke to him, or he to me, after he went to prison. I recollect nothing of
him since he led me, except his peculiar cast of countenance. Never thought
of asking myself the question whether there was any difference in him.
Took no notice. I think he was not deaf when he lived witJi me first I
never punished any body that I hired ; never punished or reproved him
when in my employ. He did not learn to read while he Hved with me. I
doubt whether he attended any church or any school. I attend the Univer-
saliat church, and the Rev. J. M. Austin is our clergyman. I think his
education is fair, yet I never asked him whether he was a graduated I
should think his education was fair and decent Have heard him quote
Greek and Latin, but can't say as to Hebrew. I don't understand any lan-
guage myself but the English, and hardly that
I had kept away from Wyatt and the negro until the Monday when this
court commenced. On the Sundi^f preceding, I was told that I would
probably be called as a witness in this case, and I determined then to go and
see him.
On Monday morning Mr. Austin came in to my store, and I told* hin
about my determination. He said he would meet me at Dr. Robinson's
office and go with me. One of us named the hour. When I went, he was
not there, so I kept on to the jail, where he came ten or fifteen minntes
after. It was neighborhood talk when he was in the State Prison, that he
38 THK TKIAL OV
was called crazy. He was called Crazy BilL I had heard that some called
him crazy before I went to the jail ; some said he waa a fool.
My object in going to the jail was to see him, having almost forgotten him.
After seeing him. I talked about him, and when I heard men say that he
ought to be hung, I would say, yon might as well hang a dog. I did not
knorw as I was to be called as a witness as to his state of mind. I knew I
was to be called upon to testify as to the facts ; not to any particular thing.
I afterwaids told Mr. Seward of my interview with the prisoner. When
I went to the jail I went to find out all I could about Freeman. While there,
Mr. Austin in a low tone of voice said to me, ^ he can't read ; he thinks he
can, but cannot" That difficulty was all solved when I remembered how
little children read when a book is handed to them before they have learned
to read. I did not discover any change in him. When he tried to read, he
used a great many strange words. I would as soon expect a pig to uttei*
Greek and Latin or Hebrew, as for him to do it
Q. Did it never occur to you that he was trying to impose on you, to get
up the plea of insanity ?
A. It did occur to me.
Q. Was it not possible that widi his appearance <^ insanity he was at-
tempting to play off such a game ?
A. The thought vanished in a moment There was too much before me.
Q. Are yon confident that he cannot read at all ?
A. I am that he cannot read a sentence, and yet he can say the alphabet
correctly.
Q. Fnnn your own knowledge can you say that he cannot read ?
A. I cannot say from my own knowledge that he cannot read, except as
I have before testified.
Q. Did ]^ou know that a plea of insanity was to be interposed for him ?
A. I presumed he would set up insanity or idiocy.
Q. Had you known that he was about putting in a plea of insanity, would
it have altered your opinion of his sincerity ?
A. I don't think it would. I have no doubt of his sincerity ; that he
labored' very hard to try to make us believe that he knew something, and
did not know any thing.
Q. What was the condition of his mind when he lived with you ?
A. He was stubborn and playful, and when told to do one thing he would
do another.
Q. When he was pretending to read in the jail, did it not occur to you
tlMt he might know better ?
A. The thought occurred to me that he ought to know better, and might
know better. I mentioned so to Mr. Austin, and others afterwards, I think.
Q. Had Mr. Austin virited the jail before ?
A. I suspect he had, and knew more than I did, and left me to get along
with the prisoner the best way I could.
WlUdAM imUiAN. 89
Q. Did not Mr. Austin say to you ihnl the prisoaer could not read ?
A. Why, I said to him that it was strange ; that he certainly could*nt
read ; and he smiled, and said, *^ I know that, but he tJiinks he can."
Q. Did not the prisoner appear to be in a reflective mood ?
A. I had an impression that the prisoner did not think much, any way.
Q. Might you not have been deceived as to the prisoner's sincerity ?
A. I supposed the prisoner was telling me the truth.
Q. Did you think he appeared differently from what he did when he
lived with you ?
A. I got the impression that he was not a tenth part as big a fool wheii
he worked for me as when I saw him in jaiL
. Q. Then you consider him a bigger fool than formerly ?
A. You have asked me if I found any change in him. I got the impres-
sion that he was a fool, and that impression grew stronger the more I saw
of him. '
Q. Are you acquainted unth the subject of insanity ?
A. I don't know any thing about it scientifically. I have seen many cases
of it
Q. Did you not know that he conld not read before yon gave him the
book?
A. No. I did not know only from what he said. He said he could, and
I got the opinion that he was honest in thinking so. When he sud, " they
tell me I killed the child, but, Mr. Curtis, I certainly did not," I thought he
was telling me what he believed to be the truth.
Q. And you think he believed that to be the truth ?
A. ( I think just at that moment he thought he had not killed the child ;
but I think it likely that he would five minutes afler have told another per-
son a different story. ,
Q. Did he not assign a motive for going to the house of Van Nest and
killing the family ?
A. He said he had worked five years for nothing, and they must pay him.
I asked him several times why he killed the family, before the child was
mentioned.
Q. Were the words he pretended to read on the page opened to him f
A. They were not
Q. Did it occur to you that he might have been taught to do this ?
A. No.
DiKECT RESUMED. — I do*nt believe it is in the power <^ all in this room
to teach him to carry on a piece of deception for fifteen minutes. He pointed
to where he pretended to read a part of the time, and a part of the time
he held the book in both hands ; he always counted by his fingers. His
words were many of them unintelligible. The rest were mixed up.
Re-Cross Examination. — The unintelligible words were between the
othen. His memory did not appear to be good. He recognized some peo-
40 nu nuAL ov
pie. He knew me. When asked if he knew me, he caUed me hj name.
He coald count twenty.
Q. Does accuracy in counting depend upon memory ?
A. I don't know whether it does or not
Q. Did you test his memory pardcularly ?
A. I did not ; did not try him to see what he could recollect
Martha Godfrey was next called and sworn as a witness for the pri*
soner, on tJie plea of insanity interposed in his behalf. She testified as fol-
lows : I reside in Sennett, and have seen the prisoner. He came to my
house last March, at two o'clock P. M., and before the murder of the Van
Nest family. He came in and sat down, and wanted to know if this was the
place where a woman had a horse stolen ^tq years ago. I told him it was»
He then said he had been to prison for stealing it ;' but that he did not steal
it I told him that was somethii^ I did not know any thing about ; that he
had been tried and found guilty of it, and sent to prison. He seemed deaf^
and complained of being so hard of hearing that he could not hear. He
wanted me to get very close to him and speak very loud. One of my neigh-
bors just then came in, and I told him to -talk to Freeman, for I could not
It was Joseph Johnson that came in. He asked Freeman what he wanted.
He did not make much of an answer, but said he did not know, and sat
awhile. Mr. Johnson asked whether he wanted the horse, or what he did
want He did not make any answer, but sat there quite a while. I then
asked hun if he wanted any thing to eat He said he did'nt know. I how-
ever gave him some cake to eat. Johnson spoke to him again, asking
him if he wanted the horse. He nat awhile, looked around, smiled, and Said
Ate didnt want the horse now. He said he had been to prison for stealing
the horse, but didn't steal it ; and wanted a settlement He said he had
been to prison five years.
I did have a horse stolen five years ago, and was a witness against Freeman
on the trial for stealing it I did not then know John G. Van Nest, nor
any <rf*his family, nor any of the persons in his house when the murder was
committed. I never heard that any of them were concerned in the trial in
any way. They were in no way related to me or my family. I never beard
of them until afVer the murders were committed. He remained at my house
about an hour. The witnesses agiunst Freeman on the trial for stealing my
horse, were Marcus T. Doty, and a negro, named Jack Fnrman, I believe.
The trial was in this court house.
Cross ExAMiNATiONd — ^Witness testified that Freeman was at her house
at no other time that she knew of; that she never saw him at any other
time, except at the court house when he was tried.
Therox Green was then called as a witness in behalf of the prisoner.
Afler being sworn, he testified as follows : I have resided in Auburn for
eight or ten years last past I know the prisoner and knew him when he
was in the State Prison at Anbom. h\ 1S43 I was an officer in the State
whxiAM TsiaalAii. 41
Prison, and bad charge of him. I think he waa not then in possesnon of
much intellect Aji to his sanity, I had rather not give an opinion, as I am
not a competent judge of it He is a singalar being; the most so of any
penon I ever had charge of. He is an imbecile sort of person.
He worked at the forge. He blew the bellows at the fire, and did the
striking. We got along with him as well as coold be expected. He was a
half pay man ; did aboot a half a man's day's woric. I did not look upon
him as having much accountability for violating the rules of the prison. I
never punished him. As a general thing he was slow to move, but would
mind me in his way. He was stubborn and sulky. I never discovered any
intercourse between him and other convicts. His manner then was about
the same as now. I never saw much cheerfulness about him. I once tried
to instruct him in reading, but with rather poor success. It could not learn
him his A B C's. I made the remark that I did not like to have a man in
my shop that could not read nor write, but as to him I had failed.
He violated rules of the shop, fbr which I would have been compelled to
flog other prisoners, but did not flog him. One reason fbr that was, that I
did not think it of any use to flog him. He was an intractable and rather
singular sort of a thing, any way. I should think he had a very small degree
of intellect or reason. I discovered a change in him while in prison. I
don't think him a man that would realise the consequences of killing a per-
son. He is a reckless fellow, or brute, as you may choose to call him. He
comes OS near a brute as a hmnan being can.
Cross £xAMiNATi02r.-^Had no opportunity of observing hhn except
while in the stone shop in the State Prison, except that I saw him in hia
cell sometimes on Sunday. I gave him instructions about doing his woric
and about the rules of the prison. When at work there were complaints
from the blacksmiths that he did not strike right I have told him to do
things, and he would go right baek to his old place to woric. He generally
obeyed when I told ham to go of an errand, or to get a pidl of water, but not
always.
Q. Was he lazy when in prison ?
A. He was rather slow.
Q. Why was it that he did not do over a half a day's work ?
A. His skill and ingenuity as a wcnkman would not warraiit pay fbr more
than a half a day's work.
Q. Was he not lasy as well as slow ?
A. I considered him slow, and I guess lazy, too, in his movements.
Q. How did you induce him to obey you ?
A. I talked with him about leaving him in his ceU.
Q. Did he work steadily, altiiough slowly, when in the shop ?
A. Generally he did. I often found him asleep in his cell Sundays, aad'
would wake him up. Sleeping in the cell in the day time was against the
rules of the prison.
42 iBiwiJiev
Q, Do not colored men frequently -violate tlut role in the State Fki-
•on?
A. They are no more likely to violate this rule than others, I think.
Q. You say you think he has a very small degree of intellect or reason.
Did you ever make any examination for the purpose of ascertaining the
amount of intellect which he has ?
A. I never made any particular efforts to ascertain the depth of his in*
tellect I had evidence enough of that before me.
Q. Was he not regarded as a disorderly convict?
A. He was not ugly. He was a pretty peaceable convict He kept snug
at his work, and minded the rules as a genmvl thing.
John R Hopkins was next called, and sworn on the part of the prisoner :
I reside in Auburn, and have been nearly nine yearn engaged in manufiw-
turing. My knowledge of the prisoner commenced with my knowledge of
the Fleming murders. When he was lodged in jail, I felt interested to to-
quire about his previous history. I had understood he was a man. of very
weak intellect, and was desirous to ascertain how that was, from personal
inspecttOH. I went to his cell and conversed with him, a week or ten days
after committing the murders. I became satisfied that he b a man of very
weak intellect, indeed. I endeavored to ascertain what the powers of his
memory were ; if he knew me. He said he did not I could not bring it to
his memory tiiat he had ever seen me before. [Mr. Hopkins continued
and testified substantially as upon the trial for themurder. See post]
William P. Smit^ was next sworn, and testified as follows: I reade
in Auburn, and have known the prisoner seventeen or eighteen yeacs ; and
ever since he was large enough ,to run about the street I did not know his
fiither, yet I knew several of the Freemans. Sidney, the prisoner's uncle,
is said to be crazy, and has been ever since he left the prison, six or seven
years aga In the fall of 1848 I was foreikian in the carpet factory in the
State Prison, and Freeman was one of the hands in that shop. I was toLd by
some one there, that Freeman was crazy ; but I never saw any thing in him
that made me suppose he was insane. I took him on another tact I con-
sidered him a being of very low, degraded intellect ; hardly above a brute,
and treated him accordingly. He was a man of very quick passions. He
would fiy in a moment at any thing he thought an insult, or that crossed
him in any way. I recollect that one day he had a pair of shoes setting on
a pile of wood, which he had been greasing ; another man came by, took a
stick of wood, and the pile slid, and his shoes felL He to^ a stick of wood,
hit him a blow, and he was flogged for it Shoes were nicely done, and by
him too. A week or two after that. Freeman got to fighting with ano^er
man about the position of a pole of yam in the dye shop. The man reported
him to the keeper, and he was flogged for that After he was whipped the
second time, he came into the office where I was, crying ; said he had bee»
mudAM WBJamjjx. 48
flogged very sererely ; that a Me had been cut between his ribe, bo thai he
could lay the end of his fingers in.
He did not appear to be deaf at the time. He said the flogging pained
him 6o in the night that he could not sleep. He wanted I should get Israel.
6. Woo<l, who, he said, could get him out. His capacity was very limited.
[Witness further testified, in substance, as upon the traverse. See the
trial, post]
Warren T. Wordbn , called and sworn, testified : I saw the prisoner in
jail, in April last I went there by invitation of Dr. Lansingh Briggs. Some
previous conversation having suggested to me the question whether he was
an accountable being, I had some conversation with him. Doctor Fosgate
was there at the time, and a great deal of conversation was had tBere. I
asked the prisoner about killing the Van Nest family ; I asked him which
door he entered. Think he told me both doors. At one time, he said
he went in at the front door; and at another, at the back door. I asked
him what he said to Van Nest, when he first went to the stove. He said,
nothing. I asked him what they said to him. He said Van Nest said to him,
" Ji you are going to eat my liver, I will eat yours,** and he then struck him.
I asked him where he stabbed Mrs. Van Nest He said out doors. I asked
him where he stabbed the old lady. He did not give any answer. I asked
bun if it was in the house. He said it was at the gate. I think he answered
^ yes," to the question whether he killed Mrs. Van Nest before he went into
the house. I asked him why he went away. He said he hurt his hand. I
asEed that several times, and sometimes he said he could not kill any more.
I also asked him why he took the horse. He said he could'nt kill any
more ; had hurt his hand. He then asked me what they had sent him to
the State Prison for, when he was innocent He showed physical agitation.
He trembled and shook, and at first I thought he was going to cry. He did
not, however. I told him he stole a horse, and that was the reason why he
was imprisoned. He denied it, and said he didn't steal it I was there at
the jail a long time. To my questions, he usually answered in the affirm*>
tive. I asked him what he was in jail for. He said he didn't know. I asked
him if he knew what they were going to do with him. He said, Na I then
told him that he would be hung ; that they would hang- him for killing thai
family, and asked him again if he did not know it He said, No.
When I told him that he would be hung, he showed no emotion what-
ever. I came to the conclusion there that he was incapable of judging be-
tween right and wrong.
Cross Examixatiok. — I have not stated all the conversation, nor all he
said. I spoke about his wounded wrist, but did not get from him any infor-
mation about it It was dressed by Doctor Fosgate, whilst I was there. He
did not seem to give very intelligent answers. I thought his feeling waa
not acute. He was deaf. He laughed when we hiughed, and said, ^ yes," when
we aaked him any thing. Have heard of agitation other than physical ;
44 nn tbio* oi
mentid. I saw mental aviation in bis oonyenation. I am not certain
whether he cried. His whole appearance and conyersation was different
from that of a sane man. [Witness further testified, in substance, as upon
the traverse. See post]
Lyhax Paine, called and sworn on behalf of prisoner, testified : I am a
magistrate. On the Saturday previous to the murder, the prisoner came to
my office, opened the door, advanced four or five feet, stood half a minute,
and then said he wanted a warrant I asked him what he wanted a warrant
for. He advanced nearer to me, and I asked him again. He said for the
man who put him in the State Prison. I asked then if he had been put in
the prison for stealing a horse. He said he didn't steal it I inquired if he
had not been tried and convicted. He raid nothing in reply. I then said,
^ Then you want a warrant for perjury ; for swearing false." He said Yes. I
told him in order to get a warrant, he must get at the facts. He then appeared
tp be in a passion ; said he had been abused, and that he would have satis-
faction. I told him I could not give a warrant He stood still and hung
down his head ; and then looking up at me, said he must and would have one*
He then put his hands in his pocket, took out two shillings, and demanded
one. I told him he had better take his money ; go away and attend to his
businesBS, or he might get to prison again. I advised him to get some place
to work. He said he couldn't, he was so deaf. Said he had been abused at
the prison, and was deaf. He left t|ie office in a passion ; slammed the door
very hard, but came back in the afternoon. He had the same manner as
before ; was very deaf. I beckoned him to come near me. He then sKid
he wanted a warrant for the man and woman that sent him to prison, and
told me their names--one of which was Mrs. Godfrey. There was not any
thing at the time that indicated that he was insane. He acted strange, but
I attributed it to deafness and ignorance.
Charles A. Pabsons, called and sworn for prisoner, testified : About
a week before the murder, the pijsoner called at the office of Mr. Seward,
and asked if it was a lawyer's office. On being told that it was, he said he
wanted a warrant ; a warrant for the man that sent him to prison. He said
he wanted to get damage. I directed him to a justice's office ; but he did
not seem to understand me.
Sally Freeman, the mother of the prisoner, was then called and sworn.
She testified as follows : I live in Auburn. William, the prisoner, is twenty-
three years of age, or wUl be in September next; was twenty-one when he
- came out of the prison. He was in prison five years. I did not see him whilst
he was in prison ; after he came out I saw him. I saw a change in him after
he came out He was a different boy from what he was when he went there.
He was very lively before. I saw nothing different in him, only he seemed
to be roiled. Before he went to prison he was always talking and laughing^
When he came out of prison he didn't say any thing, and didn't appear as if he
I
WtLLUM FftsnCAK. 46
knew any thinn;. I havo never seen him laugh since he came out; he
smiled once in a while. He has never complained of any body to me.
I have never said any thing to him about his being in prison. I have
heard of his tr3ring to get work. I have not seen him since the murder of
the Van Nest family, until the opening of this court, when I went to the
jail with ]Mr. Morgan, to se^ him. He knew me, or appeared to. I asked
him if he was glad to see me. To thia he made no answer. He was deaf;
should say he is not in his right mind. Some of his relatives are deranged.
His Aunt, Jane Brown, was ; and Sidney Freeman, his uncle, is defangod,
and has been twelve years. William smiled when I went into the jail, just
as he does now. He did not ask me to come and see him again.
Cross Examinatioit. — ^I am fifty years old, and have three children
living. William's aunt was raving craxy; but she never hurt any one.
She got well before she died. Sidney Freeman got crazy in the prison.
He never hurt any one ; neither of them ever stole any thing when craay.
Sidney was put in the prison for stealing. It is said he was put in wrong-
fully. William lived with Depuy after he was thirteen or fourteen yean
old. I worked out by the week, and he woiked out I saw but litde of
him. When he came out of the prison I was at work at Gen. Wood's;
I have seen him five or six times, may be a dozen times, since he came out of
prison.
James H. Bostwice, called and sworn as a witness for the prisoner,
testified m follows : I am a justice of the peace, in Auburn. I have known
Freeman by sight, since his infancy. He used to run about our streets like
other black boys. He was rather a smart boy. Saw him since he came ont
of prison ; the first time was in November last. At another time he came
into my office, and asked for a warrant I asked for whom. He said for
the persons who had been the means of putting him into the State Prison ;
that he had been sent there wrongfully, and wanted pay for hb time. He
was deaf, and held his head down. [Witness further testified, in substance,
as upon the traverse. See post]
Mary Ann Newark, a witness on behalf of the prisoner, being sworn,
testified : I have lived twenty-six years in Auburn. I have known Free-
man since he was a little boy. As far as I can remember, he was a smart
little boy. Saw him after he came out of the prison, in the winter. It was
just before he came to my house. He was in the street, but did not say any
thing. I saw no more of him until he came to board with me. I had him
to help me carry clothes down into the village. He did not hear yety quick.
He would put down his ear and want me to speak louder.
I lived in New Guinea, just south of the village of Auburn. He said he
would come to my house, do chores, carry my dothes, saw wood, and not
pay money. He proposed it himself. I told him he might come, and he did.
He never had any thing to say, only as I would ask him to do things. He
always sat, and never would say any thing. He was never in the house
46 nu TBLU. ov
mach. He was at his meals and slept there. He spoke only when I would
ask him questions, and then he would answer quick-like, yes, or na He
never asked me any questions, only what to da He understood me, and
would do what he was told to do. He acted queer, but I thought it might
be because he was deaf. He never was in the house much. He made no
complaints. He left my house on Thursday evemng, just as the belb wei«
ringing for meeting. He said nothing. It was about six o'clock. I did not
see him have any thing in his hands or carry any thing with him. I did not
look after him. . Had no idea where he was going. He was then perfectly
sober. I did not see him again until the officers brought him down to the
village.
Deborah Dbpdy sworn, says : I live in the village of Auburn. I knew
Freeman before he went to prison. I was well acquainted with him. He
was a very smart, playful kd, and very quick to understand. His hearing
was as good as any boy's. His disposition was good, as far as I knew. I
knew him in company among young folks. Have seen him at balls, parties
and rides. He acted as sensibly and smart as any body on such occasionB.
He acted very smart His spirits were good. I never heard him read, and
believe he could not read.
After he came out of prison I knew him, and talked with him a number
of times. I saw a difference in him ; that he did not act as he used Ux He
never talked unless spoken to. He couldn't hear. He was deaf. Some-
times he would answer me, and sometimes he wouldn't I never knew him
to speak of his own accord. He came to my house about every day, or every
other day. I cannot tell any thing aboiit his cheerfulness after he came out
of prison. He was very dull. When spoken to, he would look up to yon
and say nothing. He appeared to be very dull. He didn't go in company
after he came ont of prison. He said they ^d not treat him well in prison.
I used to talk with him about it I used to ask him what made him appear
so dnll. He said he didn't know. He never said whether he stole the horse.
I asked him how he lost his hearing. He said they hit him ok his head
WITH A BOARD, AND IT APPEARED AS IP THE SOUND WENT DOWN HIS
THROAT. (See physician's account of his ear, as found on post mortem
examination.) I don't think he is in his right mind. He don't act as he used
to. He used to talk a great deal before he went to prison, and now he don't
seem sensible when you talk to him.
Cross Examination. — I live below the female seminary, near Mr. Ab-
bott's. My husband's brother married William's sister. I cannot tell how
long I have been married. I don't recollect who married me, nor where.
I have been at no balls or rides with Freeman since he came out of prison.
I can't tell on what point he has less sense. I think he has not, because he
don't act as he used to.
Dr. Levi Hermance, a witness in behalf of the prisoner, being sworn, tes-
tified : I saw Freeman the fore part of last winter. He sawed wood for me.
wuuiM nunofAN. 47
He was veiy deaf. I learned from him that he had been to prison, and he
said ^ they wouldn't pay hhn." He didn't ask whether he could get pay or
not I had no particular impression then that he was out of his head. His
conTersation and manner attracted ray attention. I thought it singular.
Had a conTersatbn with him about the wood. Saw him on the sidewalk a
day or two after. He then spoke of their refusing to pay him. I think he
said ** they have sent me to prison, and I wasn't guilty, and they won't pay
me." This is aU the conTersation I ever had with him until in the jail. The
iihpression made by the two conversations was that he was deranged. [Wit*
ness further testified as upon the traverse. See post.]
RoBBRT Freeman, sworn in behalf of prisoner, testified : I am not re-
lated to the prisoner. I became acquainted with him eight years ago this
summer, at the American Hotel. I was table waiter. He cleaned the knives.
He was rather slow, but was a smart boy. He appeared to understand well.
He was fond of play, and I had a good many play spells with Imn. He did
not appear like the same boy when he came out of prison.
John Dbput, called and sworn, testified as follows : I suspect I married
a sister of the prisoner. I have known him thirteen yean. There were ft
good many that were smarter than him. He could read some in the spelHng
bode, but he had but little learning. He was always lively, active and play-
fhl. He played, wrestled and jumped. I recollect before he went to prison,
that John Thompson was very smart, and that Freeman could throw him the
best way he could fix it. I knew of has going to balk. He was social, lively
and very talkative before he went to prison. He was at my house the night
MrsL Godfrey's horse was sicken. [Witness further testified in substance as
upon the traverse. See post.]
Adam Gray, a witness called and sworn on behalf of the prisoner, testi-
fied : I have lived in Auburn eighteen years. I know Freeman. He was
a smart boy \ was very active, and had a good deal to say. He is consider-
ably changed since he came out <^ prison. He does not appear as lively as
before. He lived with me a part of last winter. He used to talk about
going away. He said he didn't know people. They seemed strange to him.
I have seen him laugh since he came out of prison. He lived with me about
two months. Slept in a bed in the chamber. He used to get up nights and
come down stwrs. Said it was day-light; he was going to work. I heard
him sing in the night and make noises. I couldn't understand what he sung.
I have seen him dance in the night when he got up. There seems to be a
difference in him since he left prison, as to knowledge.
Cross Examination.— I never saw him drink any ardent spirits while
he lived with me. I saw him once when I thought ie had been drinking.
He went out one night and was gone two hours. Don't know where he went
Said he was going to work when he left me. He was a boy when he went
to prison, and a m&n grown when he came out It was night when I heard
him dance. Don*t know whether he had been drinking. Some colored
48 TBB TRIAL W .
people dance a good deal, and some do not Before he went to prison be
was very active. Since he came out I have talked with him about going to
meeting. He laughed at it Sometimes he would go, and sometimes not
He would try to read, but I could not make out what he was reading. [Wit>
ness further testified in substance as upon die traverse. See post]
Ethan A. Warden, called and sworn as a witness en behalf of prisoner,
testified : I have known Freeman fourteen years. He came to live with
my father, and afterwards lived w^th me five or six months. We considered
him a bright, active boy. He used to play a good deal. We thought he
understood readily enough. He used to go to Sabbath school when he lived
with me. He could then hear well. We kept him to go of errands, scour
knives and forks, and take care of children. Saw him in the prison. He
was very deaf. I did not say much to him, but thought something strange
had come over him« The next time I saw him was after he came out of
prison and a short time before the tragedy at the Lake. I asked him how be
did. He made no answer. After the murder of the Van Nest family, I
went up to the Lake and saw him in a wagon coming to Auburn. Ailer he
got to the jail I asked himif he knew me. He said Yes. They took hun to
a cell and put irons on him. He said be recollected being with me. I was
at the jail again a few days after. Talked with him about the afiaur at Van
Nesf s. He is not as intelligent as he u^ to be. He does not appear to
be a man of sound intellect I thought he was but little above the bnites as
regards right and wrong. He don't appear to have reason, or power to draw
inferences. [Witness further testified in substaoiee as upon the traverse.
See post]
Philo H. Pebrt, called and sworn on the part of the prisoner, testified :
I have seen the prisoner and tried to converse with him* I heard Mr.
Seward make the attempt Mr. S. asked Freeman who the jury were, or
what they were. He said he didn't know. Mr. S. asked him what the busi-
ness of the jury was. Same answer. He said something about having been
in prison five years, and about getting hb pay for it He said something
which led me to suppose that he thought the jury a permanent body. I
could not come to any satisfactory conclusion in my own mind how far he
had any responsibility. My opinion, so far as I have any, is that it seemed
to me as if he must have known he was not doing right, but that he had no
conception of the enormity of the offence. Did not seem, to have any idea
that the result of the trial depended at all on the exertions of his counsel, or
evidence. He has scarcely any intellect at aU, as far as I can judge. He
has a smile very much indicative of idiocy. [Witness further testified in
substance as upon the traverse. See trial.]
Dr. Blakcharb Fosgate sworn, and testified : I am a physician and
surgeon. On Monday, the sixteenth day of March, I was called by the jailor
to examine the prisoner's arm. I dressed it It had been wounded with a
knife. He seemed morose. Sat still and made no c(»nphunt I went up
WILLIAM VESKMAK. 49
to him to examine it and took hold of it He did not stir. He did not know,
apparently, that I was there. I asked if his hand pained him ; he made no
reply. The wound was in the wrist, immediately in the joint The tendons
' were cutoff; also, the main artery running to the hand. [Witness further
testified in substance as upon the traverse. See trial.]
Db. Lansinoh Briggb, called and sworn, testified : I am a physician.
Have been physician to State Prison. I have known Freeman eight or ten
years. Always supposed him to be a boy of common intelligence for boys
of his age and condition. I saw him in the latter part of April. Dr. Foa-,
gate and W. T. Worden were present My object was not then to test the
condition of his mind. I went upon Dr. Fosgate's invitation ; he was the
physician. Dr. Fosgatc procee4ed to dress his hand. I examined the wound
on his wrist, and I found he manifested very little sensibility as to pain.
Seemed to be insensible to any pain or suffering. Examined his ankle, on
which was a heavy chain and iron clasp. Dr. Fosgate asked him if it hurt
him. He said no ; said it never had.
Q. What opinion did you form as to his intellect or aecountability ?
Aa I formed no opinion as to his accountability. I came away with the
impression on my mind, exceedingly strong, that the boy had beccMne de-
mented, from what I had known of him previously and had seen that day.
[Witness further testified in substance as upon the traverse. See triaL]
Dr. Charlrs Van Epps, being called and sworn, testified : I reside in
Auburn. Have practiced medicine twenty-^ne years; I was acquainted
with prisoner since he was a nursing babe. He was as active and sprightly
as boys in general. I practiced in his mother's family, but lost recollection
of him from the time ho was two or three years old till I saw him in prison.
My opinion of the condition of his mind is, that it was dementia, or idiotic
derangement In examining him, I found that all the answers to questions
we could get were yes or no. The state of his health appeared to be pei^
fertly good. Tried to have him read ; he read like a babe. Would say
over something like a part of a prayer, that he might have been learnt in
Sabbath school. We tried to have him count He did once count up as far
as twenty-eight, but that seemed an accident more than any thing else. The
impression on my mind was more strong, because he had an uncle here in
town that was deranged.
Cross Examined. — ^I saw him in jail a few days after this court com-
menced. I saw him two consecutive days, the middle of the first week of
this court The first time I visited him alone, the next with Dr. Pitney, the
next with Captain William P. Smith. The conversations occurred at both
times. First, I asked him if he knew me. Think he smiled a littie, and
granted, and made no other answers Asked him if he felt well. Answer,
Yes. Whether they used him well Answer, Yes. Whether he was craay.
Answer, No.
Q. On that conversation did you form the opinion that he was demented ?
4
£0 CHBTBIiX OV
A. I formed the opinion then, that hiB intellect was yery small indeed ;
I mean his intellectual faculties. Had not sufficient infonnadon then to
make up my mind whether he was demented or not I went again ; I tKiny
it was the next day. Found his pulse to vary both when sitting and when
standing, without any Tariations in his countenance. I asked him if any
other person had CTcr advised him to commit the crime. He said No. 1£
any person had hired him to commit the murder. Answer, No. If he had
ever told any body he was going to do it ? Answer, Ko. What he was put
into the jail for ? Answer, Don't know. Afterwards, seemed to recollect
himself, and said ^* horse." Asked him if he thought he would be found out
when he committed this act. Answer, Yes. I asked him if he could read*
He answered Yes. I then opened the bo^ and gave it to him ; he then
mnmbled over some words without meaning. Seemed to be prayer words ;
« Jesus Christ," ^*pray," only two words I recollect distinctly hearing him
apeak.
Q. Which of all the remarks induced you to make up your mind as to
the state of hb mind ?
'A. I made up my mind from his appearance generally, and from all his
remarks.
Q. Can you tell me any one thing that he has said that was not entirely
rational?
A. I find men in this condition always in the habit of telling the truth,
as nearly aa they can recollect; this is one powerful aigument in favor of
his insanity. When they have committed de^rate acts they glory in thenk
Q. AVhat are the symptoms of the disease which you think this man hat
got?
A. No one patient would probably have all the symptoms of the disease.
In dementia, the patient is inclined to be stupid a considerable portion of
the time ; but considerably sane and correct on some subjects. If interested,
•0 as to arouse their intellect, they will answer correctly ; if not interested
sufficiently to arouse or interest them, they will seem simple. If caused by
brutal treatment, cidculated to lead to desperate mania, they will commit
acts of violence ; if caused by cruel treatment, it would excite revenge, and
they would be likely to commit acts of violence, or murder; if from disap-
pointment, as of love, &c., if you touch upon those points, it seems to destroy
their reasoning faculties. These individuals, like most other insane persons,
unless grown entirely idiotic, are easily excited, and become violent in their
passions. I don't recollect as I ever saw a demented patient angry. De-
mentia is that form of insanity running into idiocy.
Q. What do yon think the cause is in this case ?
A. I should think it originated ftom brutal treatment [Witness further
testified in substance as upon the traverse. See trial.]
Rev. Johk M. Austdt, sworn and testified : I reside in Auburn. Am
clergyman of the Universalist church ; shall have been here two years in
WILLIAM YEBBMAN. 51
October next. I first knew the piuoner after his confinement in j«iL . Saw
him a week or ten days after he was confined in jail, in the latter part of
March. Have had seTend interviews with him in jiul ; sometimes alone,
sometimes with others. Don't know that I could give a correct narration of
all my conversation, not having expected to be called upon.
I put to him a variety of questions about the murder, but many of hit
answers were such that I could not understand them. I inquired repeatedly
why he killed that family. As soon as that inquiry was put, he would begin
to speak about being in State Prison ; and in a very broken and disjointed
manner undertook to relate something about being put in prison, wrongfully.
His language I could not give at alL I inquired if he thought it right to
kill those persons who had no hand in getting him in prison. Only answer
I got was something about his being put in prison, &c. He told me he went
to see the woman from whom the horse was stolen, and requested pay for
hia time in prison. I can't give his language, for that was in a very broken
and disjointed manner. Asked him if he thought it was right to kill that
innocent child, who could not have injured him. Got no audible reply,
but he hung his head, and shook it I got the idea that he couldn't give
any intelligent answer. Aaked how he happened to go that particular night.
Reply, " I don't know ; the time had come." Inquired why he entered that
particular house ; why not some other. Answer, ^ I went along out, and
thought I might begin there." Inquired what question Mr. Van Nest put
to him, when he first went into the room ? Replied, '* He asked me what
I wanted. I uAd him I came in to warm my hands." Inquired if Mr. Van
Nest said any thing more. Reply was, " He said, if you eat my liver Til eat
your's." Inquired how he became deaf. In a very incoherent reply, I
gathered something like this, *^ that stones dropped into my ears." Inquired
if he thought he could commit such an act without being punished. He
replied, " I didn't think any thing about it" Something was said about work
that he had to do ; it was in relation to this killing that he used the term«—
that he had work to do. He spoke in such a manner that I couldn't draw
any thing definite from it
Q. What is your opinion of his mind ?
A. I consider him in a very strange state. He could not give a reason
for his conduct in this afi*air. And also I drew that inference from his re-
maik about eating his liver, &c. Judging from what I learned of him, should
not consider him of sound mind.
Q. What is your opinion of his intellect ?
A. I consider it very feeble indeed. I should think a child of five or six
years of age had as much mind, both intellectually and morally. Hq has a
sense of some things at times, and at others, not
Cross Examination. — ^I have felt it my duty to visit the prisoner.
Q. Have you not been active in aiding counsel to prepare a defence ?
A. I have taken about the same interest, probably, that many others have.
52 TUB mAL or
■
Q^ Etaye you not been in irequent cossultation witb his cotniflel as fo the
manner of getting np a defence ?
A. I think at first I asked Mr. Seward if the prisoner would be defended,
and I think he replied, that he would.
Q. Have you not suggested to Freeman the propriety of his making a
defence ?
A. I think I inquired of Freeman if he had any lawyer engaged, and he
answered, No. I then inquired of him if he would like to have Governor
Seward defend him, but he did not seem to understand what' I meant Af*
ter repeating it several times, and using several different phrases, he seemed
to comprehend, and answered. Yes. I subsequently stated to Governor S.
what he said.
Q. Have you not been about town looking up witnesses ?
A. I have inquired what persons knew about Freeman. Have conversed
with several persons, but have never been about particularly for that pur-
pose.
Q. Have you preached on the subject ?
A. I don't know that I have.
Q. Have you not preached on the subject, generally ?
A. Never particularly ; never made it a theme of a discourse.
<Q* Have you not preached on moral insanity within six months ?
A. I have not, except to advert to it incidentally, perhaps, in a disoonrse.
Q. Have you not preached on the subject of capital punishment, lately ?
A. Not to nuike that a subject ; but I nuiy have alluded to it ; probably
I may have done so.
Q. Have you written, in relation to the murder, for the press ?
A. I have. I wrote an article for a religious paper in Utica, some six or
eight weeks since. Some copies of that paper are taken here.
Q. Was it the drift of that article to show that this man ought not to be
punished?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was it the drift of it to show that others are more to blame than he ;
that he is irresponsible ?
A. I don't know that I sud in those articles that he was irresponsible. I
have written in regard to the improprieties of others, in this nuitter, but did
not suggest that he was not a fit object for punbhment
Q. Have you written for other papers ?
A. I have, sir. I have written for the Auburn Daily Advertiser.
Q. At any considerable length ?
A. That depends upon our notions of length ; perhaps a column or two.
Q. Was it the object of that article to show that the prisoner was not to
blame?
A. I don't know that I have ever observed that he was not to blame.
Q. Was it the object to show that his education had been neglected ?
WILLIAM FKSKMAN. 68
A. Vory likely I may faave said so. I think there is no doubt on that
point
Q. Was it asserted, that those who neglected his education were as much
to blame as himsdf ?
A. I am not aware of having made such an assertion.
Q. Was it asserted that they were in some degree accountable for his
crime?
A. I may have inquired if community were not accountable for the Crimea
of those brought up in their midst
Q. Was there a suggestion that the crime was the legitimate effect of the
indifference of the community to the colored population ?
A. I think there was, for I do think so, in some measure.
Q. Then you think the community responsible for the crime of Freeman ?
A. My opinion b, that one of the legitimate causes that led to tlus tragical
event, b tlio utter neglect shown to the moral, intellectual and religious in*
struction of the colored people. [Witness continued in substance as upon
the traverse. See post]
HoRAC£ HoTCHKiss, called and sworn, testified as follows : I know the
prisoner. I first knew him in the State Prison something over a year ago.
I had a class in the Sabbath school in the prison, and he was in my class. I
did not have much success in attempting to teach him ; so far as I remember,
he knew some letters ; but his knowledge was very slight There seemed
to be a want of intelligence and comprehension. I tried to learn him to read.
He did not appear to show any indications of learning any thing. He was
very dull and stupid. Have seen him since, but have seen no advance in
capacity. It was my conviction that he possessed a low intellect [Witness
further testified iu substance as upon the traverse.]
Amariah Brigham, called and sworn, testified as follows : I am the Su-
perintendent of the State Lunatic Asylum at Utica. I have had a large
number of insane persons under my observation and charge at different times.
I saw the accused several weeks ago. I think I saw him the first week of
the trial of Henry Wyatt, at this place. I have seen him six or seven times
since; once alone, when I spent considerable time with him. I then went
through an examination similar to tliat which other witnesses have testified
they went through with, in order to ascertain the extent of his capacity and
the condition of his mental powers. I observed his motions, actions and pe-
culiarities whilst trying to ascertain whether he could read or render any
account of the transaction for which he is indicted. I tried him in various
ways, and by all the means at command, for the purpose of ascertaining the
condition of his mental faculties, in respect to sanity.
There are circumstances attending this case that render it somewhat re-
markable. He has some mind — some intelligence; and yet the former ia
very weak, and the latter very trifling in amount I /isked him about the
court, the counsel, the jury, and the trial, to ascertain if he knew what he
54 THX niAL or
was to be tried for ; but I nerer could get from bim a Satinet answer. His
answer was sometimes, that he did't know, and sometimes he would say, ^ a
horse." I tried to converse with him about his defence. I asked him what
he ooald prove in defence of himself. He said they conld prove he was in
prison five yean for stealing a horse, and he didn't steal it This he twice
repeated, in reply to my questions. I asked, if he was sorry for the act He
sometimes said "No," and sometimes^* I don't know," in reply. His words
were spoken slowly and somewhat incoherently. I asked him if he were not
sorry that he killed that innocent little child, that could not hurt him. Once
he said, " I don't know," and once, " you may say that ;" but it was slowly
said. He laughed when I asked about the child. I asked him what he was
laughing at; if he was not ashamed to laugh. He replied, "I don't know."
Ws laugh was not convulsive, but was more than a smile.
Others, in my presence, asked him about pay, and showed him money.
I once did the same, and exhibited to him bank bills, silver and gold coin.
He seemed to be animated, in some degree, by the sight of money, and smiled
with a smile more intelligent than ordinarily. I asked him if the bills exhibi-
ted would pay him. When shown a dollar or so, he said No ; but when I
offered him the whole, he smiled. I asked him if a dollar a day, which would
amount to about one thousand dollars, would satisfy him. He said it would ;
and that was his nearest approach to an answer as to what would satisfy him.
I talked with him about the deed charged against him, to ascertain tne
state of his feelings. I desired to see if he did not think he was doing wrong.
He said he did not ; that he wanted his pay. I tried in various ways to as-
eertain if he knew whether the killing of the persons was wrong. He uni-
formly answered. No ; but never seemed able to comprehend me. He said
he was deaf in both ears. He said his right ear was hurt when he was young,
and that made him deaf in that ; the other had been struck with a board
BT A MAN IS THE TRisoN, and a Stone was knocked into or out of his ear,
which made that ear deaf. Could not understand him exactly, but gathered
from him the substance of what I have just stated. He don't hear even if
yon speak loud, unless his attention is called to it
My experience among the insane has been very considerable. I suppose
few men living have seen so many. I was an officer of the Retreat for the
Insane, at Hartford, ten years ; was principal three years. I have had charge
of the Asylum at Utica since it was opened. I have visited the largest hos-
pitals in this country and in Europe, although I do not consider such infor-
mation experience, except in some peculiar cases like that of Hatfield. I
asked him questions for the purpose of seeing what sensibility or feeUng he
had. I asked if he would be afraid to be hung, or would dislike to be hung.
He smiled, and said ** I don't know." I ascertained to my satisfaction that
he had no feeling nor concern about it I asked him if he had ever been
crazy. He said he ^ent crazy in the prison. I asked him why he became
sa He said they struck him on the head, and said he was very crazy. I
WILLIAM f&mUK. 55
asked Iiim if he didn't want to see bis modier, his friends and acquaintances
here. To all these he answered, No.
Cboss Examination. — He appeared to have memorj of some things.
Memory is sometimes destroyed by insanity, but rarely. Most of the insane
remember most things, as well as ever, concerning their past lives. Unless
their minds are entirely destroyed, they have some memory of transactions
and of their friends. Some insane persons narrate past transactions, and
repeat them frequently. I should think that a majority of those now in the
Asylum at Ulica have tolerably good memories.
Q. How is this man as to memory ?
A. In many respects I cannot tell, not knowing what was the truth of the
matters stated by him. I know he recollected yon, (Mr. V. B.) He knew
me.
Q. Was that a circumstance denoting insanity ?
A. I did not consider that a circumstance bearing either way. I should
think nine-tenths of the inmates of the Asylum would recollect as much.
Q. Are you confident that he recognized you ?
A. . I feel confident that he recollects my having visited him.
Q. How was his attention ?
A. I should say very dull, indeed.
Q. What do you mean by attention ?
A. Wa observance of the circumstances around him.
Q. Was there any other want of attention than would naturally follow
ftDm deafness ?
A. I think there was much more. If I make comparisons it must be with
other deaf people.
Q. Are deaf persons attentive ?
A. When alone with an individual they are.
Q. Did he not attend to what you were saying ?
A. He never spoke to me, or asked me any question. He never attended
to me at all, or to any other person, unless directly questioned.
Q. Did you not accompany me, on one occasion, to see him ?
A. I recollect you (Mr. V. B.) and I went just before dinner, and were
in a great hurry.
Q. Did he wander then from the subject presented?
A. He did not wander from the subject inquired about to another, but my
impression was, that his attention is momentary and did not pursue the sub-
ject When his attention was called to subjects in which he is much interested,
he never paid any further attention to them than to answer, yes or no.
Q. Suppose you should talk to him half an hour ^bout killing those peo-
ple in Fleming, would he not attend all the while to yon ?
A. When we asked him to go on and tell all about the transactions, he
would only answer the questions put.
Q. What is he about, if not attentive ?
56 ZHI lEUL OV
A. He 18 attentive to one question long enough to give an anawer, and
then his attention appears to be gone.
Q. What induces the smile that you mention ?
A. Probably his attention falls off to dreamy imaginings, or something of
the kind, and he then smiles. He attends only to questions asked, and then
seems to wander.
Q. Did you ask him about his treatment in the State Prison ?
A. I think I did not
Q. Did you afford him an opportunity to relate what he knew ?
A. I tried to have him connect his thoughts, by constant promptings, and
to get from him a description of matters, but I always failed. His answers
were, yes, or no.
Q. Did that indicate insanity ?
A. There are instances in which sane men talk very freely about such a
deed and its enormities.
Q. Would a sane man be inclined to relate the facts of the commission of
snch a crime ?
A. If they undertake, they generally give one. I should think a. sane
man would cither refuse, altogether, or go on and state them correctly.
Q. Has the prisoner refused at all ?
A. I think he has never shown any unwillingness to answer questions, in
his way.
Q. Wliat was the result of your examination, as to his power of comparison ?
A. I would make the same remark as I have in regard to his attention.
It is an important faculty, and yet I think it nearly gone.
Q. You say that b an important faculty ?
A. It is, in order to enable a person to judge.
Q. Did he not compare tlie killing of the child with the killing of a man,
when he spoke of it
A. He seemed to answer very indifferently. I do not say that he is en-
tirely destitute of the power of comparison. I see only feeble evidence of iu
In reference to the child, I tliink he manifested some.
Q. Well, Doctor, have you become satisfied about his sanity ?
A. I have not made up my mind decidedly concerning it My effort has
been to keep my mind free from bias until I hear all the proof. ,
Q. Have you not formed an opinion ?
A. I have not formed such an opinion as I should choose to state at this
stage of the proceedings.
Q. If this man is insane, what is the species of his insanity ?
A. That would involve the same thing as giving an opinion.
Q. Then you have not formed an opinion ?
A. I do not say that I have not formed one, but I desire to keep my mind
open until I hear all the case, before expressing it I think it is due to the
station I hold to withhold my opinion until I hear the whole testimony. I
wiuum FBaniAH. 67
9pe that publicity is given to every Uung which takes place here, and I wish
to do no act that will impair my usefulness.
Q. From the examination you have given this case, if he is insane can
you not state the form of his insanity ?
A. I must answer as before. There may be circumstances developed
that will change my present impression in regard to him. I must therefore
hold my opinion in reserve until I hear all the testimony in the case.
Counsel for the prisoner here rested the examination.
Mr. Shsbwood, the district attorney, then opened the case to the jury on
behalf of the people. He dwelt at great length upon the enormity of the crime
for which the prisoner was indicted; the certainty of his guilt, and the law
as the same existed in Great Britain and America, in relation to insanity.
Whilst it was the right of the prisoner's counsel to interpose a plea of pre*
sent insanity for the prisoner at the bar, and their right to give the opinions
of medical men in evidence, he felt called upon to caution the jury against
the extravagant notions upon the subject which many entertained. Whilst
he would concede to medical men the benefits of their learning, he could not
regard their opinions as controlling, in a case where men of common obser-
vation could as well determine a fact. Ue did not regard insanity as a
subject that was purely or exclusively medical All persons having a good
perception, a sound judgment, and a discerning eye, could in a majority of
cases as well determine whether another is insane, as the most expert and
experienced physician. In this case, the prisoner has displayed an ingenuity
and skill in the manufacture of his weapons for the assault — in selecting the
hour and the place for the depredation — in the assassination of the family of
Van Nest, and in his flight from the scene made bloody by his hand, that
evinced mental power, as well as depravity. Every thing connected with
the tragedy indicates the possession of mind then ; and his recollection of
the affair, of his imprisonment in the State Prison, his fear of being pun-
ished, and his avaricious desire for pay for his imprisonment, indicates its
possession now. His health, in all respects, except the wound in his hand ;
his shrewdness in selecting persons with whom he most freely converses ; his
bright and intelligent eye, faculties of which all can judge, repel the idea of
insanity. His (Mr. S.'s) own examination had satisfied him that the plea of
insanity in this case was groundless, and had hoped to have avoided the
necessity of a protracted examination of witnesses upon a matter that ap-
peared to him so plain to the minds of alL The court, however, had seen
proper to submit the question to a jury, and it became his duty, therefore,
to make such proof as in his judgment would satisfy them of the pri^ner's
sanity, and that he ought to be tried. That the prisoner's mind was rude
and uncultivated — that he was a dull, grovelling, morose negro, he was pre-
pared to admit ; but that he was not a responsible being — ^that he did not
know that the massacre of the Van Nest family was wrong, and that he does
not feel guilty now, he (Mr. S.) neither believed himself, nor .did the people
S8 WM VEUL OV
Si large for whom he acted. The defisnce of inaanitjr was brought into di»-
repute when interposed in such a case. It was dangerous to the pubfic,
when baaed only upon the singularity of the prisoner's movements, or die
enormity of the orime which he had ocMnmitted. Thai he cannot read, but
thinks he can, induces one to think him insane. That he cannot define the
Siqireme Being, leads another to think so ; and because another finds him
taciturn and unwilling to talk, he comes to the same conclusion. A learned
physician does not find his faculties sufficiently actiye, his attention sufficiently
profound, or his jcomparison sufficiently good to enable him to venture an
opinion that he is sane. Admitting all this, does it not fall fiur short of pro*
. Ting insanity or of relieving the prisoner from the consequences of his crime ?
Shall such pretences suffice for a defence that shall screen a murderer, and
such a murderer, ftom justice ? If so, the responsibility shall rest upon you
who are empanelled to decide this momentous question. We shall give you
the history of this man, up to the time when he was brought into court to be
arraigned ; we will call medical men, lawyers and laymen, as to the state of
his mind, to the end that you may have all the facts appertaining to Ins
present mental condition. If we show him competent to distinguish between
right and wrong, we shall insist that he is legally sane and answerable to the
law for the horrid crime of murder.
Nathaniel Lykch, sworn for the people, testified as fiiQows : I reade
in Sennett Know the prisoner, and knew him sixteen or seventeen years
aga He lived with me a few weeks when he was six or seven years old. I
then lived in the east end of the village of Auburn. Hi^ mother wanted me
to take him and bring him up. He was then very playful, and ran away
every chance he could get Flay appeared to be all he cared for. I found
his mother was a drinking woman. He would run away and go home, so I
ooncluded not to keep him. Sally Freeman, his mother, is reputed to be
part squaw. After Wiltiam left me I saw him but a few times, until last De-
eember on the side-walks. I was looking for some one to help drive some
cattle, out three or four miles, into town. He had a saw-buck on his arm.
In going out, in a sleigh, he told me he had once lived with me. I asked
him where he lived ; had forgotten him. Just before getting there I bought
a couple of head of cattle, and as there was some dispute about them I took
him to see me pay the money. We got the catde together and drove them
into the village. He came back in the morning, and worked for me four or
five days. I paid him three shillings for helping drive the cattle. He said
that would satisfy him. The next day he came up I was absent When I
return^ I found him sawing wood. He asked me if I did not want to hire
him. I told him I did. Next morning he came very eariy, before daylight
I heard him when he came. After he had worked three days and had sawed
nearly all my wood, I asked him how much wages he wanted. He said hre
shillings a day. I told him I could give only fi>ur; that was all that I paid
in the winter. He appeared quite offended. He took twelve shillings,
wiujAK fmsHKAir. 69
ooanted it orer, and said it was right I ibink he worked one day after
that, for which I paid him half a doUar. After he left work, he came up one
day and aaked if my catde had not got away. He said he saw some cattle
in Clarksville, which he thought were mine. That was two or three weeks
before he committed the murder. I next saw him the first week in June, in
his cell. I went into the cell and asked him if he knew me. He said, Yes.
I asked him when he lired with me. He said when he was quite a small
I then aaked him about the mnrder, and who he killed first He said the
man. I aaked him who he killed next He said he saw a woman coming
in, and he stabbed her. I asked him who he stabbed next He said he saw
a person lying on the bed as he tf^me in, and stabbed it I asked him who
he stabbed next He said he went up to the head of the stairs, and met a
man, and stabbed him. I asked him where. He pointed to his own breast
and said, '< Somewhere about here." I asked him what he did then. He
said the man threw a candlestick and hit him ; then his feet slipped a little ;
the man got the candlestick, hit him again, and he went clear down to the
bottom of the stairs. I aaked what he did then. He said he thought he
wonld stab him again, but did not know but it was enongh. He said the
man got a broom-stick, and that he went into the hall and then he broke his
knife. A woman followed him and he stabbed her. He gave a different
relation at other times. He said he stabbed the c^d lady with the knife in
a club. I asked him how he could kill the little child. He said he thought
he would kill all there was in the house. I have not, in what I hare seen,
discovered that he is insane. My opinion is, that he is sane, but of weak
intellect [Witness further testified as upon the traverse. See post.]
Thomas R. Townsbnd, called and sworn, testified : I was chaplain of
the Prison three and a half years ; from '40 to '43. During that time I '
knew the prisoner. My impression ui that he was in Sabbath School.
Think his teacher told me his prospect of learning was very small. I had
conversations with him. He was usually taciturn ; talked a little ; answered
questions readily, and threw the burthen of conversation miunly upon me.
Saw him in jail first week oi trial of Wyatt ; had a short conversation with
him there, by questions and answers. I asked him but few questions. I
discovered a difference, from my previous acquuntance with him. His in*
creased deafness, brevity of his answers, not the same freedom of remark as
formerly, and some questions he answered in reference to the outrage ; he
nswered that he had been unjustly imprisoned.
Cross Examination. — ^My visits were made to the cells in prison. I
went in and asked him if he knew me. He said he did. Can't say, but
think I inquired whether they had injured him. He said No. Said he
wanted hid pay. I found him more deaf and taciturn than before. Don't
think he asked me any questbns. [Witness further testified, in substance,
as upon the traverse. See post]
60 TBE TRIAL OV
Aaron Demun, called and sworn, testified : I rende in Auburn ; have
resided here twenty-three or four years. I know the prisoner. I am an
uncle to him, by marriage. He used to make his home with me, before he
went to prison, off and on for a year or so. He was rather a wild boy ;
would not stay long in a place.
Cboss Examination. — ^I am forty-five, 6th day of December. Prisoner
must be a very little over twenty-two years old. He was an active, lively,
wild boy ; loved play. He was quick to understand as other boys. When
he went to prison he was only about sixteen or seventeen years of age.
When he came out oi State Prison he was very hard of hearing, and did
not want to talk. [Witness further testified, in substtfnce, as upon the tra-
verse. See post]
Israel G. Wood, called and sworn, testified : I live in Auburn. Be-
collect the time when Freeman was convicted for larceny, and sent to State
Prison. I kept the jail. I have known him from a child. He was not
very smart ; about as he is now, with the exception of his being deaf. Be-
fore he was convicted, he was in jail four or five months. He never was a
great talker, or I never heard him talk a great deal ; would answer questions.
He broke a lock, and let himself and another prisoner out. The other one
was caught Freeman got away ; was gone two or three days. I found hin
at Lyons, in jail, and brought him back. Coming home, I asked him how
he got away. He told me he kept to the woods ; came to Ca3ruga lake ; said
he got a boat Asked him how he come to cut up such a caper. He feigned
himself sick that morning, so that he didn't go out Cried, and said he was
sick. I supposed he was. He afterwards said he was not sick. I said I
didn't know but he would have to go to State Priscm. ' He said he didnt
know but the d — d nigger, John Furman, would swear him into prison.
Said John or Jack was the guilty one. I have known him since he came
out of prison. I have been a good many times out and in jaiL About a
week ago Bostwick was in the j^ when I went there. I asked him how
long he was in prison. He said five years. Asked him how long he was in
jail. Said four months. I said I discovered no difference from what he was
before in jail, except his deafness. I never thought him insane, till this a^
fhir ; that was one object in my going to see him. I could see no difference,
only that he was hard of hearing.
Cross Examined. — ^I did all I could, and said all I could, to prevent his
being Lynched ; I might have said he ought to have been Lynched, in con-
nection with some other conversation. I recollect seeing him before he was
Hyq years old ; saw him before he could walk, in neighborhood of Watson's
brewery. I can't tell only as I see him around, whether he had any more
or less intellect, till he came to jail« Talked with him more than at any
other time. Can't tell any conversation with him in jail, only to teU him to
go work. Since I knew him, before he went to prison, and while he was in
jail, he always held his head down ; never knew him to hold his head up
WILUAU fREEXAM. 61
and look a man in the face. I don't know as I eyer knew him to ask qnes-
tion^ ; might have asked about his work. I humored him. He was a good
fellow to work. [Witnes further testified in substance as upon the traverse.
See trial.]
Thomas F. Mitnroe, called and sworn for the people, testified as follows ;
I have resided in Auburn twenty-four years. I knew him when a boy ;
was with the constables when he was arrested for stealing the horse. Free-
man denied stealing the horse himself. He was then fifteen or sixteen years
old. He then had, a down-cast look. He was deaf then, but not so deaf as
now. I recollect that he was an ugly boy and threw stones at white boys.
I am the police ofiicer of the village of Auburn. The next morning after
the murder I was requested to go to John Depuy's. I asked Depuy where
Bin was. He said he had not been seen suice he threatened to kill him.
He then asked me what caper Bill had been cutting up. I told him I wanted
him for a witness. I told him so that I might not alarm him, and that, if pos-
sible, I might arrest the prisoner. I never heard that he was crazy till since
the murder. My opinion is I never saw any insanity in him. I think if he
is insane most of the negroes in Auburn are.
Cross Examination. — I don't know as I ever said Freeman ought to be
Lynched. I have said that if they had hung him, it would have saved the
county a great deal of expense. I might have said that it would have been
better if he had been hung or killed. That was since the manufacture of
craziness in this county.
Q. Have you not said that he ought to have been Lynched ?
A. If I did it was in reference to the course taken by a certain set of men
in relation to it.
Q. Have you not said that counsel ought to be tarred and feathered for
defending lum ?
A. I might have said they deserved it for the course they have taken in
his defence.
Q. Have you not made that or a similar declaration, and that, too, fre-
quently ?
A. I probably have said considerable about it, and somebody may have
reported me.
Q. I desire an answer to my question if you can favor me ?
A. I can't recollect what I have said. I am opposed to the course pur-
sued, because I supposed all the testimony about his derangement was manu-
factured. [Witness further testified in substance, as upon the traverse.
See post]
Abbtus a. Sabin, called and sworn for the people, testified as follows :
I knew the prisoner fifteen years ago. He then lived with Captain Warden.
He was a wild boy and would run away. I next knew him in the prison.
f was an officer there, in the cooper's shop. I saw Freeman filing in the
hame shop. Never heard or said that he waa crasy then. I don't know
68 THB XBIAL Of
that he wae deaf in the priaon. [Witness oontiiraed as upon the travene.
See post]
Abraham A. YANOEBHSTbsN, sworn fiir the people, says: I have
been acquainted with the prisoner since he was a boy. I arrested him for
stealing Mrs. Godfrey's horse. He always insisted that he did not steal the
horse. Two or three weeks afterwards the hone was found, and one Jack
Furman was arrested. Jack said Bill stole the horse. I saw him in State
Prison several times, and have seen him since he came out. I think he «^
pears different from what he did before he went in. It is harder to conyerae
with him ; his head hangs down and you have to talk loud. I did not know
that he was deaf before. He answers questions put by me. He evaded
questions in relation to the murder.
I met him at Baldwinsville, and assisted in bringing him to Auburn under
arrest for the murder of the Van Nest family. I asked him how he got his
hand cut ; asked twice before he answered He said by stabbing. I, with
others, asked him how in the world he eame to oommit such a deed. He
said he did'nt want to say any thing about it.
When the room was cleared so that but one person besides myself was with
him, I said that he might as well tell me about the matter. I asked him
how he came to conunit the murder. He said, "you know there is no law
for me." I asked what he meant by that He said, " they ought to pay
me." I asked him how he come to kill the child. He said he didn't know
it was a child. I then asked him how he left He said he took a horse. I
then asked him where he rode the horse. He said he rode to New Guinea.
I asked what he did with him. He said the horse fell and he left him there.
He would answer questions, but would never lead on. He made no con-
fession, except as stated. My opinion is that he is not orazy. [Witness
continued in substance as upon the traverse. See poet]
Stephen S. Austin, sworn for the people, testified : I know Freeman.
He was a mischievous, cunning kind of a darkey, rather still and down-cast
When he was in jail, before he went to State Prison, I did not know that
he was deaf. He didn't speak unless spoken to. He would turn up his eye
instead of his head. I have seen him in the streets since he came out of
prison. I can't see any difference except in color. I think he is of a lighter
color than before he went to prison. He has grown. I have seen him se^re-
ral times, and it never occurred to me that he was crazy.
Cross Examination. — I heard him answer questions in jail, when W.
T. Worden, Esq., was there. He answered questions put to him ; he did
not ask any ; he generally answered yes or no. There was this differenoe ;
before he went to prison, he asked questions ; in jail, he did not I don't
think Bill is a fool. I think he knows as much as either of my dogs. I don't
recollect that I ever said he was a fooL I said he was not worth the powder
and shot to shoot him. I said, at the time, things that I didn't believe, to
keep the mob from killing him.
WILUAX WMJOaUS. 6S
WiixiAM Holmes, sworn for the people, testified : I am a contractor in
the State Prison, in the hame shop. Freeman was in our shop ; he worked
at filing iron. He was an ordinary workman : fine jobs were put in the
hands of other men ; he was in the shop nearly two years ; he generally
spoke monosyllables. They learn by comparison, and work by sample laid
before them. He had difficulty with James £. Tyler, the keeper. I took
occasion to reprimand him. Freeman said that the keeper, was going to
whip him, and he had done nothing worthy of confinement He frequently
alluded to the fact that ho had not committed the crime ; that he did not
want to work ; that he was deriving no benefit from his labor. I have never
spoken to him since he left the prison. He always had a down-cast counte-
nance, and turned up his eyes when he spoke*
C&oss ExAMUTATiON. — ^I had the entire direction of the hame shop. The
wages averaged about twenty-five cents a day. There is a great difierence
in men. I inquired why he should conduct so as to occasion himself trouble.
He replied, that Tyler was going to whip him; that ne didn't feel disposed
to sufi*er punishment when he didn't deserve it I would not swear whether
I have heard him use the words ** feel disposed." He said he didn't want to
stay there and work for nothing. He said he was accused of stealing a
hone ; but he didn't commit the crime. When he was first brought into the
prison, I said it was a pity so young a boy should be brought to prison for
horse-stealing. He said he didn't commit the act; they swore false against
him.
I was at Van Nest's on the day of the prisoner's arrest I made a propo-
sition there to leave him to the hands of justice.
Q. Was it not proposed by you to Lynch him ?
A. Kot by me. I proposed to leave him to the law; but there was a
proposition to make a different disposition of him.
Q. Was there not great excitement there ? #
A. There was.
Q* Did you not participate in the excitement?
A. Why, I was there, and there was great excitement and indignation at
the result of the Wyatt trial.
Q. Did the assemblage pass a resolution to hang the prisoner on the spot ?
A. My son said they had passed a vote to hang him, and the friend who
was with me said I had better go and try to stop it
Q. Did you lend your aid to stop it ?
A. I stepped up to a gentleman standing on the steps, who I supposed
might have influence, and urged him to put a stop to it He said if I didn't
come there to .assist, that I had no business on the ground. He treated me
with considerable indignation.
Q. Was the person whom you addressed engaged in the effort to hang
the prisoner?
64 THB TRtU. OV
A. He said he came for that puqiose, and meant to see justice done be-
fore he went home.
Q. Did you do any thing further toward quieting the excitement ?
A. I told him if any mischief was done to the negro he would place him-
self in the same predicament of the negro — amenable to the law ; <^ but," he
replied, " we have no law ; we have tried it once ; justice is denied us ; we
will take the law into our own hands." I told him I had learned just before
I left Auburn, that the judge had determined to call a special court to try
Wyatt and this negro.
Q. Was there an effort made at Van Nest's house to lull the prisoner ?
A. When Esquire Bostwick came to the door to take the prisoner out, I
asked him to state the fact, to appease the multitude, that a special court
would he held. The magistrate stated to the crowd that there was reason to
beheve that others were implicated, and perhaps white people. As the pris-
oner was led out, there was a cry of " kill the negro ;" " take him away f
and a rush was made upon the officers who had him in charge.
Q. Did not this indicate a determination to execute the prisoner, had the
crowd been able to have rescued him from the officers ?
A There were a good many respectable persons there, whom I thought
were anxious to have him executed on the spot.
Re-Examination. — Q. Did the crowd assign any reasons for doing so,
other than those stated ?
A The result of the Wyatt trial was the reason uniformly assigned. It
was said that justice had been denied, and the community would not consent
to have their wives and children butchered.
Q. Do you know that the defence in Wyatt*s case was insanity ?
A. I do; and the result was, that the jury could not agree. No verdict
was brought in.
Q. Has he since been tried ?
A. He has, and has been convicted for murder.
James E. Tyler, sworn for the people, testified : I was a keeper in the
hame shop, in the State Prison, and knew Freeman there. He came under
my charge in November, 1841. I soon discovered that he didn't do quite
as much work as he ought to. I told him he was capable of doing as much
work as other men of his size and experience, and he must do a reasonable
day's work, and if he did not I should punish him. I talked to him at dif-
ferent times, about two months after he came in. Finding that talking did
not have the desired effect, I called him up to flog him. Sometimes he said
he did all he could, and sometimes he said he was sent there wrongfully.
He may have made other excuses.
I called him up and told him I had done talking to him ; I was going to
punish him. I told him to take his clothes off. I turned to get the cat, and
received a blow on the back part of the head from him. It started me a
WlUllM fEXIKAN. 86
Ettle. As I looked around, KU strack me oto the bttck. I kicked At kSm,
and knocked kim partty oyer ; perh]4>s he fell dear down. He jumped up,
went acron the shop, took up a knife and came at me. I took up a piece of
board lying on the desk, went down and met him. it was a beaswood board,
two feet long, fourteen inches wide, and half an inch thick. It was a board
one of the con^Kts had laid on my desk, on which was a count of lumber,
plaiied on both sides. When I caoK in reach of him, I struck him on the
head, flatwise ; split the board, and left a piece in mj hand four inches wide.
(See ante, page 20.) He was then approaching me with a knife. I struck
him on the wrist and knocked the knifb out of his hand. I struck Inm five
or six times across the buttocks with ihe board. I punished him and sent
him to his work. I had no further difficulty with him. I struck no other
bbw on the head. I think the Uow could not have hurt him. My impres-
non is that the bk)w was upon his forehead, but may have been partly on
the left side. He worked well after that He held his head down and was
rather down-KUwt I never noticed any thing remarkable about his eye. He
looked then as he does now. He made but few answers, but answered per-
tinently and short I saw him two months ago in jail, and asked him if he
knew me» He said he couldn't hear me. He was hard of hearing, but I
saw no difierence after he was struck. I think he could not have been hurt
by the Mow. I think it struck him on the fore part of his head. I ne^er
saw any thing to induce me to think he was insane.
Cross Examii^ atiom. — Ckmvicts do not talk much in the prison. They
are required to speak only when spoken to, unless it is necessary to their
woik. It was the general conduct of Freeman that induced me to think he
was not insane. I didn't ootisider him as intelligent a man as Ihe generali^
of men in the prison. He was not as quick as most men. I noticed no stu-
pidity about Mm.
Benjamin Van Keurbn, sworn for the people, testified : I was fiureman
in the haine shop while Freeman was there. He filed iron for plating. He.
was a middling kind of a workman, not the best, nor the poorest He went
into the yard from our shop. The filing requires some judgment, and some
practice. I had nd conversation with him, only to give him woik and to
take it away. I noticed his manner and appearance. I cannot see nmch
difi*erence in his manner. He was partially deaf. I recollect when James
£. lyier, the keeper, punished him. He was not more deaf after that, only
as deafness grows on a person. I think it grew some on him. I saw Tyler
when he split l^e board on Freeman's head. I shouldn't think such a blow
injured him. The board was only about two feet long, twelve or fimrteen
inches wide, and from a half to three quarters of an inch thick. I think
Tyler struck him twice on the hand. I did not see him strike Tyler. I
first saw Tyler making for Freeman, with his board. He was seised by con-
victs. Tyler told the men to let go of him ; told Freeman to sit down. He
sat there an hour or more, and then Tyler punished him. There is a good
6
06 THE TBlkh or '
deal of noise in that shop. The machiitery and bogus make a good deal ef
noise. After punishment he behaved a good deal as before. He w&9 some^
times obsdnate. I could not see any difTerence. Have seen him since. I
have never surmised that he was crazy.
Cross Examination^ — I never discovered any change in his deafness.
I suppose he merely grew deaf. I have seen him in the street since, and
sqvoke to lum, but can't say whether he heard me. I think he is a little deaf.
I can't say whether he is more deaf than he was when in prison. The last
time I heard him speak was when he was in the jaJJ. I did not talk with
him. He was asked a question, when he said he was deaf and couldn't hear.
Mr. Hohnes spoke to him. He put his hand to his car and said he was so
deaf he couldn't hear. Then Holmes spoke very loud. He made the same
reply. He would have heard in the State Prison when spoken to as he
spoke. My opinion was that he heard the first time and was feigning dea^
Q- Would not such a blow as was struck by Tyler injure an ordinary
person, in your opinion ?
A. I should think not
Q. Would not such a blow upon your head, with a board two ^t long,
injure you ?
A. A board two feet long, over my head, would only raise the grit a little.
Q. Would it not cause pain in the head ?
A. I dxm't think it would knock my brains out, nor kill me.
Q. Did you ever receive such a blow ?
A. I don't know as I was ever struck over the head with a board of that
description ; but I think it would not hurt me at all.
Q. J£ the blow did not cause the deaftiess, do you know what did ?
A. I don't. He was deaf when I first became acquainted with him.
Q. Are you one of the persons present at or near the house of John G.
Van Nest, deceased, when the vote was taken to hang the prisoner ?
A. I am..
Q. Did you vote in that assembly, either way ?
A. I don't recollect
Q. Did yon not say he ought to be hung, or use words to tliat effect ? ^, .
A. I was up at the house when the vote was taken to hang him, and I
presume I said something. I think very likely I said he ought to be
Lynched.
Be-Examikation. — Q. How, and under what circumstances, did you
midce that remark ?
Question objected to and overruled.
Q. What were you there for ?
A. I went up there, with others, to see the dead bodies.
Q. Were you excited at seeing the dead bodies ?
WILUAM VBSIMAN. 07
• A. I probably was. They were among the oxwt respectal^e people in
the county.
Q. When you said he oogfat to be Lynched, did you think that the pri-
soner could not be brought to punishment in the ordinary way ?
A. I did.
Q. Was there any other reason for saying so ?
A. There was.
Q* Had you other reasons besides seeing the dead bodies and being ex*
cited?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your reason for thinking that Freeman heard when in jail ?
Ai His manner of treating what Mr. Holmes and myself said.
Q. Was the ceU dark?
A. It was rather dark ; there was light enougL It was light enough to
see Hobnes' lips.
Cross Examination.— Hohnes and myself both talked some when we
were in the jail. »
Q. In what tone of voice did yon speak ?
A. We spoke low, and the prisoner laughed.
Q. Did he laugh aloud, or only smile ?
A, He laughed out so that we could hear him.
Q. Was that all there was in his manner that indicated that he heard
you?
A. That wa^ all there was in his manner.
Re-Direct Examination. — We conversed together in his presence
about Freeman.
Q. What did you and Holmes say ?
OJjjected to but allowed.
A. Holmes said to me, after speaking loud, ^^ Bill begins to look old,
doesn*t he ?** I told him his beard was long ; that he hadn't been shaved
since he had been there. Bill laughed out so that we heard it Holmes
said, " Bill, you are a hard case.** He laughed at that That was all that
was said.
. Q. How far were you from the prisoner when you and Holmes nuuie
t nose remarks ?
A. It was eight or ten feet
David Mills, sworn for the people, testified : I was foreman in the dye
shop when Freeman was in the State Prison. I knew him there. He car-
ried off yam to the shop ; was a good boy to work, but was partially deaf.
I have noticed his expressions to-day. I don't discover any material alterar
tion in his countenance. He looks paler than he did. I never discovered
any thing that indicated insanity. [Witness further, testified in substance as
upon the traverse. See post]
Lewis Markham, sworn for the people, testified: I reside in Aubunii
66 m miL ov
and iMwe known Ui^ ]>riMmer since he was a lad. I knew him in die pnion
when I was relief keeper in the spinning and cabinet shops. I hare had no
conrersation with hna since he came oat. I do not discoTer any change in
his coantenanee or appearance.
Asa Spekgeb, sworn for the people, testified : I neyer saw the prisoner
until I saw him in court Heard a conTersataon between YanderhcTden
and Depuy, when Freeman was arrested and brought into town. The ques-
tion was asked, whether the j would make Freeman out to be insane. De*
puy said he was no more insane than he was, but said he was ugly. Bepuy
said Bill would do weU enough if they wouldn't give him liquor ; that liquor
would make him ng^y and craiy.
Dr. David Dimon, sworn for the people, testified as fbllows: I am a
physician, and reside in Auburn. I have seen the prisoner in the jail several
dmes. I went the first time to gratify my curiosity, but subsequently I went
at request, for the purpose of ascertaining the state of his mind. I have
▼inted him some half a dozen times. Sometimes I remained there fifteen
minutes ; at other timel half an hour or an hour. The first tame I saw him
was the first week after his arrest I saw him in the early part of this month,
and have been there within ten days past I have talked with him about
the eyents of his past life, and particulariy about the murder. The conver-
sation was conducted by questions and answers. From the examination of
the prisoner I cocdd not discover any thing which I should call insanity.
Cross Examination.— Q. What would you call insanity, Doctor ?
A. Some derangement of the intellectual faculties, or of the passions, either
general or partial.
Q. What do you call a derangement ?
A. An alteration fitmi a natural or healthy state.
Q. What do you call the intellectual faculties?
A. The faculties by which we reason, compare and judge.
Q. What do you call the affections and passions ?
A. Th«y are called the motiye powers, or faculties.
Q. What are the^intellectual faculties?
A. Comparison, judgment, reflection.
Q. What is comparison ? ^
A. By comparison we compare two or more things with each otl^r.
Q. What is judgment?
A. Judgment enables us to choose between two or more things, after
comparison has done its work.
Q. What is reflection?
A. Hie comparison and judgment bestowed upon a subject .
Q. Where do you find this faculty of judgment described ?
A. I haye not giyen it firom any author which I can name.
Q. Is there any such faculty as the will ?
A. I don*t know as the will could hardly be called a fiieuhy.
WBUAX nSBEAN. 89
Q. WhAtiflit?
A. The will is a power ; a detoiminadon of die nund to do Mttielluig.
I wiflh to avoid going into a meti4)liywal discosBion.
Q. What kind of a power is the will, physical or mental?
A. It belongs to the mental powers.
Q. What is the difference between the mental powers and the intdlec-
toal faculties ?
A. I don't make any difference.
Q. Then yon do call the will an inteUectoal faculty?
A. It does belong to the fiusulties of the mind. I don't think it is very
properly called a faculty ; a good many things go to make up the wilL
Q. Where does it operate from ?
A. I should be glad to avoid any metaphyseal discussion about the wiU.
I am not now prepared to go into it The will is an operation of lire mind.
If the passions and affections are in action, they determine the individual U)
do something, and that is called the wilL
Q. Is the will passive, then ?
A. I cannot say that it is passive. I should call it active. The intellect
directs the determination to do something ; and that determination is the wilL
Q. But what part do the pasaiona perform ?
A. The will is an operation of the mind ; the pasaiona and affectiona de-
termine the act. The will is the result
Q. What has jud^ent to do with the will?
A. It directs the wilL It takes both the judgment and the will to choose.
Q. What is reason ?
A. Reason is an exercise of the intellectual facultiea.
Q. Is reason a &culfy of the mind ?
A. I should not call it a faculty. It embraces several facultiea — memory,
comparison, judgment, and some others, aU form the reason.
Q. Have you any experience in the treatment of the insane ?
A. I have not I have seen many in the Alma House at Philadelphia.
Q. Have you seen persons that you would not know to be insane finom
observation ?
A. Yes, and I have seen those that I should know to be insane, withont
lining told.
Q. Have you ever been called upon before to determine a question of
insanity?
A. I never have been except in this instance.
Q. Did yon ever discover insanity in any one who was not befiure known
to be insane ?
A. I think I can say that I have.
Q. Where?
A. In the State Prison ; a convict
Q. What was his name?
70 nOE TRIAL OF
A. I do not know his name.
Q. When did you make that diflcOTeiy ?
A. Some two or three years ago, when my brother was the physician
there. I went in with him to ascertain whether a convict was insane.
Q. Then you had been told of the case before you went ?
A. My brother had told me of the case, and wanted me to see whether
he was sane or insane.
Q. How did you find him ?
A. I found him insane — general insanity. The only question was, whether
he was feigning it.
Q. What was the species of that insanity ?
A. I can give no further account of it except thi^ it was a case of general
insanity.
Q. What was the result of that case ?
A. I noTor heard of him afterwards.
Q. Have you ever treated a case of insanity professionally ?
A. I have not. I have seen cases of melancholy which I have treated as
the first stage of insanity'.
Q. How does melancholy affect the mind ?
A. It affects the disposition, conduct and habits, but does not necessarily
derange the intellectual faculties.
Q. Do you consider melancholy insanity ?
A. I should regard any 8tat€ of melancholy an incipient stage of insanity.
Q. Is not the mind more or less diseased in a case of settled melancholy ?
A. The mind is diseased, yet some people compare, judge, recollect and
imagine well, notwithstanding.
Q. Will they not do all things that a sane person will do ?
A. Yes.
Q. How, then, do you recognize it as insanity ?
A. Because insanity frequently commences sa
Q. Did you say to Doctors Briggs and Fosgate, after visiting the prisoner
in the jail, that you now thought him insane ?
A. I never did say so to either of them. I have had but one opinion
about the prisoner's sanity.
Q. Are all the prisoner's intellectual faculties in order ?
A. All that he possesses. I cannot discover that any of them are deranged.
Q. Do you believe in an insanity that disturbs the moral powers or
faculties ?
A. Yes; and without any appreciable disturbance of the other faculties.
Q. Then you admit that moral insanity may exist ?
A. I admit the principle of moral insanity as a disease of the brain.
Q. Are Freeman's moral powers in a healthful state ?
A. I suppose that they are as they were by nature ; that is my opinion
now.
WIUIAM WKKtaus. 71
Q. Do you believe ius passions and feelings to be in all respects healthy ?
A. I think they are not diseased. I presume he is more depraved than
he was; that it has grown with his growth and strengthened with his
strength.
Q. Please to state your grounds for ihat conclusion ?
A. I made two inquiries; first, whether he is in possession of reason;
seoondly, whether that reason is impaired by some partial insanity.
Q. What physical appearance would you look to ?
A. In the maniac there is a wild, glassy expression of the eye, and gene-
rally a paleness. There are expressions and looks which persons of expe-
rience can detect
Q. Have you ever visited the Asylum at Udca?
A. I have not.
Q. Do maniacs smile ?
A. They do. The smile of the maniac is very peculiar and unmeaning.
Q. Is not the smile of the prisoner peculiar?
A. It is somewhat so.
Q. What is the degree of the prisoner's intelligence ?
A. It is small even for a negro. It is difficult to tell the degree of his in-
tellect., he is so very ignorant
Q* Can you compare it to any thing ?
A. I should think he had not as much intellect as an ordinary child of
fourteen years of age. In some respects he would hardly compare with
children three or four years.
Q. With a child of what age would you compare him in respect to
knowledge ?
A. His knowledge would compare with a child three or four years old.
Re-Examination. — Q. Have you any doubt now as to his sanity ?
A. No. Some things have come up on this trial that appeared singuUr,
yet they have been explained by subsequent testimony.
Q. Do you mean to say that his mind b as a child, or that his informa-
tion is only like that of a child ?
A. I mean to say that upon some subjects his information is as limited sa
that of a child. It is impossible for me to compare the native strength of
his intellect with a child of any age.
Silas Baker, sworn for the people, testified : I am keeper in the carpet
shop in the State Prison. Have known the prisoner since August, 1S43. He
was employed in the dye house pretty much all the time whilst in prison, af-
ter I first knew him. His general conduct was goo<l. I don't discover any
perceptible alteration in hhn. He had some peculiarities in rolling his eye
and carrjing his head, as he now does. When in the prison I conversed
with him about the prison and the rules to be observed there. I had occa-
sion to punish him twice, once for striking another convict with a club. On
asking him why he did it, he said, he would not have the convict meddle
72 nanxAJLor
wilfa his thiagi. It ^>pean iJiat be liad greased e pair of boolB, end ene
Aikin« in moTing wood oa which they were placed, had knocked diem down.
I poniflhed him end he promised to do better. The other punishment was
for something growing oat of the hanging out some yam. I never discovered
any thing that I supposed to be insanity, except his di^posLdoa to seek
revenge for some fancied or real injury. He never sought revenge, as I
know of, except on those two occaaioDs. [Witness farther testified as vpon
the traverse. See triaL]
JosBPH MoBBifl, sworn, testified : I am a blacksmith, in Auburn. About
a week before the murders Freeman came to my shop and asked me if I
could make him a knife, t asked what kind of a knife he wanted made. He
picked up an iron and tried to describe it I then deseribed to him a stick-
ing knife for killing hogs, with an edge on both sides. He said Uiat was not
what he wanted. I then told him to whittle out a pattern. He went out
and came back in fifteen or twenty minutes with a pattern, (being the one
here produced.) I inquired what he wanted the knife for. He asked wliai
I should chaige for it I asked him if he wanted it made of cast steeL He
sai4 yes, he wanted it made out of good cast steel. I told him I should charge
him four shillingB. He said he thought I could afford to do it fi>r two shil-*
lings. I then asked him what he was going to do with it He made no re-
ply. I then said, "you are going to kill some body, ain't you?" He said it
WA0 KONX OF MT BUSINESS, SO LOKO AS I GOT MT PAT FOB IT. He
asked me again if I couldn't make it for two shillings. He said that was
enough. I told him I shouldn't make it short of four, and he said he would
give me the four if I would grind it and put a handle on it Isaid I couldn't
do that, and he went away, but came again on the Saturday following. I
was busy, and I don't know as I then spoke to him. I did not make the
knife. I discovered nothing that made me think be was craxy. He ap-
peared to be deaf, and it was very difficult to make him hear. I thought him
keener than many men about making a bargain. He left the pattern at my
shop.
. Cboss Examination. Witness says : He came to my shop between two
and four o'clock in the afternoon. Don't recollect how the conversation
began. He did not call me by name, but asked, «' can you make a knife ?"
I found he was deaf, and I talked loud to him— louder than I now da When
I asked what kind of a knife he wanted, he tried to describe it out with his
fingers, and showed me that he wanted one with two edges. He picked up
a piece of iron and tried to describe it on that I told him he had better go
to the carpenter's shop and whittle it out He went, and after being gone
about half an hour he came back with his model. I asked four shillings for
making such a knife. He said he thought I could afibrd to make it for two.
I told him I couldn't He said he would give me four if I would put a
, handle on and grind it, which I refused to do.
His reply was, iriien I asked him'if he wasn't going to kill some body with
wiuJAM nuHMAir. 78
tlie kaife, tlisl, ^ Ift^s aoae of your budness if yea get your >ay te it" Om
Sfttiirday be stayed tb^ne half an boor, bat (udd Botbing to any body. On
Tbnnday be was there an hoar I aboold think. I asked a man by the name
of Smith, who was in thei«, if he knew him. He said he didnt
B^^ExAMMXATVOf, When I asked him if be wasn't going to kill some
body, I was joking. I ^d not suppose he was in factgcnng to kill anybody.
Gbobob W. Htatt, twom for the pe(^, testified as fdlows: I am »
bbcksmith, and IWe in Auburn. I saw Freeman, for the first time, on Mon*
day of the vreek when the murders were committed. He came to my shop.
My joumeymaa informed me that the prisoner wanted a knife. I then went
to my desk and took out three or four, which I showed him. He selected
one and aaked what I charged for it I told him two and dxpence or three
ahiliings. He asked if I wouldn't let him have it fi)r one and sixpence. I
told him I could not aiToird it, but finally let him have it for that price. At
bis lequest I finaOy put on a handle. The knife nowin court is that knife.
X helped ham grind the knife. The next time I saw him it was at the coio-
ner^ inquest at Van Nest^s. The notch was not broken out at the time. I
discoTcred no insanity in him then.
, Cross Examikation. He came to my shop at nine or ten o'clock in the
nomiug. The knife bought by him was made out of a file. He appeared
to be hard of hearing. I did not know him, but si^posed he was a poorman
with a lamily ; and I let him him hare the knile at that price, and put a
handle on it, as a matter of charity. He handed me twenty-five cents when
be paid me. On the same day, in the afternoon, he was in my shop and
wanted a rivet put in a jack-knife. He then aaked what I would chaige. I
told him dx'pence. He said that was too much ; three was enough. I tdd
him I would make the rivet, and he might put it in. He might have been
there twenty minutes at that tiaoie. He paid me three cents, said nothing
■KMPe, and walked out I have seen the prisoner in jaiL Saw him three or
four weeks afterwards. I went to the grates and undertook to converse with
hisB, but he took no notice of me. I spoke again and beckoned to him. He
leaned forward and said he was deaf and couldn't hear. I tried two or three
tiflMs to make him notice me, and asked him if he knew me. He said he
couldn't hear. He looked downcast
BoBBRT Simpson, sworn for the people, testified: The prisoner came to
my chair and turning shop a day or two previous to the murders. He had
a laige butdier knile with him when he came the first time. The day after
he came again. He than had a large hickory club or cane, three ot tiuree
and a half feet in lenglh. The knife produced is the knife he had the first
day. He aaked me to grind the knife. I tokl him I hadn't tune, but I would
put the belt on the wheel and he might grind it I did so and noticed how
he ground it He then went up to ^e bench and whetted it He then laid
down three cents on the bench, which he took from his wallet, and went out
with the knife. Hie knife was ground edging both ways. He came again
74 TRK TEIAL Of
to the shop the following morning. He went across the shop itnd took tip a bit
I nodded assent, and he went to boring a hole in the end of his hickory club.
He placed the stick in a vice, and #as engaged in boring it ten or fifteen
minutes. When he was boring it his face was towards me ; when he was
fitting it his back was towards me. I asked no questions, nor did I see what
he was fitting into the stick. He was there flnom ten to thirty minutes. I
think it was the day previous to the murder, but it might have been the se-
cond day morning before. I saw nothing only the club. The second day he
bored the club with a longer bit He then worked at fitting somethii^ ijoto
it, and then went out, after which I saw notMng more of him. I saw no in-
sanity in him.
Cross Examination. — ^I had seen the prisoner before that time, but
had no acquaintance with him. Mary Ahn Newark's dwelling was bnt a
short distance off; not to exceed eighty or a hundred rods. Freeman came
to the shop the first time just before dinner. It was after dinner when I saw
him. After he whet the knife I took it I handed it to him ag^, when
he laid it down ; took out his wallet, and from it took three cents which he
laid down on the bench.
Harry Lamkin was then sworn for the people, and testified : I keep a
tavern in Port Byron in this county. About a fortnight before the Van
Nest murders the prisoner camo to my house with three other black fellows,
on Sunday ; one of them was called Dick. They drove up, put their horses
under my shed, came in, and Freeman called for four glasses of beer, which
they drank. Soon after this Dick asked Freeman if he had paid. He said
he had. Freemui then gave the white man a shilling for bringing up the
horses. They then left I have also seen the prisoner since he has been in
jail. When at my house he appeared to be in conversation with the rest of
his company, although he did not talk as much as the others. He did not
act crazy. I saw no evidence of insanity in him then, any more than I now
see in the people around here.
Cross Examination. — The prisoner was in my bar-room an hour and a
half. When they were about to go, he said, " boys, I guess we had better
go home.*' I don't remember any thing else that he said. The darkies were
talking together. I did not suppose any of them were deaf. I didn't see
any crazy actions.
Q. What would you consider crazy actions ?
A. I should consider a man clawing aronnd, acting simple, and asking a
great many questions, and laughing at foolish things, crazy.
Q. Have you ever seen any crazy persons ?
A. I saw a man by the name of Owen Bazee, near Sherwood's Comers,
and have seen fellows on the canal kind o'crazy.
Q. Did you ever see a crazy person who did not talk at all ?
A. I never did.
Q. I understand you to say Freeman talked bat little when at your house ?
WI£UAU TBBSKiN. 75
A. He did not talk as uracb as the rest I reeoUected of hk saying, << boys,
I guess we had better go home."
Q. Do you recollect of his proposing any thing else that day ?
A. I don't, only when he called for beer he said, ^^ give us some beer."
Q. Do you pretend to say that he paid for the beer ?
A. I won't say certainly that he paid for it, but I suppose he did.
Alvah Fuller, called and sworn for the people, testified as follows : I
live in Auburn and know the prisoner ; have seen him since he has been
confined in jail. I saw him in this court house in February last, during the
time of Wyatf s trial He was standing on the seat yonder in the comer,
when I saw him. I told him to get off the seat which he was standing on.
He didn't get down. I then took him off and shook him. I saw him on the
seat with his feet more than once. I should think I saw him in the court
room two or three days running. I was then assisting the shen!ff at the jail
and at the court house. About the middle of March the prisoner was brought
to the jail for the murd^^. I talked with him, but he only answered such
questions as I put to him. He sometunes asked me for tobacco. He seemed
to hear at one time better than at others. He eat well in jail. He never
complained about sleeping. £Gs health appeared to be good. I don't see
any difference in him from the time I first saw him till now. I noticed that
he did not answer people who came there to see him as readily as he did me.
I never myself thought him insane.
Cross Examikatiok. — He once told me that his wrist pained him. He
had a cut on his wrist The night after he was brought to the jail I went in
and asked him if he wanted blankets. He said yes. I took him in some.
He appeared deaf. I took in his breakfast the next morning and asked him
if he wanted something to eat He then said yes. Once he spoke and stud
ihwe wasn't any water in the cup. Two or three days after he was brought
to the jail he complained again of his wrist, and said the bandage was
light I asked if his wrist p&ined him. He said it was a little sore. He
said the doctors told him that the irons were so heavy that they might make
a sore, and he might hare his leg taken off, and that it might kill him. I
asked him if he was afraid to die. He said he wanted to live a little longer.
Daniel Andrub, called for the people, and being sworn, testified: I
reside in Auburn, and have about thirteen yean. I am a counsellor at law,
and am in practice here. I have known the prisoner since he lived with
Cadwell. He drove CadweU's team. Cadwell was the agent of Van Buren,
'Coming k Co., for whom I did business in those days. The boy once drove
team to plough my garden. He also drew wood for me. After he^was dis-
charged from the State Prison he came to my office. I asked him if he
wanted any thing. He said. No ; that he only came to see me. I asked him
how he fared while in prison. He said sometimes very well ; but sometimes
he had bad meat to eat He complained of the keepers, and said they
abused him very much ; that they whipped him when he didn't deserve it
76 TBM «BUL or
He tken asked me if I had taj work ftr kut to d& Daring the' triii of
Henry Wyatt for murder, I saw him in the court hoaae seyeral times.
Sometimefl he was in one part of the house imd sometimes in another.
Some part of the dme he was in the second row of seats. I saw him here
several dayn. Bobert Freeman, a colored man, living with me, was here
with him several days. He was a pretty hard boy when he lived at Cadr
well's. He was rather small, bat was pretty good at his baflinesB when actr
iilg under directions. I see no difference in him oidy in his size and lus
deafiiess. He carries his head on one side. I see no difference in his
eye. I have not seen any thing in htm to induce me to believe that he is ,
Cbosb ExAXiNATioir.— He was an active boy when he woiked for me.
When he ploughed for me be only drr^e the horses; I held the plough. I
presume I told him how to drive tlie hones. He ploagfaed for me about an
hour. He was a sprighdy, but a hard boy, and sometimes quarrelsome.
I have had but little chance to form an opinion of his capacity since
he came from prison, but in what I have seen of htm, I discovered no
cfaai^;e.
WAI.TBB Gr. Simpson, called and sworn for tbe people, testified : I re-
side in Auburn and know the prisoner. I knew him when he lived at Cad-
well's. He was rather a ringular boy in many reelects. He had a siDgular
cast of countenance and singular expression with hb eyes. [Witness fiir^
tfaer testified in substance as upon the traverse. See trial]
Gborgb B. Cbass, sworn for the people, teslafied : I reside in AubufA
and know the prisoner. I had a contract with the State for convict labor
in the business of cutting stone, when he was in the prison, and he was one
of my men part of the time. In 1842 he worked at blowing and striking*
That woric he could do well enough, when he had a mind to. He was not air
ways of a mind to do well, however. He scmetunes helped load and unload
atone. He generally behaved weD, although he' would sometimes get careless,
and the blacksmith would comfJain to Mr. Green, the keeper of the shop, who
would often threaten to punish him. I would intercede for him and beg
him off. Did so several times. I never heard him called crazy, nor nerer
saw any thing that made me think him crasy. I have seen him in jailf and
have noticed him in court, and do not perceive any change in him.
Nathaniel Hebset, sworn for the people, testified : I live in Auburn.
I got aoquiunted with the prisoner nine yean ago. Have seen him about
the village since his release from the State Prison. I saw him the day be-
fore the Van Nest family was murdered. I saw three knives in his possea-
mon about a week before the murders, a laige butcher knife ground — also
an old butcher — ^also a straight knife. Had diem done up in a paper. He
ahowed me the new one. I had some conversation witb him. John De Puy
was in the grocery. Freeman heard him say something about him, when he
called me out of doors, where he said tome thai he'd been round where they
wiiiiiuif funcAK. 77
verelalidixg about lum. HiBtrislMdl^y would let him alone. Heiaadke
wanted to get some liquor, but John had been telling folka not to give it to
him. He laid he meant to kill John"" because he took his money away from
him, and woddn't let him have it He «nd when he was at work at Fort
Bynm John went down to get his money, and he had to let him have it
He said when he did work John took hla wages up, and would not let him
have any. He tokl m^ that he had found Van Nesf s SoXka. I asked him
who they were. He said the widow woman that put him into prison. He
' nid he meant to kill her because she put him into priaon wrongfuUy. I did
-not tell John what he said.
Q. Why didn*t yon mention it?
Objected to. The court decided that the witness is at liberty to answer
it or not, as he chooses.
A. I did mention it the same night to Mr. Stephen Titus, who keeps a
boarding house iatown. I told him about it a week before the murders.
Cxoss ExAMnrATioy. The prisoner was a livdy, smart boy. He did
not talk a great deal. He laughed and played when he had any body to
play with. He was good natured, quick to understand. He talked right
off, like other folks. I hare not the least idea he was underwitted. He
^&ln't hear as well when he came out of prison as betoe he went, but q>-
peared to undntta&d when he did hear. He said he lost his hearing by
their rapping him on the head.
Pbtbb W. WiLUAMaoN, swcHrn for the people, testified : I resided in
Fleming at the time the Van Nest family were murdered. I was at the
house of John 6. Yan Nest from five or six o^lock until half past nine o'clock
on the evening of Thursday, the twelfUi day of March, being the night whoi
the murders were committed. When I went there Mrs. Yan Nest and Mrs.
Wyekoff were gone out a visiting. Mr. Yan Nest, Yan Arsdale, Miss
Hobnes and the three children were at home. Mrs. Wyekoff and Mrs. Yan
Nest came home soon, and all had left the room when I left except Yan
Nest and Yan Arsdale. All the rest had retired, for tiie night except Mrs.
Yan Nest, who had gone through the back kitchen out the door. It was
aibont half past nine o'clock i^en I left there for home. When about a hun-
dred rods fiom the house I heard the dog bark, and some one halloo, w
shriek. I went on fifteen or twenty rods further, when I heard, as I sup-
posed, four or five voices shrieking. I then made my way home as fast aa I
ooidd convenientiy walk. When I got a little north of the Sand Beach
meeting house, I heard some one coming behind me on horseback. When
he passed me his left leg brushed my right arm. It was a negro on horse-
back. When he got a rod or two past me I reeogniced the horse, by his
gait, as belonging to Mrs. Wyekoff I saw smnething hanging on his leftside
wUch I supposed to be a okb. I supposed he had a Webster coat on, gray
or of some lightish oolor. Hiere was a brigl^ moon-Iigfat when he passed
me. I wasthendMiitahalfamileftvnnhome. After the negro passed me
78 THs TsiAL or
the thought occorred that he had been there and stolen the horse. When I
arriyed home I mentioned what I had seen, and what I mistrusted had tft-
ken place, and concluded to get up my horse and ride over and notify Mr.
Van Nest of the circumstance. I did so, and as I approached the house I
saw a Ught at the front gate, from which I inferred that they were already
apprized of the matter. As I advanced nearer to the light, I saw a Mr.
Parmer and the muzzle of a rifle pointed at me. He, however, recognized
me before I did him, and inquired of me how I had learned the news so
soon. I told him I had heard no news, but that suspicion had drawn me
there. He then told me that Van Nest and his wife were killed, and the
family stabbed. [Witness further testified in substance, as upon the tra-
verse. See the trial for murder.]
Edwin Tuttle, sworn for the people, testified : I know the prisoner by
aght 8aw him in Brown's grocery the day the murder was comndtted. He
bought some soap there. He ai^ed for and got three cents worth of soap.
He gave me a six-pence ; I returned him the change. I noticed nothing in-
dicating insanity.
James Amos, sworn fbr the people, testified : I reside in Oswego County.
I saw the prisoner on the thirteenth of March last, about two o'clock in the
afternoon, at Pennell's Mills. When I first saw him he was coming out of
Gregg's tavern, and was going towards the shed. By the time I got there,
he was coming out of the shed with a light gray mare, with a sursingle and
blanket on. He asked me if I wanted to trade horses. I answered no. He
asked if I wanted to buy one. I replied in the negative, and he said no
more to me then. He offered to sell him for eighty dollars to Mr. Coming.
[Witness further testified in substance as upon the traverse. See his tes-
timony.]
Dr. Leandeb B. Biqelow, sworn for the people, testified as follows: I
am a physician and surgeon, and at present I am physician and surgeon to-
the State Prison, at Auburn. I knew the Freeman family, but have no dis-
tinct recollection of the prisoner, until 1845. He visited the hospital but
twice whilst I had charge of it I recollect that in February, 1845, he camo
to the prison hospital, and complained to me of ear ache. He was prescribed
for and he left. He came in again in July, and complained of costiveness.
I gave him a cathartic and he left;. These were the only times he com*
plained of illness to me. I went to the prison in January, 1844, and left in
September, 1846. I have no distinct recollection of his appearance, but re-
member that he was deaf Since he has been in the jail I have visited hinif
at request, several times, in company with others. When others were pre-
sent, he seemed confused, and I consequently visited him alone. I examined
him with care, and at considerable length, committing my questions and his
answers to writing. The first visit I made him, for this purpose, was in the
evening of the twenty-fourth day of June. [Witness further testified at very
great length, detailing minutely the questions put, and the answers give%
WIJAUM VBBEMAN. 79
the st«te of bis poLje, bis general bealib, ad apoa the traverse, and conclu*
ding with the opinion, that the prisoner is a ^* dull, morose, depraved, de-
graded negro, but not insane.'' See the trial.]
Pr. Jbdediah Darbow, sworn for the people, testified: I am a physi-
cian, and have been forty-four years. For ten or twelve years my principal
attention was diverted from: my profession. After being subpcenaed to at-
tend on this trial, I visited Freeman in his cell, to fonn an (^>inion as to his
aanenesB of mind. I asked him a number of questions and received answers.
Was in the ceU from twenty to thirty minutes. Doctors Bigelow and Hyde
were present at the time, and as they proposed to me that I should ask ques-
tions, I was engaged in talking nearly all the time I was. there. I discovered
nothing that looked to me like a shade of insanity. [Witness further testi-
fied as upon the traverse. See trial.]
Dr. Sylvester Willard, sworn for the people, testified : I have prac-
ticed medicine twenty<^roe years. I have been six or eight times to see
the prisoner in the jail. I engaged his attention, and requested him to tell
me all about the matter for which he was imprisoned. I began by saying,
" BUI did you kiU them ?" He answered, ^* yes.*' I asked, ^^ what did you
kill them with ?" He said, '' well, I killed them with a butcher knife." I
aaked, *^ where did yon get your knife ?" He said, " why, I bought it — I
bought two." I asked, " what did you give for them ?" He said, *^ I gave
one and six-pence for one." (I don't remember as to the other.) I asked
him what he did with his knife after he bought it. He said a man helped
him to grind it. [Witness testified at great length, detailing the particulars
of his examination and concluding with an opinion that the prisoner is nol
insane, in substance as upon the traverse. See his testimony on the trar
verse.]
Dr. Joseph Clary, called and sworn for the pe(^le, testified : I am a
physician. Have been in practice thirty-five years. I have visited the pri-
soner, with others, three times, for the purpose of examination ; the first time
with Mr. Morgan and Dr. Pitney, the second time with Dr. Willard and Mr.
Austin, and the third time with the Kev. Mr. Anderson. I had some con-
versation with him each time, and heard conversation that I did not partici-
pate in. I inquired into the state of his health, examined his pulse, also his
tongue, and inquired respecting his appetite. I have seen so little of insanity
that I don't know as I ought to express an opinion. I am not prepared to
call him an insane man, or to say positively that he is sane. I have not that
clear conviction which removes all doubt or#hesitation. I think, however,
that he has none of the varieties of insanity that I am acquainted with.
Dr. Chablbb A. Hyds, sworn for the people, testified : I am a physic
dan. Have been in practice twelve or thirteen years. I have visited the
prisoner in the jail twice, fi)r the purpose of examination. I went with Doc^
tors WUlard, Dimon, Darrow, Pitney and Hennance. I saw nothing to
make me think he was insane. I had not seen him before going to the jaiL
80 fmniAiiOV
From seeing lam only twice, it wedd be ^fficvH to say that be wi
I was rather of the opinion tl^it be was not
JoHK P. HuLBERT, 8wom for the poople, testiied: I am a ootmseOor at
law, and was in court during a portion of the triid of Henry Wyatt, in Feb-
ruary last, for murder. I am confident that I saw FMeman in court mora
than once during that trial I think on several dsys. I saw him when be
was brought to the jail. Have seen him in the jail smoe. He said but litde.
Dr. Fofigate was dressing his wounded hand. My attention was not called
to his insanity then, but only to bis deafness. I saw nothing like insanity
about him. I hare read considerable on the subject ef insani^. I give my
opinion, however, from what I saw.
Bknjamin F. Hall, sworn in behalf of the people, testified : I reside in
Auburn. Have seen the prisoner several times since his dischaige ftrom the
State Prison, but never observed him particulariy until the day he was
brought mto town for the killing of the Van Kest finmly. I have seen him
but once since, except in court That was on the morning of last Thursday.
Whilst I was at the jail, Dr. Thomas Spencer, of Geneva, came there, as he
said, for the purpose of making an examination of the prisoner. At his re-
quest I accompamed him to the cell where tiie prisoner was confined, and
endeavored to converse with him. The Doctor demred me to question him
oonceming matters within his comprehension, where I might be able to de-
tenmne whether he answered correctly. I did so, and toc^ a note of my
interrogatories and his answers. [Witness fiirther testified in substance aa
upon the traverse, recounting the dialogue with tiie prisoner, and concludtng
with the statement diat he appeared to have some mind, ahhougfa of a very
loiw order; that the interview was insofiicient to test his sanity; but in the
slight examination so made, he did not discover any such derangement of
mind as constituted any form of insanity that he wm acquainted with. See
his testimony at length on the traverse.]
Alonzo Taylor, sworn in behalf of the peqple, testified: I reside in
tile town of Cato. I arrested Freeman at Gregg's tavern, in Oswego county,
on the charge of murder. He was at his supper when I arrested him. He
was there in detention at the time. When accused of tiie murder there he
knew nothing about it I then told him he did know about it I said ** Yoa
Mack rascid, you do know about it" He looked up at me, rolled up his
eyes and grinned. I raised my cane at him. Some one said, don't strike
him. I spoke to him again and alleged the murder, and asked him how he
one to kill that innocent child. He said he didnt know any thing about
it I then toc^ my chains out of my pocket Some one said Pd better stop
tQl he had done eating. I waited at the back of his chair eight or ten min-
ntes. After he finished his supper I told him to stand up. He was then
searched thoroughly. We found but one penny in his pocket I then tohl
Um to sit down. He did so, and I ironed him. After that a couple of men
wanted to take hhn into another room; thought they eoold get sometliiag
WILLIAM IBXXMAN. 81
oat of him. After ihey had been there awhile, word came to me thai the
negro wanted to be protected. I then went in. He said to me, ** I want to
be protected. I don't want to be kicked and cuffed around in this way." I
said *^I guess they have not hurt you." He said, ** Yes they haTe." On
our way to Phoenix, I said to him, ** Bill, bow could you kill that poor inno-
cent cldld." He said, ^I didn't know it was a child." I had Burrington's
horse with me. I brought the horse to Phoenix, and gave it up to the owner.
I asked him what he had done with the horse he stole. He said, *< They've
got it" When he spoke about their kicking and cuffing him, I asked what
they had been doing it for. Geoige Parker replied, that tliey wanted to
wann up his ear-wax so as to make him hear better. I could not make him
answer, nor get any thing out of him. [Witness further testified as upon
the traTerse. See trial.] ^
Cornelius Van Absdale, sworn for the people, testified : I was at
Van Nesf 8 at the time of the murder. Williamson was there in the erening,
but left at about half past nine o'clock. When he left I retired up stairs to
bed. Afier I had been in bed about five minutes, I heard a woman scream.
I raised up in bed, but seeing no one I laid down again. In less than a
minute I heard Mr. Van Nest speak to some one and ask what he wanted.
Next I heard something heavy fall on the floor. I then got up and put on
my pantaloons. Whikt doing so, I heard scuffling in the hall below. I
then stooped overto put on my stockings, when I heard the stair door open
and heard some one ask if there was a man up there. As I raised up I saw
a negro coming up stairs with a butcher knife in his hand. He came so near
that the point of the blade was but about eighteen inches from me. The
knife presented is the one found there. He stabbed me in the breast It
struck on the breast bone and glanced off to the left side. I pushed him off*,
took his candlestick out of his hand and threw it at him, and he fell frtm
the top of the stairs to the bottom. I followed him down and seized a broom-
stick at the bottom of the stairs, with which I struck him several times. He
escaped as fast as he could out the front door. I then shut the door. I then
discovered the front hall door.was open. Mrs. Wyckoff was just then going
off the steps. I called to her, but she went towards the gate where she again
met the negro and had a scuffle with him, but a^r getting through the gale
she went south and he went north. [Witness further testified in substance
as upon the traverse. See trial.]
IbsLEN Holmes, sworn for the people, testified : I was at the boose of
John G. Van Nest the night when he and his wife and child were murdered.
I had retired to bed in the north-west bed room. Julia Aepi with me, Peter
with Mrs. Wyckoff, and George W. in the sitting room with his parents.
The first alarm I had was a scream from Mrs. Van Nest out doors, and the
bark of the dog. I raised the window and asked what was the matter. She
came to the window and said, ^ Some one is here and going to kill us all ;"
she was stabbed and expected we were all going to be killed. She went
6
82 XHB TBIAI. Of
round to tbe front aide of the house, and I went and opened the hall door
and let her in. She went into my bed room and laid down upon the bed.
We told Mrs. Wyckoff, and she got up and went out into the halL I aoon
heard a scuffle there. I waited until I heard a noise up sturs, and I then
went out into the sitting room. I went for Mr. Van Nest, and found him
near the kitohen door on the floor, dead. I then shut the back door of the
kitchen and went into the sitting room, where I saw the prisoner looking in
St the window. Don't think he saw me. He then kicked the door open
bat did not come in. I don't think he saw me then. There was a candle
in the kitchen ; not in this part of the house. The negro had something in
his hand when looking in at the window, and I thought it was a gun. Mr.
Van Arsdale told me not to stand before the window. He went around the
house and then came back; went to^the gate, and then went north. I
watohed him until he got near the bam yard gate, [\yitness further testi-
fied as upon the trayerse, and identified the prisoner as the negro. See
trial]
Edwin F. Hoskins, sworn for the people, testified : I am under sheriff
of this county. I arrived at the house of the deceased about four o'clock in
the morning. Found a knife that looks like this, in the door yard, between
the door and the gate, about fifteen feet from the door steps. I have seen
the prisoner in oonrt and two or three times in jaiL The day after he was
brought in I had a short conversation with hin^ He had on a Webster coat
and dark pantaloons. ,
Augustus Fbttiboxe, sworn for the people, testified : I am sheriff of
this county. I reside in the jail building, and have seen the prisoner every
two or three days since he was brought there, but have not had much con-
YOrsation with him. His health appears to have been good ; his appetite
has been good and he has seemed to be well and hearty. I do not know
how he has slept Have heard no noise at night except one night when we
forgot to give him his bed. He made some noise then. I brought him from
Van Nest's house in a covered carriage. I saw him when tiie dead bodies
were shown to him. It didn't seem to make any impression on him. I
halted with him at the bed side to see if it would have any effect on him,
bat it did not produce any emotion. [Witness further testified as upon the
traverse. See trial} >
Joseph Quincy, sworn for the people, testified : I keep a barber's shop
in Auburn. Am partially acquainted with the prisoner ; knew him before
the murder. He was at my shop twice ; the last time was just before the
week of the murders. He asked me to shave him. I told him I did not
ahave colored men. He said he wanted his whiskers shaved off. I told him
I could not shave him, nor did he shave himself at my shop. He had littie
whiskers on the side of his fiace at the time.
Dr. Thomas Spexceb, sworn for the people, testified : I am a phy-
■dan and surgeon. Have been in practice a little over thirty years. Have
WILLUM IREBIIAN. 83
been solicited to ezanune the prisoner in respect to the condition of his
mind. Since the commencement of this court I have examined him at dif-
ferent times; can't tell the number, but from eight to a dozen times. Have
not had a great deal of conversation with him. When in the jail there al-
ways have been others with me. Ilave asked him questions and prompted
questions for others to ask. I have made some memoranda of them, which I
now have before me. I have felt his 'pulse from time to time when he was
lying, sitting and standing. I once found him asleep, with pulse at sixty-
seven. After rising it was at one hundred and fifteen. I once before found
it at sixty-seven. Eighty-six has occurred two or three times when he was
standing. I found no deviation from his usual health, except nervousness,
occasioned by his confinement The variableness of his pulse was not the
lea£t indication of insanity. [The witness testified at great length on both
his direct and cross examination, as to the examinations made, his deduc-
tions therefrom, and his views of insanity, in substance as upon the trial for
murder. He was confident that the prisoner was not insane. See his testi-
mony on the trial.]
Stephen Titus, sworn for the people, was interrogated by the attorney
general as follows :
Q. Did you hear the testimony of the witness Hersey ?
A. I believe I did.
Q. Did he tell you before the murder of the Van Nest family that he in-
tended to kill them ?
Mr. Sewabd objected to this interrogatory, as calling for informadon
which, if given, would not be admissible evidence. Afler argument, the
court overruled the question, and the witness left the stand.
Mr. Yam Bursn then announced that so far as he was advised he was
prepared to rest the case for the present, but in doing so he wished to reserve
the right to call other witnesses if it shoula become necessary.
Mb. Seward hoped that the attorney general would proceed with his
defence to this plea until his proof was all out He (Mr. S.) held the affir-
mative of the issue, bjit did not wish to reply to the evidence of the people
until he could reply to all the testimony to be given by them on this issue.
Mb. Van Buren remarked that his associate informed him that there
were other witnesses for the people not then in court, which it would be
necessary and proper to examine. He was aware of the rule on the subject,
but in a capital case he would submit whether it were not to be so construed
as most to conduce to the administration of the law and the ends of public
justice. He wished to examine witnesses in relation to the stealing and the
stabbing of the horse.
The court desired to hear all the testimony in the case, but wished to
observe the rules applicable to such trials. They were unwilling to dictate
counsel in a case involving human life, yet they hoped the trial might pro-
ceed in order. It might be proper to hear testimony afler a party had rested,
under some circumstances. *
84 THE nUAL Of
Mr. Yait Buren then said the people rested ; whereupon the counsel for
the prisoner called, as a witness,
Dr. John McCall, who being sworn, testified as follows : I am a phy-
sician, and am now President of the Medical Society of the State of New
York. I have practiced medicine about thirty-five years. I hare made
several examinations of the prisoner in the jail.
Q. Please state what occurred, and the result of your examination ?
To this the attorney general objected. The question put sought for fur-
ther facts bearing upon this issue ; facts not in reply to the people's testimony,
nor under any rule admissible, afler the prisoner's counsel, holding the affir-
maliTe as they do, have once rested their case. An argument involving the
rules at nisi piius, the importance of this case to the prisoner, the difficulty
of procuring witnesses from a distance, and the understanding of counsel as to
the intimation of the court when the prisoner's counsel rested, was entered
into by the counsel on both sides, in which it was stated that the witness
had been in attendance for several days prior to the time when the prison-
er's counsel rested, but was called home by sickness in his family, and for
that reason only he was not present when the prisoner's testimony was closed.
The court, afler conferring together, announced as a decision that the
testimony, as to the preliminary facts, except as to the stolen horse, on both
sides, must be held to be closed.
To this the counsel for the prisoner excepted.
The district attorney, by permission of the court, then proceeded to call
witnesses to testify in relation to the horse, and thereupon called
William H. Brooks, who, after being sworn, testified : I was at the
house of the deceased the same night he was murdered. Went for a physi-
cian to. Auburn. Saw on my way Mrs. Wyckoff's horse, a little beyond
New Guinea. He was lying down. Had a halter on. The horse was taken
back by Harrison Mastin. The horse was stabbed on one side, back of fore
shoulder. I was at home and in bed when Mrs. WyckofT came to my house
the night of the murder. She had a night gown and stockings on, and a
butcher knife in her hand.
Harrison Mastin was next sworn for the people, and testified: I re-
collect the night of the murder, and ^Irs. Wyckoff*'s horse. I found it I
lived at the foot of the Owasco Lake at the time. Mr. Williamson came to
my house about half past ten o'clock that night, and told me what had hap-
pened. I came down towards Auburn, and found Mrs. Wyckofi**s horse
near New Guinea. He was just getting up. I looked at him and then came
to Auburn, and when I went back I took him home. There was blood on
the halter. There was mud on the horse. Horse was old and seemed to be
tired. I think he fell near the slmce way, from the appearance of the ground.
The counsel for the people then rested the case.
Mr. Seward then raised the question of the examination of Dr. McCall,
in respect to his knowledge of the prisoner which he derived from his exa-
minAtionfl before his return to Utica. He alleged that it was conceded tkat
the Doctor had been in attendance for a number of days as a witness, bat
from intelligence of sickness in his family he had been compelled to return
home, and thus happened to be absent when the counsel for the prisoner
rested the case. If not so conceded, he desired to show the same by the
testimony of the witness himself, to the end that the fact might be entered
in the case. He was of opinion that his testimony was important to the
prisoner, and believed that justice would be subserved by his examination
now. When the attorney general was urging his right to examine other
witnesses in case he should deem it necessary, he expressed the opinion that
the rule should be so exercised as to be most conducive to the proper ad*
ministration of the law and the ends of public justice. That argument then
availed. How much stronger is its force when it comes in behalf of the
prisoner, who is pennyless and in chains, without either the power or the
knowledge to obtain witnesses for himself or to retain them in court a single
hour. If ever there was occasion for judicial discretion, or the merciful
construction of any rules, he (Mr. S.) submitted that the present was a case
demanding its exercise.
The court adl^red to their former decision.
Mr. Seward then requested the court either to note the fact or allow
proof that Dr. McCall was in attendance until Saturday last; that the court
adjourned on that day at three o'clock in the afternoon ; that witness went
home, where he was detained by the sickness of his family until Tuesday
morning.
The court intimated that a note to that effect would be made in the min-
utes of the trial.
Dr. Joax McCall was then re-called, and interrogated concerning the
prisoner, as follows :
Q. Have you visited the prisoner in his cell to-day, yesterday, or the day
before?
To this the attorney general objected. The question came within the de-
cbion already made by the court, and he insisted that it should be observed
by the counsel. It was objectionable, also, because the testimony for the
people had closed in respect to the main facts, and he was unwilling to have
any new matter thrust i^to the case.
The court, after consultation, decided that the witness might testify to any
facts that transpired at any interview at which the witnesses for the people
were present, but not as to any facts that took place at any other time.
To this decision the prisoner's counsel excepted.
Q. Were you present at any interview with the prisoner when Dr. Brig-
ham was present ?
To this the attorney general objected, and animadverted upon the prison-
er's counsel
Mr. Sevtard appreciated the decision already made by the court, and
86 tBM TKIAL Of
the animadyeraionB of the attomoy general. He was disposed, nevertheless,
to put the question, and to urge the court to permit an answer. Dr. Brig-
ham had already testified about an interview with the prisoner when Dr.
McCall was present, and he desired that Dr. McCall might be permitted to
testify of that interview, and what there transpired. He urged it for an in-
sane man, who was unable to communicate to his counsel a single word in re-
lation to his defence. To testify of that interview was not new matter, but
was admissible under wholesome rules, both of evidence and propriety.
The court overruled the question, and the prisoner's counsd excepted to
the decision.
Q. In your opinion is the prisoner sane or insane ?
Objected to by the attorney general, on the ground that the witness has
neither heard all the testimony, nor testified of such an examination as laid
the foundation for the expression of his opinion.
The court say the witness may answer.
A. The prisoner, in my opinion, is insane.
Q. Is your mind fully satisfied upon that subject ?
A. As to the fact of insanity, it is.
Q. How long have you been acquainted with the prisoner ?
Objected to by 'the attorney general, and objection overruled.
A. I first saw the prisoner when I was up here at the trial of Wyatt
Q. On what is your opinion founded ?
A. On his appearance.
Q. Have you heard most of the evidence ?
A. I heard most of the physicians, and a part of Mrs. Godfrey's testimony.
I have some indistinct recollection of Green's testimony. I also heard the
witnesses Hopkins, Smith, Worden, Pdne, Austin, De Puy, Gray, Perry
and Sally Freeman testify. I heard no testimony on Monday or Tuesday.
Heard most of the testimony yesterday.
Q. Does the testimony you have heard corroborate or strengthen that
opinion ?
Objected to, and the court say that witness must not express an opinion
from the, evidence, he not having heard all of it
A. My opinion is founded on the appearance of the prisoner. From his
appearance I have no doubt of his insanity ;" that his mind is impaired.
Mr. Van Buren here moved the court to strike out all the testimony of
this witness, except that part relating to his personal appearance. After ar-
gument on both sides, the motion was granted.
Cross Examination. I have not only examined the prisoner with care,
but have watched his movements, and the expression of his countenance.
Q. What is there in his countenance that indicates insanity ?
A. The whole expression of his face* is indicative of idiotism, dullness of
understanding, or want of comprehension.
WILU AM WKMBUJX. 87
Q. What part of his face?
A. The whole of it
Q. Is there any single or particular feature that yon should say indicated
insanil^ ?
A. The moYement of the muscles indicate it, and, also, his idiotic laugh—
both show a want of perfect understanding.
Q. Is there any thing else that you consider remarkable in hist counte-
nance ?
A; There are some striking features.
Q. Please to name them ?
A. His countenance manifests perfect indifference as to what is going on.
The court say the witness must confine himself to the personal appearance
of the prisoner.
Q. Is there any thing else ?
A. His deportment indicates it
Q. Any thing else in his countenance ?
A. Yes ; the contortions of it
Q. Any thing else ?
A. Why, I think of nothing now. I am circumscribed within very nar-
row limits in my testimony, being confined to personal appearances idone.
If I could speak of other symptoms I could answer more fully and satisfacto-
rily. He has a peculiarity of posture in sitting and standing.
Q. What is the peculiarity of his sitting that indicates insanity ?
A. The inclination of his body forward, and maintaining that position
mostof the time.
Q. What is there peculiar in his standing ?
A. T'hat of standing with his body inclined forward, with his head down-
ward, and with his arms not hanging easily and naturally by his sides, as is
usual in those perfectiy sane.
Q. Hare you any cases of insanity in your mind where similar indica-
tions exist ?
A. The same position I have often obserred in patients in tiie Lunatic
Asylum, at Utlca.
Q^ What other peculiarity do you see in his appearance ?
A. I have already mentioned that his whole manner was indicative of un-
soundness of mind.
Q. What hare you seen about the personal appearance of the prisoner in
court, besides what you have stated, that indicates insanity ?
A. I don't know as I can state any thing further.
Q. What kind of insanity does the external appearance of the prisoner
indicate ?
A. It indicates an unsound condition of some of the intellectual powers.
There is no manifestation of the moral feelings that I faaye been able to dis-
corer.
86 Xm TBSAL Of
Q. What other deficiency to you observe ?
A. There is no manifestadon of understanding, or that he folly compre-
hends his present conditi<m. ,
Q. Which of his intellectual powers does his appearance show him to be
deficient in ?
A. I have not been able to discover a perfect development of any of his
intellectual facultieB.
Q. Which have you discovered particularly ?
A. He is deficient in understanding and reflection.
Q. How do you determine that ?
A. From his not appearing to understand what is going on aronnd him,
and particularly on tlus trial. I see no evidence of his possessing the power
of reflection, or of reasoning upon consequences.
Q. What is the ordmary evidence of reason and reflectton, if the subject
keeps still?
A. If I should see an individual, as I have seen the prisoner, for several
days, sitting in court where his life is involved, manifesting no emotion, but
a perfect indifierence ; in that I should see evidence of a want of perfect un*
derstanding and of feeling.
Q. From IcK^dng at the prisoner in court, what kind of insanity do you
think he has?
A. He comes nearer dementia than any other fonn.
Q. What do you mean by dementia ?
A. I mean by that term the mental condition of a man who has had the
exercise of all the powers of his mind, but that they have become impaired,
in consequence of which some of his intellectual faculties or his feelings
have become deranged.
Q. Do you recollect of any other case of dementia ?
A. I have seen severaL
Q. May not the prisoner have some other kind of insanity ?
A. I should be inclined to think he had that instead of any other.
Q. What are the symptoms of dementia? t.
A. Feebleness of understanding, unsoundness of judgment, ^nd an im-
pairment or derangement of the moral feelings. The symptoms vary in dif-
ferent cases.
Q. Are there any other symptoms ?
A. There are, doubtiess, other symptoms ; a demented person may be un-
der a delusion.
Q. Is drooling a symptom ?
A. I don't know as running at the mouth is, necessarily, a symptom of de-
mentia.
Q. Is forgetfulness a symptom ?
A. It may be in some, and not in others.
Q. Is it not generally a s^'mptom ?
wiZiLUM roaiDfAif . 89
A« I have known demented penons to recollect some thii^ very well.
Q> Is it not ftn ordinary symptom ?
A. I think it is not an ordinary symptom.
Q. Is it a frequent symptom ?
A. It is not a sore symptom.
Q. But is it not a frequent symptom of tliat form of insanity ?
A. I think not; but it is a symptom I have sometimes seen.
Q* Then it is not a sure symptom?
A. I have met with it often in cases of dementia. I mean partial forget"
fulness. Perfect forgetfulness is a rare case.
Q. Is incoherence an ordinary symptom of dementia ?
A. Upon all subjects it is not Upon some it undoubtedly is. If yon
mean by it an inability to go on with a train of well connected facts, I can say
it occurs as a symptouL
Q. What do you mean by incoherence ?
A. I mean a wandering from one subject to another.
Q* Then is it not an ordinary symptom ?
A. To a certain degree it is a symptom of dementia. In most cases it pro-
bably ocoois.
Q. Is dementia most common in old or young people ?
A. As a general rule it is most common in old people. It depends upon
circumstances, however.
Q. What is the difference between dementia and idiocy ?
A. By natural idiocy I understand an innate or fundamental defect in
Ihe understanding from birth. By demenda I mean that fcnrm of insanity
which occurs in a person who had been once sane in mind.
Q. Well, what would you call idiocy in opposition to that ?
A. In natural idiocy the person neyer had a perfect understanding. In
dementia there is more understanding— the intellect, however, is not de-
ftced, as in idiocy.
Q. Has not the idiot some understanding ?
A. He may understand when he is hungry. He has memory, and might
understand his own name; His five external senses you will find as good as
Lord Bacon's, perhaps. But the coimtenance indicates no intelligence.
Q. What is the difference in the countenance between a natural idiot
and a demented person ?
A. In demented persons there may be some indications of intelligenoe.
It depends upon the degree. There is a shade of difference between their
smile and that of the idiot In the idiot there is a manifestation of the want
of understanding.
Q. Well, what is the smile?
A. The smile is idiotic.
Q. Then is there not a resemfalanoe ?
90 THStKUIiOt
A. There is a good deal of resemblance in the fflnile of a demented and
an idiotic person, and yet there is a shade of difference.
Q. What is that shade of difference ?
A. It would be in tiie ezpreskion and in the design.
Q. Well, can you not describe that difference ?
A. The principal difference, perhaps, would be in the design. The idiot
would kugh out without knowing what he was laughing at
Q. Would it not be difficult for you to say whether he knew what he was
langhing at ?
A. It would, sir.
Q. What is the difference in the moyements of the prisoner from that of a
natural idiot ?
A. I have seen but little of his moyements.
Q. In that little what difference do you discover. ^
A. I can't say there is any ; yet his mode of standing is not such as peo-
ple generally of sound minds adopt
Q. Is there any difference in his position ? (The prisoner is directed to
stand up in his place.)
A. There might be no difference in his standing, now, than if he were an
idiot He inclines forward, with eyes downward, and he remains a long
time fixed in one position. I have seen idiots do the same.
Q. Is that position indicatiTe of idiocy ?
A. Idiots very often assume that position. It is with idiots and demented
persons as with sane persons : they vary their positions.
Q. Well, is there not a difference in the contour of the insane as weU as
of sane people ?
A. There is.. I never saw two perfectly alike.
Q. What induces you to think this man a demented instead of an idiotic
person?
A. I am induced to think a natural idiot would not have sat here as quietly
as this man has, and behaved himself with as much propriety.
Q. Do you think he has behaved himself with propriety ?
A. I have not seen any impropriety ; by which I mean that he has been
quiet^made no noise nor disturbance.
Q. Is his posture, when sitting, different from that of an idiot?
A. I suppose a natural idiot would not have sat so quietly in court as this
man has, for so many days.
Q. What do you think an idiot would have done ?
A. He would have made a noise, I think, and created some disturbance.
I do not know what else he might have done.
Q. Suppose him to be utterly reckless of the consequences of this trial,
then is there any thing in his attitude that is remarkable ?
A. I can hardly conceive a sane man to be in that condition. I have
never known a case of the kind.
WILLIAM tBaniAN. 01
Q. Can you not coneeiye of such a being?
A. Not a being that I shoold call a man.
Q. Have you not seen a man bereft of all moral sense ?
A. Kot perfectly bereft of all moral sense, unless this man be one.
Q. Suppose him hard of hearing ?
A. Although he might not hear he would manifest some desire to know
what was going on.
Q. If a man were so deaf as not to know what was going on, would it be
remarkable if he were inattontiye ?
A. It would be remarkable that he remained in that position without en-
deaYoring to know what was going on.
Q. Does he not Stoop forward as if giving attention and trying to hear ?
A. I said that I had noticed his stooping forward.
Q. Is there any thing singular in that ?
A. Nothing singular in hb stocking forward, but I think it singular that
he remains so long in that position, and holds his arms as he does.
Q. If you should be told that both of his arms were wounded, would that
make any difference in your opinion ?
A. It would ; yet he would not then hold them as he does. It would de-
pend somewhat as to where they were wounded.
Q. Have you examined him in court to see where he is wounded?
A. I hare out, but not in court
Q. Tou have spoken of his smile. Do you know that he smiles without a
oause?
A. I don't know that he smiles without any cause. I have said that his
smile was indicaUve of unsoundness of mind.
Q. Can you not give the reason ?
A. I can. If he possessed a perfect understanding of the relation he sus-
tains here, and had a perfect moral sense, he would not smile as he does.
Q. Suppose he had a perfect understanding, would he then be a sane
man?
A. I suppose perfect sanity requires the healthful exercise of all the fa-
culties.
Q. Suppose he had the possession of all his faculties, and saw a court and
jury engaged six days in trying him, and very eminent counsel engaged
in endeavoring to prove him to be insane, would it be remarkable that he
should smile?
A. I think it would be, that he should smile as much as he does.
Re-£xamination. — On the morning of the second day of July, to which
the court had been adjourned, the witness was interrogated by the counsel
for the prisoner, as follows :
Q. Suppose you had found the prisoner unable to read, and yet beKeving
that he could, would you regard that fact as bearing upon the question of
his sanity?
9% XBBTBIALOr
A. I should regard it as one indkatioii of insamtj.
Q. Suppose tibat when he pretended to read he was told he could not
read, but insisted that he did read, how would that bear upon the question ?
A. I should regard that, also, as indicadve of unaoondness.
Qi Suppose he knew his letters and thought he could read, and when
shown the word ^< Thompson" he called it ^ Cook," and when shown the word
M admirable" he called it ** woman ?'
A. I should regard that, alio, as eYidonoe of insanitf.
Q. Suppose a man at the age of twenty-two, brought up in this coxudry^
who can count twenty-eig^t, and then passes to the mention of other num-
bers, irregularly ?
A. I should regard that, also, as evidence of unsoundness.
Q. Suppose he should be asked how much twice three was, and he an-
swered " sixty-four ?"
A. In the same light; as one proof of an insane mind.
Q. Suppose him to have committed the butchery of four persona, and
when asked why he did it, he should answer, <* I had my work to do ?"
A. That would be evidence of the same character.
Q. If asked why he did not begm at another houae, he answered, <* I did
not think it time to begin yet ?" >
A. The same.
Q. If he said he had been unjustly sent to prison for five yean, and he
knew the persons whom he had siaih had no connection with the affair ?
A. I should regard that as evidence of delusion ; a misjudging ; the as-
sumption of false facts.
Q. Is delusion a symptom of insanity ?
A. It is a prominent tnut of an insane mind.
Q. Suppose a person in childhood to have been amart, playful, lively and
active, and to have possessed his hearing; to have been at sixteen confined
in a State Prison five years, to come out dull, stupid and ignorant ; to speak
generally only in answer to questions, and then only by yea or no, or in the
simplest form ; unable to take up a narrative and relate it without being
prompted by leading questions, 'what would it indicate ?
A. I should regard it as evidence of insanity.
Q. Suppose a person who had been sent to the State Prison five years
ago, should go to the party upon whose evidence he had been convicted,
and thereupon being asked what he wanted, should say he did not know^;
should eat there, and afterwards kill four other persons ?
A I should regard that, also, as evidence of unaoundness.
Q* Suppose a person who had slaughtered four persons who had not in
any way injured him, should answer, in respect to the deed, that he thou|^l
he was doing right?
A. That woidd be an evidence of unsoundness.
Q. Suppose such a person to be in jail for such an act, and when asked
WILLIAM FREXMAK. 93
what he expected would become of liiin, he should answer that he expected
to go to heaven becauBe he was good, what would that indicate ?
A. It would indicate a deluraon.
Q. Suppose a person under indictment for murder should saj that he
meant to kill all he could ?
A. I should regajnd it in the same view.
Q. Suppose 70U found such a person on trial for his life, remaining three
entire days without making one word of inquiiy as to the cause, so deaf he
could not hear a word, sound asleep after going out of court ?
A. 'That, also, I should regard as evidence of insanity.
Q. Suppose you found his pulse variable, and ranging from sixty-seven
to one hundred and fifteen, what would that indicate ?
A. It would be an indication of insanity.
Q. Suppose he had an aunt who had died of insanity, and an uncle living
who had been ten years insane, would the knowledge of the fact strengthen
your convictions of insanity that were occasioned by his appearance ?
A. I should regard it as a corroboration, as insanity is often hereditary.
Q. If he should say his hearing was knocked off and went down his
throat, what would you infer from that ?
A. I should regard that as evidence of dehinon.
Q. If the person having been in prison five years and discharged by ex-
piration of sentence, should, upon breaking his knifo, say he was to be taken
back five years for that offence, what would that indicate ?
A. It would indicate unsoundness of mind.
Q. If he should get up in tiie night, talk about his wrongs, sing, dance
and go through a mummery as if trying to read, what would that indicate ?
A. I should regard such actions as evidence of unsoundness.
Q. If he had slaughtered four persons witjiin three miles of this town ;
should then make flight on horses to a place where he was well known ; then
desist from further flight ; offer to sell his horse, and be entirely unconcerned
about being taken, what bearing would that have on the question ?
A. I should regard that as evidence of unsoundness.
Q. Suppose that when arrested and charged with the crime of murder by
the officers, he quietly proceeded to finish his supper ?
A. That would at least be very unnatural.
Q. K he had received a severe wound on his wrist by which a tendon
had been cut off, and were chained with a heavy iron on his ankles that
pressed very unequally, and yet made no complaint of it, what would such
a condition indicate ?
A. If would be very unnatural, and would indicate unsoundness.
Q. Suppose he lived a mile from his sister^s house, and should frequently
run there with great violence ; when there he diould speak to no person ;
but after staying a minute or two, turn and run back to the place whence
he started, what would such freaks indicate ?
94 TBE TBUL Of
A. They would indicate aberrations of mind.
Q. If he killed, for reTenge, a family in no wise ccmnected with tiie caose
of hiii injury, would that circumstance have any influence on the question ?
A. It would. I should think it Tery unnatural, and that it was an evi-
dence of unsoundness. [Witness was further examined by Mr. Seward and
cross examined by Mr. Van Buren at great length, 6n the subject of insanity,
his theory concerning it and the grounds of his opinion of the prisoner's
mind, but the remainder of his testimony was in substance the same as upon
the traverse. See trial.]
Dr. Charles B. Coyextrt, sworn for the prisoner, testified as ibllows :
I am a physician, and reside at Utica. Am the professor of medical juris-
prudence at Geneva College. I visited the prisoner in the jail, yesterday,
when Dr. Bigelow was there. I made such an examination of him as, to-
gether with that made in my presence by Dr. Bigelow, satisfied me that his
mind was impaired.
Q. In your opinion is the prisoner sane or insane ?
A. It is my opinion that he is insane.
Cros9 Examination, — Dr. Bigelow has testified to much that took place
at the examination of the prisoner. So far as he went in his account of it
I think his statement was correct Dr. B. also asked the prisoner wbether
a trial was not going on in the court house. He said he did not know. He
said he thought he saw some person sworn. Dr. B. asked the prisoner whM
compensation he would accept for his claim while in the State Prison. He
said he didn't know. He was then shown my gold watch by Dr. Bigelow,
and asked if he would accept that. He answered No. He was then asked
if he would take a thousand dollars. He answered No. He was asked if
he stopped at any other house except Van Nest's. He said he did, at the
house this side. He was asked why he did not go in. He replied that the
door was fast I recollect of nothing more that was said which was not re-
lated by Dr. Bigelow.
Q. Are you aware that it is a very common notion among convicts that
they are entitled to pay for their services whilst in prison, particularly if
innocent ?
A. I was not, before coming here as a witness to attend this trial Mr.
Townsend and Dr. Bigelow have so testified, I believe.
Q. Was there any remark of his that indicated insanity except that about
pay?
A. There were several that were indicative of weakness of intellect, bat
the delusion about pay was the prominent one.
Q. Do you remember any other remark indicating delusion ?
A. I do not remember any, unless in connection with the desire for pay.
Q* Was not that examination a very unsatisfactory one to form an opin-
ioB&om?
A. No, sir, I think not
WILLIAM nUEXMAV. 95
Q. How do jou define iiuaiiity ?
A. It ifl not capable of an^r short, concise definition that would embrace
all species of insanity. Insanity, strictly speaking, is a symptom of a de-
ranged function of the brain, or some portion of it In all cases there is a
defect, either original or the effect of disease.
Q. Which of these defects occurs in the prisoner ?
A. Perhaps I shall be better understood if I give you the divisions. Ori-
ginal defects of the brain constitute idiocy, and are most frequently accompar
nied with a malformation of the head. This is one form of insanity. The
second form is where the brain is not originally defective, but imperfectly
developed.- This constitutes imbecility. The third form is where the intel-
lect was originally perfect, but where from disease or other cause the functions
of the brain are destroyed. This constitutes dementia. The fourth form of
insanity is mania. This is accompanied with an exalted state of the brain.
Mania may be divided into general mania, intellectual mania, and moral
mania. Intellectual and moral mania may be divided into general mania
and partial T"i|^ni%-
Q« Having given the divisions of insanity, under what head do you class
the prisoner ?
A. His appears to be a mixed case of dementia and partial mania.
Q. Do you think yourself competent to detect dementia without knowing
the previous condition of the patient ?
A. I cannot speak positively, without knowing his former history, as to
whether the case is one of dementia or imbecility.
Q. From your brief examinations would it be safe to infer that the pri-
soner has dementia and partial mania, without knowing his former mental
condition ?
A. It would be safe to infer that he has dementia or imbecility.
Q. On what authority do you give your classification of insanity ?
A. Guy's Medical Jurisprudence.
Q. In a case of imbecility from an imperfectiy developed brain, can you
say whether it arises from a neglected education or from disease ?
A. I cannot, in all cases.
Q. Is incoherence a common symptom of dementia ?
A. It cannot be said to be a common, but it is a frequent attendant of
dementia.
Q. Is a defective memory a common symptom ?
A. It is a frequent, but not a conmion one.
Q* Is an apparent inability to give attention to a subject a common symp-
tom?
A. it is.
Q. Were you aware, at the time you made your examination, that the
prisoner was deaf or partially so ?
A. I was, sir.
96 THS TRIAL Of
Q. Jb dementU most common to the joang or old ?
A. It is most common in old persons.
Q. Is drooling a common symptom of dementa?
A. It is not It sometimes happens, howerer.
Q* Have yoa read the tragedy of Lear ?
A. I hare, bat not recently.
Q* What kind of insanity was his ?
A. I should think he had general mania, and, at the time I read it, it
itmck me as a good description.
Q. Are yon able to say how long Freeman has been afflicted with de-
menlsa?
A. I hare no data for determining that, yet I think it has become permar
nent
Q. Can you give any other symptom of dementia than what yon hare
mentioned ?
A. ISs inability to carry on a regular conversation is a symptom.
Q* May not that arise from other causes than insanity ?
A. Not to the extent that it exists in the prisoner.
Q* Suppose his powers of speech were defecttve, might he not have the
same difficulty ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Suppose he were dumb ?
A. If he were dumb and possessed ordinary fiiculties, the difficulty would
not be so great as it is with him now.
Q. Suppose him to be desirous of concealing from you his real condition ?
A. It is not possible, with his willingness to answer, for him to practice
concealment successfully.
Q* But suppose him to be unwilling ?
A« It is not possible, from the manner he gave his answers, that he was
anwilling.
Q. But if he were unwilling would not a similar effect be produced ?
A. I think not If he were unwilling to give a narration of events, but
had the ability to do so, the same appearance could not be exhibited.
Q. Is he not reluctant to answer. Have you not testified that he did not
converse freely ?
A When Lsolated questions were put he answered readily, which would
not be the case if there was an attempt at concealment
Q. How differently would he act if he were unwilling to answer ?
A. There would be a hesitancy befbre he answered if he were unwilling
to answer. He answers such questions as he comprehends, whether for or
against him.
Q. What else was there in his appearance that indicated dementia ?
A His general appearance led me to suspect it
Q. Is it a frw|uent attendant of dementia that the patient talks to himself?
WILLIAM FKEBMAK. ^
A. I should think it was rather common.
Q. Doctor, please to state to the jury what there is in the prisoner's
appearance from which yon jndge he has dementia ?
A. £Bb want of attention to what b going on around him ; the manner in
which he sits there now, and as he bends over, and the whole expression of / j
his face, denote it ^i
Q. What part of it?
A. The whole of it
Q. But is there not some feature in particular that you can mention ?
A. I cannot specify any particular feature or expression that indicates it,
but an observing man, familiar with insanity, may discover it in the ex-
pression of all the features of his face.
Q. IT not familiar with dementia, could he, in your opinion, detect
it? ',
A. Not as readily, nor could he form so accurate an opinion. \
Q. Should you think a man, not a physician, could detect this disease in
the prisoner ?
A. If familiar with dementia he could ; if not, he would be less likely to
recognize it
Be-£xamination. — ^I have been in the profession twenty years. For*
many years I have made the subject of insanity my study. I am one of the
managers of the Lunatic Asylum at Utica, and have been since its oi^ani-
zation.
Q. Have you any doubt that the prisoner is insane ?
A. I cannot say that I have. I have not seen any thing to raise a doubt
of it in my mind.
Q. Is there any thing in the designing and contriving with secrecy a
homicide, inconsistent with insanity ?
A. There is not
Q. Do insane persons often design and plan homicides with deliberation,
and execute such plan ?
A. They do, frequently, when they are laboring under a delusion.
Q. Suppose the prisoner to have planned the homicide of four pcrsfjns,
prepared the instruments for that purpose, and escaped ?
A. That of itself would not form any bai?L$ for an opinion as to sanity or
insanity, except in connection with the causes of the homicide.
Q. Suppose the homicide to have been of persons who had not offended
him, and the motives those which this prisoner has expressed in his exami-
nations ?
A. The homicide in that case would be the legitimate consequence of the
delusion under which he labored, and in that view, it would be evidence of
insanity. [This witness further testified in substance as upon the traverse.
See trial]
7
98 TBK TRIAL Of
Dr. Ahariah Brigham, re-called for the prisoner, testified as follows :
Q. Will you state your opinion and the grounds of it, as to tlie sanity of
the prisoner ?
A. When I was on the stand \)efore, I stated what ray opportanities had
been of seeing the prisoner. I then withheld any opinion in the case, for
the reason that I had not then heard, but desired to hear, all the testimony
concerning him before expressing one. I have now heard, I suppose, all
the testimony in the case, and am called upon to give my opinion deriTed
from both my observation of the prisoner, and the testimony concerning
him. In answer to the question, I would! say that it is my oi^nion that the
prisoner at the bar is insane.
In arriving at this conclusion, the first point to be settied is, whether he
is feigning insanity. I am* of the opinion that he is not, nor have I heard
any witness express an opinion that he is feigning it There is some little
difficulty in the case from the want of facts concerning his history, and also
on account of his color. In a white person, I think one who has lived for
years with insane people, can, from the countenance, detect insanity, al-
though the person might be sitting entirely still, and yet I nught not be
able to tell in what the evidence consisted.
* I see a deranged man there, (pointing to one Daniel Smith, an insane
person, who was sitting in the court room at the time.) I saw him across
the court room the other day, and knew from his looks that he was insane.
(Here the attorney general interrupted the witness, and called up before
the jury the insane person referred to. The witness then continued :) I
observed, that I could distinguish a white person whom I had never seen
before, as being insane, and yet not be able to describe the indications by
which I detected it. It is a difficulty to be encountered, in this case, that
the prisoner is a colored man. I cannot, and I presume others cannot, jndge
of insanity from the countenances of colored men as well as from those of
white men. There is, oftentimes, a peculiar pallor about insane persons that
is indicative of insanity, and yet it cannot be described. The only testimony
in this case touching this feature, is that the prisoner is paler than he for-
merly was. In regard to the history of this man, although there have been
a great many facts presented, there seems to be but few from which to judge
of his whole life. He seems never to have had a home. Not even his par
rent is able to throw much light on the history of his mind. Very little was
known^of him whibt he was in prison. By the rules, no conversation was
held with him that indicated much concerning his mental condition whilst
there ; and but littie was known of him after he came out, except that he
was seen about the streets and sometimes employed to perform small jobs of
work. We are left to judge, in his case, therefore, from a small number of
facts ; yet these have carried conviction to my mind that he is deranged.
In the case before us, there have been in operation the most common and
exciting causes of this disease. The prisoner was predisposed to it by his
WILLIAM lUHMAlT. ^ 99
parontage. He has had an annt and now has an uncle insane. These, to
me, are very important facts ; not because all who have insane ancestors will
become insane, but because they are liable to become so from causes which
would not operate on others not so predisposed to it It is estimated that
about one half of the insane have, or have had, insane ancestors, or have had
insanity in their families ; and it is exceedingly apt to spread in families in
which it has once appeared.
The prisoner seems to hare been an active youth, with perhaps not quite
as good an intellect as the majority of colored persons of his age, yet pas-
sionate, obstinate, and I suppose somewhat ugly. He seems to have been
left to the indulgence of his passions, without education, or mental, moral
or religious culture. This I regard as one of the predisposing causes of in-
saniQr. The indulgence of the passions soon forms a character that can
brook no control, subjects them to violent emotions, and thus lays the foun*
dation of insanity in the passions and affections. It is in this Mght that the
neglect of moral culture is regarded as one of the most predisposing causes
of derangement
At a very early age he was confined in the State Prison, where he had
various troubles, and was thought by some to be a singular being, and, as '
some expressed it, a brute. He was disobedient, and for his disobedience
was punished severoly. He got into a violent passion for very trivial causes ;
was apparently ready to kill a fellow convict for moving his shoes, and acted
in the manner I have been accustomed to see crazy people act In the
prison he seems to have become deaf. Deafness, however, is not of itself a
symptom of insanity, yet it is often a concomitant, and their combination
forma incurable insanity. When combined, I have never known a patient
to recover. The reason, probably, is that the same cause which destroys
the hearing, or affects the auditory nerve, extends also to the brain itself.
He then came out of prison, and so far as I could gather from all the tes-
timony, he was changed. He was a lively, active, sociable lad when he
entered the prison, but was taciturn, dull and stupid when he came out, and
as his mother expressed it, '^ he wasn't the same boy ; he acted as if he didn't
know any thing." This I rogard as a characteristic of insanity. So com-
mon is this change of character in insanity, thai? many regard it as necessary
to the definition of the term. A prolonged change of character, without
any evident external cause, is given, in many works on insanity, as a charac-
teristic; and the cases aro almost innumerable whero such changes have
come within my own observation. A mother loses her child, or a man meets
with a roverse of fortune, or has something which has created great anxie^
of mind ; and soon after, it is perceived that his character is changed ; not
but that he knows people as well as beforo, and talks with them ; not but
that he has memory ; but he has become sad, gloomy and unsociable, and
without that interest in things which he fbrmeriy had. This state often
exists for weeks and months nnpeiceived, unless by intimate friends, until
100 THS TRIAL Of
some delusion, or other eridence of insanitj, is obsenrable, or some outbreak
occurs. Then all notice what had been generally unobserred before — ^that
a change had taken place, and that the per^n was insane. In this way
insanify very commonly commences. The change d character and of the
moral qaalitaes often precedes any perceptible derangement of the intellect
In the case at the bar I think this change of character has been proved.
I have observed, that we knew but very little of him whilst he was in the
State Prison. Some of the witnesses, however, noticed the change. Dr.
Hermance, in converrang with him, thought him deranged. Then he had
disturbed nights ; often was up in the night, and was noisy. Than that, I
know of no better evidence of insanity. So confident am I that sleeplessness
is a characteristic of insanity, that I have spoken of it in a published article
on insanity as one of its most indubitable symptoms; and that article, I no*
tice, has been extensively copied and quoted. I can attest its truth from
my own experience and obsen'ation of the insane. It^is true, that in some
cases insane persons sleep well, but, in general, the insane have paroxysms
and are apt to get up nights. I cannot account for the conduct of the pri-
soner, in this respect, on any other supposition than that it was the conse-
quence of disease, of whicJi I have testified.
His going to a magistrate for a warrant, without any definite notion for
whom ; declaring that he would have one, after he had been ixAd that it
could not be issued ; his tender of twenty-five cents ; his getting into a pas-
sion in the office of the magistrate ; his inability to give any connected
account of the injury of which he complained, and for which he wanted the
process, — ^all indicate an unnatural, if not irrational, condition of mind. We
next come to the act itself, for which he has been arrested and indicted. It
was a dreadful tragedy, and yet, as bloody as it was, and as deplorable as
it may be, I cannot but regard it as the result of insanity. I cannot believe
that a sane man, in the full exercise of his intellect and moral feelings,
could do such an act, unless the provocation was very great, or the motive
very powerful and strong. Similar cases have occurred in lunatic asylums,
but I am not aware that history records any case of the kind happening
elsewhere. Quite rocentiy, a man killed two patients at the Baltimore Hos-
pital, and was endeavoring to massacre the whole of tliem. He was so well
as to be about, when the sudden paroxysms came on him. And the manner
of his doing it ; the shedding of so much blood ; the killing mora than could
have been necessary for any snpposable purpose, and the celerity with which
it was done, all wero regarded as evidence of insanity. I have always ob-
served that the insane act much quicker than the sane. They will tear their
clothes into inch pieces, destroy their beds, and break their bedsteads in a
period of time so short, that one could not suppose it possible for them to
have done it
In the case of Griffith, in Chenango county, for killing, the witnesses
expressed their astonishment at the quickness with which the deed was done.
WILUAM 7RSX1LLN. 101
Here, in the case at the bar, the prisoner must have entered the house, went
into diflerent rooms, had some scuffles, killed fonr persons, looked into yst
rions windows, stolen a horse, and rode it half a mile before Williamson had
walked that distance. It seems as if he had planned and designed it, made
preparation for its accomplishment, indicating the possession of mind that
some think incompatible with insanity. Every da3r's observation, however,
convinces me that it ought not to be so regarded. The insane are as adroit
in planning and scheming to get away, or in accomplishing their pu^)ose, as
the sane. The case of Hadfield, for shooUng the King, is in point He had
made a full and careful preparation, had obtained his pistols, and delibe-
rately went to the theatre expressly to shoot the King. So with a patient at
the Asylum at Utica, who had killed her father, and intended to kill her
mother. She prepared every thing beforehand. I might refer to many
other cases, but the mention of these will illustrate my idea.
That the prisoner undertook to escape, seems to many to be inconsistent
with insanity. Yet, when I sec patients every day doing wrong and adroitly
contriving to conceal it ; when I know that they have done the act ; when I
know numerous cases where such insane persons try to escape after having
committed heinous offences, I do not think it ought to be so regarded.
A man by the name of Thomas Sanderson, from Chautauque, now in the
Asylum, known by many to be insane, was lefl with a young man threshing
in a bam. Whilst there, he killed the young man, by stabbing him more
than one hundred times with a pitchfork. He then took up the boards and
buried him undter the floor, then took a horse and fled, but was overtaken
by an officer, and afler a struggle, in which the officer was wounded, he was
arrested. He is now in my charge, at the Lunatic Asylum. Since he has
been there, he has attempted to cut the throat of a patient He eats by
himself. We dare not trust him where there are any instruments with
which he can do any injury to others. Rabello, in the State Prison of
Connecticut, whose case has been published, is another instance. He killed
a boy, and then ran off. These cases show, that, in the attempt to escape,
there is nothing incompatible with insanity.
Since the arrest of the prisoner at the bar, there have been various at-
tempts made to ascertain whether he is insane. To many, the fact that he
remembers, that he gives a rational account of many things, and repeats
them several times, carries the conviction that he is sane. That appears to
be evidence to some that he has reason enough left to control his actions.
But to my mind that does not carry such a conviction. Living, as I do,
with those who exhibit as much intellect as any person in this assembly ;
whom I daily employ to write letters, to paint portraits, to play on musical
instruments, to compose and deliver orations, which would, do credit to men
of learning and gjBneral iatefligence ; and when I know these people are as
deranged on certain subjects as any person ever was, the fact that the pri-
102 THX TRIAL Of
soner remembers and repeats, does not carry conviction to mj mind that he
is sane. Bat the prisoner does not either ren ember or repeat well. He is
dnll, and stupid, and ignorant, and has but little intellect of any kind. And
I think every one must have been struck with the fact, that all who have
examined him have found it necessary to come down to simple questions in
their examinations ; to putting questions which we would not think of put-
ting to a man we considered sane. Such quesjdons as *' will you settle for
this watch," as put by Dr. Bigelow, and by others who have testified on this
trial. Such questions seem to indicate, that the persons interrogating the
prisoner considered him a mere child in intellect
I agree with Dr. Spencer, that his pulse furnishes no evidence one way or
the other. Whilst many insane persons have a very rapid pulse, that of oth-
ers is too slow for ordinary health. The rapid changes, however, from sixty-
seven to one hundred and twenty, betoken something not exactly healthy.
It indicates that nervous irritability alluded to by the doctor, which we see
among the insane. It is not itself insanity ; yet nervous irritability is akin
to it, as a disease of the nervous system is insanity. The prisoner never asks
a question, except for food, for tobacco, or about his wound. He has not
asked for or about his mother, nor about any other person. Unless I sup-
pose him bereft, by disease, of all those feelings, hopes and fears which every
one in a natural state possesses, I know not how to explain this. It is, how-
ever, BO characteristic of cases of this kind, that it adds to my conviction of
his insanity. Kline, who killed a woman in New York, and was sent to the
Asylum above two years ago, always answers readily, but nlver asks a ques-
tion on any subject whatever.
The prisoner seems entirely indifferent to his fate, and yet has strong ani-
mal appetites — ^he asks for tobacco, yet apparently cares nothing for his trial.
His total indifference I cannot account for on any other supposition than
that it is the consequence of his disease. His counting and reading is
another circumstance worthy of notice ; not, however, because he cannot
count or read, but for the reason that when he counts beyond twenty-eight
he appears just as confident that he is counting right above that number as
below it. The same thing has been noticed of his reading ; and the surprise
is that he does not know that he cannot read. A child may do this ; but
when it gets older, although it may practice it, it knows it is not reading.
The prisoner's insensibility to pain has been mentioned by the medical gen-
tleman who dressed his wounded arm. On dressing it. Dr. Fosgate has ob-
served that he exhibited no feeling — that he seemed to pay no attention to it.
Although many insane persons are sensible to pain, others are not We put
setons into their neck, and perform other operations upon them, and they
perform them on themselves. When the wounds are being dressed they
show no suffering. I had a female patient at the Asylum who would not
eat We fed her with a stomach tube. To resist us she sewed up her mouth
WILLIAM FBXBMAM. 108
Strongly. I cut the stitches out, but when doing it she exhibited no more
feeling than if I had been at work on a piece of leather. And yet the lips,
in health, are rery sensitive to pain.
The external appearance of the prisoner in his cell, and as he sits at the bar,
carries the same conviction to my mind that it does to the. minds of Doctors
McCall and Coventry. His total indifference — ^his abject and demented ap-
pearance, and his peculiar laugh, which all must have seen, althougb- no one
could imitate it, which comes on when nothing is going on that he appears to
notice, are indicative of mental disease. In the jail, when inquired of about
the offence which he had committed, he laughed ; and when I asked him if
he was not asluuned of himself, he laughed again. In court I have observed
it when there was nothing to excite it, so far as I could discover, and yet I
have observed him very attentively. Some have thought it not a littie strange
that he should smile under the circumstances in which he is now placed, iand
yet they do not recognize it as an indication of a disease mind. Now, when
I see this every day, in demented persons at the Lunatic Asylum, and par-
ticularly on the Sabbath, when clergymen are preaching to us,! conclude
that it results from disease. I know nothing in physiology or pathology that
accounts for it, and yet I am in the habit of seeing it, atthougb I have never
heard it explained.
Such IB a hasty review of the case, and although I have not alluded to
many things that have gone to strengthen my convictions of his insanity, I
have mentioned enough to indicate the reasons which influence my opinion.
On the evidence given here, concerning him, before his commission of the
offence for which he is indicted, I have no heatation in pronouncing him
insane, and on such evidence should have admitted him to the Asylum as a
patient [The witness further continued at considerable length, in substance
the same as he testified upon the traverse, and, after concluding, was cross
examined by Mr. Van Buren, on which he testified as follows :]
Cross £x AumATioir. On my direct examination I observed that there
were certain indications and features of insanity in crazy people that I per-
ceived, yet was unable to describe to a jury. I stated that as a matter of
opinion. When I saw Smith in the court room the otiier day, I had no pre-
vious information that he was insane, nor did he perform any act, whatever,
that was indicative of mental disease ; yet when I discovered him sitting there
I thought him deranged, but could not describe to this jury the expression
of his countenance that convinced me that he was so. I think I first saw
him four or five days ago, and about that time I took occasion to speak to
him. Upon asking his name he informed me that it was Smith. After I
first saw him, and before I spoke to him, I think I asked some one if he was
not crazy. I think it was Mr. Day that I inquired of; it may have been
some other one, but, whoever it w^, answered me that he was insane. I
was, however, as confident before as I was after I asked the question, that
he was crazy. Upon inquiry, I obtained a partial history of him before I
101 ; npiiTRlAL 07
went up to speak with film. I was infonned that he had been confined in
tl^ State Prison, and that he came out insane.
Q. Was not Smith pointed out to yon as a crazy man during the trial of
Wyitt?
A.. I have no recollection of it
(^ Do you know Mr. Cannon, the constable ?
A. ^I have seen him about this court
Q. Did he not point him out to you ?
A. I lave no recollection of it, and think it cannot be true that he did.
Q. Do you know Dr. Dickinson, of this place ?
A. IdonOt
Q. Did not he or Mr. Hohnes point him out to you during Wyatt's trial ?
A. They did Dpt .Several persons, however, have spoken to me about
him. ^
Q. Mqfl|||iu not be mistaken about that ?
A. I oii^%G ; yet I think I saw him this week for the first time.
Q. You tey perSoftfThave spoken to you about hinC Did they not pmnt
him out to you'?- ^ ^
A. I have recoHeistjbn.that persons spoke to me about him, and that I
went and talked to him, but I had seen him before. '
Q. Was it at all difficult to detect his insanity ?
A. It was not, in that person.
Q. Then why did you mention his case in that connection on your direct
examination ?
A. I was mentioning the difficulty of detecting insanity in colored people,
because I had not seen so many that were insane.
Q. But Smith is not a colored man ?
A. Certainly not But I meant to convey the idea that if he had been I
might not have so easily detected his insanity.
Q. Why cannot an external appearance in a black man be discovered ?
A. They may be discovered ; but the emotions and feelings are not so
easily discovered as in white people.
Q. Would there have been any difiorent expression in the eye of Smith
had he been a black man ?
A. I do not know as there would.
Q. Is not the eye, of all others, the feature which is most indicative of the
condition and operation of the mind ?
A. I think not The muscles of the face indicate most
Q. Is that a feature ?
A. They move the features and portray the emotions.
Q. Can you name any other feature by which you pen^eived that Smith
was insane ? *
A. I cannot It was his whole countenance.
Q. Can you name any feature that denotes insanity more than the eye ?
WILLIAM VBKIMAN. 105
A. Yes ; the miuclefl of his face, as I before stated.
Q. But you say tliey move the featores. I inquire whether you can name
any one feature that denotes it more than the eye ?
A. No one feature distinguishes insanity. It is the play ofthem that gives
the expression.
Q. What constitutes the features ?
A. The muscles of the face. They cause the expression and show the
operation of the mind.
Q. Has not the nose an expression?
A. Neither the nose or ears are expressive of insanity.
Q. Can you safely answer that no otter feature denotes insanity ?
A. Nothing but die play or repose of the muscles of the face.
Q. Does any one of them denote insanity ?
A. I do not know that any one of them does ; but the cheeks, the eye-
lids, the whole countenance does.
Q. When yon speak of the whole countenance do yon include the cheeks
and eyelids ?
A. I should, as forming a part of it
Q. Do you think of any other features besides the cheeks and eyelids ?
A. Tes ; the play of the muscles which gives expression to the mouth.
Q. Can the mouth alone indicate insanity ?
A. I think it cannot, alone.
Q. You stated that you had not full and satisfactory information concern*
ing the history of the prisoner : do you think it the duty of the people or the
prisoner to prove that ? ^
A. I had no idea about it, and did not knaw uiat that was a question for
me to decide.
Q. Do you think that sufficient facts have been shown by the people to
show him jsane, or not sufficient by the prisoner's counsel to show him in-
sane?
A. I did not mean that there were not enough to show him insane ; but
if more had been shown we should have more evidence of his insanity ; that
it was singular so little had been learned of his history.
Q. So fiur as you are aware of your own feelings, have yon been actuated
by a desire to find him sane or insane ?
A. At first I had no desire nor feeling, except that which I suppose every
one had, that such an outrage should be punished. But my first interview
with the prisoner satisfied me that he was insane, and I could not but have
a desire that he might be acquitted on that ground; still, I have endeavored
to keep that feeling in entire subjection.
Q. In hearing the evidence in this case, do you think you have paid the
same attention to evidence showing sanity as you have to that showing in-
sanity ?
A. I think I have.
106 THX TBUI* Of
Q. And given the same weight to it?
A. I could not say that ; as the evidence given of mind and memory did
not have as much weight with me as some of the other testimony. I was
anrprised that more evidence of mind was not given. I think I have ^ven
the same weight to the evidence that should go to establish sanity as I have
to that which should go to establish insamfy. I have endeavored, in my tes-
timony, to take a cbmmon sense view of the case.
Q. You told the jury in a way that might have confiued them, that yon
discovered a paleness about this man ?
A. No ! I adverted to such a statement by other witnesses.
Q. Did you not say that his pallness was indicative of his insanity?
A. I stated that pallor in certain cases was indicative of insanity. Ithot^ht
the testimony in respect to the paleness of this prisoner was entitled to but
little weight.
Q. Did you not convey the idea that it was an invariable symptom ?
A. I did not mean to say that it was an invariable symptom, but that it
was usual.
Q. Did you not say that it was a striking charaeteristic, or convey a simi-
lar idea?
A. I did not mean to say that it was strfld^, but ihaX in many cases there
exists an unusual and peculiar paUor about insane persons.
Q. Then you attach no great importance to thai symptom in the case at
the bar?
A. I do mean to attach some importance to the fact that tins person is
paler than before he went to prison.
Q. If the jury should think it natural for him to become paler in jail,
would you attach any consequence to that ?
A. My judgment is that negroes do not become paler in the shade.
Q. Why?
A. Because they are not colored from being in the sun.
Q. Do they differ from the whites in that respect?
A. I mean to say that colored persons do not become white from being
shut up in jail.
Q. Have you not noticed changes in the color of black pers<MBs ?
A. I have often attended upon black people, but never noticed much
change of color in them.
Q. Are you not aware that white persons grow darker in a warm climate ?
A. I am ; that they grow dark under a hot southern sun.
Q. Do you not think that if you wished to refer these phenomena to na-
tural, rather than to unnatural causes, that it might have occurred to you
that the prisoner might have grown paler by confinement ?
A. It mSght have occurred to me, but on reflection I should have eondn-
ded as I now do.
Q. Is it not difficult to tell whether a negro grows pale or not?
WHLIAM FRMEMAN. 107
A. I suppose it would if the change was not great
Q. You stated that deafness affected the auditory nerve, and that deaf
crazy men were generally incurable. Do yon say that deafness is a symp-
tom of insanity?
A. I stated, in my direct examination, that, of itself, it was not
Q. Is there any thing in deafness itself that tends to insanity ?
A. They are not always crazy, as the jury know as well as myself; but
my impression is that deaf persons are more apt to become so, as there are
more deaf persons in the Asylum than out of it, in proportion to the number.
Q. Then do you not think it leads to insanity ?
A. No ; I don't think it leads to insanity, yet I believe the cause of deaf-
ness often produces it
Q. When do you think this man became deaf?
A. My impression is that he became deaf in prison, although, perhaps, he
was a little hard of hearing before.
Q. How do you get the impression that perhaps he was hard of hearing
before?
A. I do not know as any one testified to it, but he told me he was a little
hard of hearing from childhood.
Q. Is it your impression that the blow with the board in the prison made
him deaf?
A. I did suppose that it did, until I heard the evidence on that subject
From the testimony I don't know as I can say what caused it
Q. Does deafness ordinarily increase with age ?
A. My recollection is that in many people it does, but in some cases it
does not I know many crazy people who have been deaf, and yet I have
not been able to discover that it increased.
Q. Does it not naturally increase as old age comes on ?
A. In old age I think it incre.ases ; but I have friends who are and have
been deaf for years, and I am not able to perceite that it increases.
Q. What is the general rule ?
A. I do not know that in youth or middle age deafness ordinarily in-
creases. In them it is oflen cured.
Q. What do the books say on the subject ?
A. I am not able at this moment to say what books do say on this subject
Q. Do you believe that the prisoner infonned you correctly about having
been hard of hearing from childhood ?
A. My impression is that he speaks the truth.
Q. Then why do yon not believe he got a stone in his ear?
A. Why, a bone may have come out or he may have been hit by a stone.
Q. What would you think he meant ?
A. I should think he meant that one of the bones of his ear had come
out
Q. What would have caused such a result ?
I
108 TBB TUAL Of
A. An ulcer might have produced it He complAined of ear ache at one
tiine when in prison.
Q. Suppose that it should Appear in testimony that the prisoner was asked
last night, ^* Bill, how did you get on to day," and diot in reply he said, ^ we
blew 'em all up to-day," what should you think about that ?
A. I should infer that he hardly knew what was going on, and my opinion
is that he does not hear much that is going on.
Q. Why do you not believe him when he says the board knocked his
hearing off?
A. I do not know but that it may be true ; I have no belief on the sub-
ject I am rather of the impression that the blow did not cause his deafness,
although he may have thought it did.' He may not be mistaken, howeyer,
for it may have caused it
Q. You have stated that one evidence of insanity with you, was that his
uncle and aunt were also insane ; would you not think it remarkable that
no member of his own family were insane ?
A. No ; because I know of a vast number of instances of the kind.
Q. What is the professional standing of Dr. McCall?
A. He is a highly respectable and intelligent member of the medical pro-
fession.
Q. What is his authority on questions of insanity ?
A. I should not think any more of his authority than I would of any other
respectable member of the profession, except from his opportunities at the
Asylum at Utica.
Q. With his opportunities, how do you rank his authority ?
^: A. As highly respectable ; yet he cannot have a great knowledge of in-
sanity.
Q. Do you agree with him that insanity is not contMous ?
^ A. Insanity OS we see it, is not contagious; but there are instances in which
whole communities beconiA deranged, as for instance in the days of witch-
craft in New England.
^p Q. Ib hysterics contagious ?
A. I have known a person who had hysterics set others into it As a
general rule, however, it is not contagious*
y^ Q. Did not this insanity you speak of in New England affect the legis-
jature ?
A. Not that I recollect of.
Q. What were the symptoms of that insanity ?
A. I am not able to recollect all the incidents of the times, yet I think
.those persons were affected, to a certain degree, with insanity.
Q. Do you recollect what was done for it ?
I A. Laws were passed against it, and witches were hung.
Q. Were witches hung ?
A. Those who were said to be bewitched were.
WILLIAM lEmiAH. 109
Q* And do yon term that insamty ?
A. They were in a state of great excitement, in which conmiott sense did
not prevail ; they were nnder a deloaion.
Q. What is a delusion ?
A. It is mistaking fancies for realities, that the person cannot be rea-
soned out o£
Q. When a number of people are so deluded as to pass laws to hang
witches, should yon suppose them under a delusion ?
A. Certainly not, as the word is defined ; I should rather say they passed
the laws through ignorance.
Q. Then the legislature was not under a delusion ?
A. Not under an insane delusion, for they were reasoned out of it
Q. Do you think the prisoner waa under a delusion when he eommitted
the murders ?
A. I presume at times he could be convinced that Van Nest had nothing
to do with his imprisonment; but it would return. The delusion was that
certain persons had imprisoned him wrongftdly, and by k31ing them he could
get his pay.
Q. Does the case show whether he was imprisoned in the State Prison
rightfully or wrongfully ?
A. My impression is, that the testimony in this case is conflicting about
it, and, therefore, I hare not formed an opinion on that subject
Q. If he were imprisoned wrongfully, then he was under no delusion as
to that, was he ?
A. No ; not in that respect
Q. Was he under any delusion about being imprisoned wrongfully ?
A. I do not, of course, know as to that
Q. If killing people was pay or satbfaction to him, was he under any de-
lusion as to that#^
A. I should think he was.
Q. What kind of dehudon?
A. That the persons whom he killed were, when they were not, connected
with the transaction.
Q. Suppose the killing of people whom he knew were not connected with
the transaction was satisfaction to him, was he then under any delusion ?
A. Most certainly he was.
Q. What waa the delusion then ?
A. I can hardly nuike it plainer to you than my previous answers render
it If I labored under a delusion that a person had wronged me, and I
killed him for it, it would nevertheless be a delusion, although the killing
n^ht satisfy me. The very essence of the delusion in this case was that
he labored under the impression that Van Nest's family were connected with
tin afilur of his conviction, when his reason and all the facts told him diat
110 TBI TBIAL Of
thej were not the people. Hjs delusion told him they were, and he acted
accordingly.
Q. Do you agree with Dr. McCall that insanify is an epidemio ?
A. I haye no other illustration of it than in the case of witcheraft; we
haye history for it
Q. Is there any particular season of the year when this epidemic is most
prevalent ?
A. I haye no knowledge that it is more so at one season than at another.
Q. Do you recollect your testimony about the change in tins man ?
A. The greater part of it I da
Q. Do you recollect of saying that there was a total change in lum ?
A. I do not; nor haye I said so. Lhave not intended to say that there
was a total change, for that is too^strong a tenn. I mean to say there ap-
pears to haye been a great change of character and of mental condition ;
that before he went to prison he was a lively, sociable young man, and of
the intelligence of ordinary colored persons, and having the same feelings
and affections ; and that when he came out» he was found to be changed ' 3
an unsocial person, and, as his mother testified, ** he was not the same boy ;
he did not seem to know any thing."
Q. In your opinion, when did this change happen ?
A. I think he experienced it in the State Prison.
Q. Was it, in your opinion, gradual or sudden ?
A. I cannot say from the testimony ; but I suppose it was rather graduaL
Q. How do you get that impression ?
A. It is, perhaps, rather a matter of inference than otherwise.
Q. From what do you get that inference ?
A. From the testimony.
Q. Whose?
A. From the testimony of several of the witnesses who have testified re-
specting him. I cannot recal their names.
Q. Did you hear Nathaniel Lynch, (the man with whom the prisoner
lived when a boy, and yrho whipped him,) testify ?
A. I think I did.
Q. Did he swear that there was no chang«f in him ?
A. I cannot say, positively, whether he did not I think some of the wit-
nesses did so testify.
Q. Did you not hear Aaron Demun, Thomas F. Munroe and Israel C.
Wood testify that there was no change in him ?
A. I cannot distinguish persons, yet I recollect that several witnesseas did
so state.
Q. When all those witnesses swear there is no change in him, how do yoo ^
find that there is?
A. They did not swear firom an amount of personal knowledge sufficient
to satisfy me.
WIUIAM nOMAN. Ill
Q. Do you infer a change wiihoat proof?
A« I do not infer anj thing. I think the balance of the testimony ea-
tafaiishesit
Q. Do not the kws of nature govern you at all, in this matter ?
A. Yes ; so fkr as they i^yply.
Q. Then don't -you infer that he has grown up as he naturally would ?
A. No ; because there is some proof that he is changed.
Q. Where is the evidence of any change ?
A. The testimony of those in whose families he lived. His mother's tes-
timony produced quite an impression on my mind that a change had taken
place.
Q. Why do you give her testimony more weight than those other wit-
nesses who say he is not deranged ?
A. His mother must have known him more intimately than any other
person, from having brought him up, and having the ordinary knowledge
that a mother has of her children. Although she was not constantly with
him, she saw him occasionally, and had him with her in his early years.
Q. Do not you recollect that she testified that for several years before he
went to prison she saw but little of him ?
A. I do recollect that she said that just before he went to prison she did
not see him very oflen ; yet she saw him occasionally. I think she would
have noticed the change had there been any.
Q. Is not your opinion munly based on the testimony of the mother of
the prisoner ?
A. Not mainly ; yet I think her opportunities of judging of him better
than those of any other witness.
Q. Do you not rely more on her testimony than upon any o^r witness?
A. I do, perhaps, as much.
Q. I desire an answer. Do you not more ?
A. I can hardly say that ;'^ yet perhaps I do, for I certainly consider it
entitled to considerable w^ght I rely very much, howerer, on Mr. War-
den's testimony.
Q. D6 you know that colored people acquire but very little information
aAer th^y are six or eight years old ?
A. I do not
Q. Do you recollect that the witness Lynch, with whom the prisoner lived
when a lad, testified that thiere was no change in him ?
A. I heard his testimony. It I4)pears that he did not observe any change.
Q. Then why do you not conclude that Lynch's accotmt of him is the
correct one?
A4 Why, a change may have occurred without his noticing it Warden
testified that he noticed it at the time ; and when a witness swears that he
saw a change, I regard his testimony as stronger proof of the fact than the
testimony of one who did not
112 THB TEUL Of
Q. Bat is not that an appearance that may be as well obaerred bj one
aa another ; by one who says there is no change, as by one who says there is ?
A. I believe those who swear there is no change, swear to what they be-
lieye to be tme, although I believe they were mistaken.
Q. What enkbled Warden to see what Lynch could not?
A. An answer to such a question would be difficult I have just stated
that I believed those who testified that no change had taken place, testified
to what they believed to be true ; yet I think they were not as observing as
those who did perceive, or were mistaken.
Q. What change do you believe Warden saw ?
A. I think it was a change of character.
Q. WhatoCfaer witnesses testified (^ any change?
A. I do not remember their names. I only generalised facts, and those,
with my observations, convinces me there was a change.
Q, Do yon recollect that Dr. Hermance did not notice any change ?
A. I recollect that he did not in the first conversation he had with the
prisoner, but at the second he thought him deranged.
Q. How did he testify?
A. I cannot recal his words.
Q, Did you rely on the testimony of John De Puy ?
A. Not very much.
Q. Upon Deborah De Puy's ?
A. But little.
Q. Upon Adam Gray's ?
A. Wliy, all together their testimony made a constderable unpreasion on
my mind. I have, to be sure, some doubts about the testimony of John De*
Puy, as I have noticed some testimony in conflict with his.
Q. Did he not testify as well as the rest of the colored witnesses ?
A. Not as carefully, I thought There was a little quibbling in his testi-
mony that threw a doubt on his story, unless confirmed by others.
Q. Did not most of his testimony stand alone, and was he not contradicted
by witnesses whom you credit ?
A. Most of it was confirmed by others ; yet, when he testified to things
that he was not very likely to know, it raised some doubt.
Q. Do you not lay stress on his testimony about the prisoner's getting up
nights?
A. I do lay stress, very considerable stress, on the disturbed sleep.
Q. Then do you not rely on his testimony ?
A. On his and Adam Gray's. I don't recollect that he slept any where else.
Q. But why do you rely upon testimony about which you have doubts?
A. Although I had doubts about some parts of De Puy's testimony, I think
I may believe that the prisoner did get up nights.
Q. Axe you Aware that the evidence shows that the prisoner did not sleep
at De Puy's fyr a month before the murders ?
A. I do xu)t recollect of any such testioioi&y.
Q. Do you recollect of De Fuy^s saying that he was crazy when in prison 7
A. I do not
Q. Do you recollect that wztnenes have iwcm thai there waa nothingre-
markable about hia sleeping ?
A. I recollect that the jailer swore that he did not know of hia compLaia*
ing in the nig^t but on^.
Q. That was since his arrest for the mnrdeiv ^99 it not ?
A* I conclude so from his teslimony.
Q. In ascertaining present insasiity, would it be betl^r to rely on hia $ffm
for a month back, or his aots six months i^ ?
A. I should consider them alL I think his lycts si^ |Ownthf ago should )ifa
taken into the account in detemujung his diseasfp,
Q. You say that sleeplessness is eyid^ee of insanity. Do ycm not thipk
the fact of his sleeping well immediately after the cqavniasion of the m^rdon
^d during this trial, is evidence of his lani^ ?
A. I do not He may have had a paroxysm, aecqniplhhed his <4geet„«id
yet now be quiet \
Q. You believe the wi^ee^qs^ ^ben^ nho testify thai he 1^ d^p^ well iad
been quiet in the jail ?
A. Certainly I da I soppoae J av to belieire Uttmaoj tli«|t is n^ pon-
tradictcd or discredited.
Q. But you had some doubt about De Fuy ?
A. I have believed all the witnesses but the one referred to, when a denbt
came over my mind as I have stated.
Q. Do these sleepless nig^ta that precede ^ murder, opour iwimedia^,
or for a long time before ?
A. I do not kxx)w.
Q. Do you not know that they immediately precede the parasyfm m whicih
the murder is committed ? .
A. Ko, I do not; because such acts have oocuxred where no sleqJeai
nights have been noticed*
Q. But when they do oQcuTi what ii^oidipary time, belmth^
t|ieyo!9our?
A. I am unable to mentiooi any orduairy n^b about th^qn. Tbej iqnf
precede the act six weeks or bis months.
Q. Did you attach any importance to the priscw^s applieatioiL to Ae juf^
tiqe &r a wannent ?
A. The fact itself was strange, and the manner of it poiBSQb Itliiiiktbe
whole testimony on that subject shows that he acted wholly diflSBremt from
what fmy rational man would, on luch businesf, and on s^di an OQcaaio9.
Q. Would it have altered your opinion any if he had called for • nf^
p$Q|ia instead of a fomnK>na ?
A. I do not know that it WQoId.
8
114 THB TRIAL OV
Q. Are 70a aware of tihe difTerence between a sommons and subpoena
yonnelf?
A. I am not aware of the distinction, if there is any.
Q. Sappoee the justice should come into this court and swear that the pri-
soner was sane when he applied for a summons, would 70U put your opinion
against his oath?
A. I think I would not My impression on that point is, that it did not
occur to the justice that he was insane.
Q. So far as the circumstances of die prisoner's escape have any bearing
either way, do they not rather prove that he was sane than insane ?
A. Not necessarily. I have known crazy people to esci^ie from the Asy-
lorn and go to lawyers for process fbr me.
Q. Are yon familiar with Shakespeare*s character of Shylock ?
A. I have read what he says of him.
Q. Do you believe Shylock was crazy ?
A. I find other expbinations for the conduct of Shylock.
Q. What was there in the murder itself, except the celerity of its execu-
tion, that satisfied you that the prisoner was insane ?
A. Why, the whole transaction ; the killing of so many persons under the
circumstances.
Q. If, as he might have had, plunder fbr his object, was there any thing
strange in his killing all, if he killed one of the inmates of the house ?
A. If his object had been plunder, I see no reason in that for killing an
infant
Q. But suppose he designed to bum the house ?
A. The great amount of blood shed, seems to indicate insanity rather than
anon«
Q. I understand you to attach importance to the celerity of the act
Would not a sane murderer execute such a work with all possible despatch ?
A. Some murderers may proceed with celerity or tardiness. They vary.
The recent murder at the city of Troy was not speedy, bu^radnaL
Q. Have you ever heard of a murder committed with deadly weapons,
instead of poison, where it was not done with celerity ?
A. No case at present occurs to me where the time could be proved as in
this case. In most cases the act itself is not seen.
Q. Do you think the prisoner's celerity in running away from the scene
of his murders was any thing remarkable ?
A. In his running away I cannot say as I have perceived any thing indi-
cating sanity or insanity.
Q. Did he not flee with celerity?
A. It does not strike me that there was any thing very unusual in his
flight
Q. Does not the celerity of his getting thirty miles in fourteen hours strike
you as being speedy, under the circumstances ?
wnsiUM imsBUN. 116
A. I do not think it was verj fasi traTdHng on bonehack.
Q. Well, Doctor, is there any thing which Mne men do that an in
I maj not do ?
A. Perhaps I maj say that there is nothing that a sane man can do which
gome insane men will not do ; yet insanity is not to be judged of by isolated
facts.
Q. Then may the not running away be evidence of insanity ?
A. It might be in some cases. In some cases insane men do not flee.
Q. What b the proportion of the cases where crazy homicides flee ?
A. Since the trial of Wyatt, I have endeavored to recal the cases on this
•object, and I find the number nearly equal.
Q. If there be a sufficient motive proved for a homicide, is that any evi*
dence of insanity ?
A. I do not suppose the absence of motive is itBeKT sufficient evidence of
insanity. It is evidence, however, to be taken into consideration with oilier
hctB in the case.
Q. Is not a desire for reVenge a motive that would indicate sanity rather
than insanity ?
. A. Bevenge may operate in certain cases as a sufficient motive fl>r mur-
der, but it depends upon the degree of it that exists.
Q. What was the proof in Rabello's case. He, I believe, killed the boy
lor treading on his toes ?
A. In Rabello's case it was proved by a great many learned phyiiciaiis,
at well as others acquainted with him, that he was not insane, and by others
that he was.
Q. Did he indicate any desire for revenge ?
A. He only used the expression about skinning eels once, to my recofleo*
tion. I think he was standing by the table where they were sKnning eeb
at the time.
Q. Were you a witness in the case of Griffith?
A. I was.
Q. Did you testify that he was insane ?
A. I did, and he was acquitted by direction of the judge. The court
stopped the proceedings.
Q. You mentioned the case of Hadfield. Is he still alive ?
A. I believe he is.
Q. Have you not felt a desire that the prisoner's counsel ^onld suooeed
in preventing a trial on the inctictment ?
A. Believing the prisoner to be insane, I cannot think him a fit sulgect
to be tried for murder.
Q. Whose books are these in the hands of the prisoner's counsel?
A. I think a considerable number of them belong to me.
Q. Toufumishedthem, then, that they might assist the prisoner? .
116 n
A. I Bent ikua to Govmior 8ewu4 at hag reqiMSI» at I woold to mnj
^Attr coBiiftel who thonld dmx^ k.
Q. Yoa referred to the case of Kleim. How do yon know that he nefvar
aiked any qneitions?
A. I liad him wilh me two yean, and he never agked any of me ; and I
asked his keepers and they told me he never asked them any, so that ha
never asked any qoestioas to my knowledge ?
Q. Is not the a^iBgof many qnesdons peeoliar toa certain class — ^to the
Yankeea, aa Ihey a«e called ?
A. I think not pecnliar to tiie Yankees, althoogh it has been so stated.
I however think it a slander. The English, aa a genend rale, aak mam
qiiasdons than we do.
Q. How is it with the Turks?
▲• I haxre no acquaintance with theoL
Q. How is it witik the North American Indians ?
A. I am under the impression that they talk among tfaemaehres, yet per*
haps not as mndi as otiber nations.
(^ May not his Indian maternity explain his tadtnmity ?
A. I do not attach much importance to the fact that the prisoner is part
Indian, because the testimony shows him to have been sociable. Colored
people are generally socii^hte.
Q. Do you know that Freeman never asked questions since the time
when it is.said this change caoM over him? •
A. I am spedkiog of him more particulariy since he came imder n^ ob^
serration.
Q. Then you think he may haf« asked qneslioiis ?
A. Of course I do not believe he never asked qoestftoiia, but that gene-
nBy he did not
Q. Yon have spoken of his smile. When a man smiles how can yoa tell
what he smiles at ?
A. I cannot tell with certainty, yet when the juryman, now smiBng, smQeSi
I presume he can tell why, and yet the prisoner caimoC.
Q. How do yoa know that the prisoner's smile is withool a prompting
SMtive?
A. I am not omnipotent, and, therefore, do wot know.
Q. Do you not suppose he has thoughts ?
A. I dare say he has many qaeer thoughts.
Q. Suppose he thought there was a good joke going on here, would it not
be vataral for hun to smile ?
A. Ifhe understood a joke he naturally would.
Q. Suppose he should ha^ien to think of hookmgegg^ttKteen years ago,
might he not smile ?
A. YeS|hemi^t,baiIreip»dhiaooQatantsnifiiigaiia&atinginsaaityy
rather than a recollection of hooking eggk
WILUAK FBHEMAV. IIT
Q. Suppose lie thought he was bbwiug as all up in this trial, would he
not smile ?
A. If he knew What was meant by sach a ramaj^: he might
Q. Would not a sane man smile if he thought bo?
A. Why, if a sane man thought so, he might, yet I think a sane man mtr
nated as Freeman is, would not be yery apt to say so, nor to smile at it
Q. I understand you to adhere to the opinion that an ordinary medical
man cannot judge of insanity ?
A. I do not go to that length, exactly. I think as I have said, that tha^
are not as competent as those who have made insanity their study, although
they may be more competent, perhaps, to juc^ of other diseases^
Q. What do yon think of Dr. Bigdlof^s capacity and opportunity for
judging of insanity ?
Objected to and orerruled.
Q. What should you say of the capacity of -a doctor ior judgii^ of insan-
ity, who, like Dr. Bigelow, has been in practice twenty<«ix years, and seven
years physician and surgeon to the State Prison ?
A. I should believe that opportunity would render him more competent,
if I did not have reason to suppose that he has not been consulted in the
liariy stages of insamty.
Q. But is not sudi an opportunity a good one finr detecting insanity ?
A. I do not think the opportunity great As he does not see the patients
constantly, my impression is that Dr. BigdoVs opportunities are not the besi
for judging of the disease.
Q. But he has charge of the hospital and free access to all the conviots
daily.
A. But he goes to the prison periodically. He does not reside with his
patients.
Q. Suppose him to be an experienced, discerning man, as he is ?
A. I should think him a good physician, and a very judicious man ; but
I do not think him much of a judge of insanity. He told me that he was
not called to cases, generally, in the prison, until he had been told that a
nan was crazy.
Q. But in such cases where he is called to decide the question does it a«l
fhmish experience for detecting insanity ?
A. I think experience in detecting feigned insanity would enaUe him to
judge better.
Q. Supposeaman to be called upon only to see those who are notcraiy,
but who pretend to be so ?
A. I should think that would give him some experience.
Q. Of all the men in the Lunatic Asylum, how many do you see, until
they are brought there crazy ?
A. But few of the eases ; yet I am often oonsttlted by letter before
they come.
118 TBM VBUL er
Q. Where moral insanity ezidto, is the intellect aim diseased ?
A. My opinion is, that there is always some disturbance of the intelleeti
where the passions are diseased, although it may be alight. There are oth-
ers, howeyer, who think otherwise.
Q. Have you not seen cases iMdiere no derangement of the LnteUect was
discoTerable ?
A. I think there was a case, from the western part of this State, in which
I did not detect it, although I had Imn six months with me ; but I think it
was from lack of time.
Q. Eyen although the prisoner's passions may be diseased and deranged,
do you know that his intellect is ? .
A. I am confident that it is. He is partially demented.
Q> What kind of insanity is this delusion about pay that yon speak of? »
A. It may be mionomania so far as that alone ^is concerned, yet I think
dementia is the leading trait of his disease.
Q. The one may exist without the other, X suppose ?
A. Yes ; monomania may exist without dementia.
Q. What is the line oi demarcation between tJ^e two ?
A. It cannot well be defined.
Q. But does not dementia take place after some preceding form of insanity?
A. Dementia is a stage of insanity. Sometipies it is instantaneous, de-
pending upon a great many circumstances.
' Q. Have you many cases of dementia in the Asylum?
A. We don't see much of it there ; we endeavor to cure them.
Q. How soon after insanity commences before the patient anives at the
stage called dementia?
A. There is no rule as to the length of time before a man becomes de-
mented.
Q. How soon after you think Freeman became deranged do you think he
became demented ?
A. I cannot say.
Q. When do you think the delusion came on ?
A. I am not able to say, further than from the testimony. I think he was
under a delusion when he came out of prison.
Q> Do you think stealing hens any evidence of insamty ?
A. It may or may not be. If you (Mr. V. B.) should rob a hen roost
to-night, I should think you were crazy.
Q. And the same of the other counsel, I suppose ?
A. Yes ; for it would be equally strong.
Q. Is not malice a motive for mischief and crime ?
A. I think it is.
' Q. May not a sane man act from that motive ?
A. I can readily conceive of a sane man acting ftom a bad heart
WILLIAK PKBIKAN. 119
Q. Suppose a man should steal and wind up with a murder, would not
malice be the most natural inference ?
A. Upon those facts only, I should infer nothing about the question of
sanity or insanity.
Q. Suppose a man should fire a gun into a crowd of people, and kill
several people, and you were infbrmed that he had previously said he in-
tended to do so, on these facts alone, what would you infer in respect to his
sanity?
A. If you (Mr. V. B.) should do that act, I should think you insane.
Q. Suppose I should saw off the posts of a rail road bridge so as to en-
danger the lives of passengers who crossed it, would you infer maHce or
insanity?
A. I should think you deranged.
Q. Do you believe in Dr. Haslem's theory, that all men are unsound ?
A. I do not I have seen men who had sound minds.
[Witness further continued in substance as upon the traverse. See trial]
The prisoner's counsel then rested^
James Cannon was then called and sworn for the people, and testified
as follows : I am a constable, and attended this court as such during the
trial of Henry Wyatt During the time of the trial of Wyatt, Daniel Smith
was in court. He sat on the west side of the house, near the wood box.
Dr. Brigham came across to that part of the house, as he was walking about
the room. He walked considerable during that trial. As he came up to me
I said to him, *^ there is an insane man," pointing to Smith. He turned his
head, looked at Smith, nodded his head and walked off. He did not look
at him a great while. I think it was before Dr. B. was sworn on that trial.
Cross Examination. — Q, When was the Doctor sworn onrWyatt's
trial?
A. X can't recollect the day.
Q. At about what time ?
A. Near the last of the trial.
Q. When waa the last of the trial ?
A. Well, last Friday or Saturday a week ago.
Q. Did it end then ?
A. I think it did.
Q. Were not counsel engaged on Monday and Tuesday in addressing the
jury?
A. Don't know but they were, come to think of it
Q. What did you say to the Doctor?
A. I spoke and said. Doctor, there is an insane man ; any one can see he
is insane. He turned and looked at him, and nodded his head.
Q. When did you first state t^his ?
A. Yesterday.
Q. To whom?
A. To Thomas F. Momoe.
Q. WhaimiJces 70a tldnk it was before the Doctor Wilcfwora?
A. Because he was waUdng round, and I supposed he wanted a seat. I
offered to giye him a seat*
Q. Well, does that define the time 7
A« Mjr imtyression is that it was about that time.
Q. How do yon know it was before the Doctor was sworn ?
A. Why, I think I compared Smith with the prisoner when I ^oke to
the Dootor*
Q. Did yon hear his eridence ?
A. Yes, sir, I heard it
Q. What was his testimony ?
A. It was, I think, in regard to insanity.
Q. Was there any witness on the stand at iht time ?
A. I cannot answer as to that
Q. Was one of the connsd speaking?
A. I think not My impression is that it was before he twore.
Q. Might it not have been this week?
A. I am confident it was not this week.
Q. Who sat on the seat with Smiih?
A. No one>
Q. Were there ladies in court at the time ?
A. I think there were.
Q. Was the court house fbll at the time ?
A. I can^ tell how full it was ; about as to-day, I think.
Q. Are you acquttuted with Dr. Brigham ?
A. ThaVs the only time I erer spoke to him.
Db. Amariah Brigham, by penxusnon c^ the court, was recalled to the
stand and testified : I have heard, with some surprise, the testimony of the
witness Cannon. He may have sworn correctly in respect to the time, but
I have a distinct recollection that I saw Smith in the court room before any
person pointed him out to me, and that when I saw him 1 noticed the ap-
pearance of insanity.
The people then resumed.
Db. Thomas Sfekceb, recalled for the people, testified as feHows :
Q. Have you heard all the testimony in this case ?
A. I think I haTe, as I have been in attendance on this trial very con-
stantiy.
Q. Have you g^ven careful attention to all the testimony bearing upon
the question of his sanity ?
A. I have, and taken notes. I have also made an analysis of this ease
with more care than I have ever bestowed on any medical question.
Q. From all the evidence you have heard, as well as the analysis by you
made, what is your present opinion as to the sanity of the prisoner ?
inUJJM lUEHlAN. 121
A. I enterUnn the opixuon wluch I have before ezpreaiedi that there are
none of the eflaential lymptoms of inBanity in haa ctae*
Q. Will yon gite jout reasons for that oj^nion ?
A. The question resolves lltseKf into the delenninataon of tluree things in
the investigation :
1st What are the facts wMch prove insanity ?
9d. What are the facts which prove sanity ?
8d. What are the facts that prove the insanity of crime t
These questions are the very nicest in medical science/and require a more
careful analysis than any other. When we distinguish between two diseases
ao as to name the one or the other, and say that it b present in the system,
we call that naming of the disease, the diagnosis. To be true, this must be
founded on true facts. I therefore will abbretlatd and repeat the definition
of focts given y<»terday. What I mean by fact, is a self-evident proposition,
and hence appeada to the Common sense of every rational ndnd.
Facts are truths of matter or of mind.
False facts are untniths of matter or of mind.
tracts of opinion are facts founded in tmths of matter or the right reason
ofmind.
False facts are untruths founded on foke fkcts of matter, or wrong reasons
ofmind.
Delusion is a term often used as defining insanity.
Delusion is a wrong conchision drawn from any fkcts, right or wrong.
False facts or fUse facts of opinion, by right reason, always lead to false
conclusions. False conclusions are called opinions, and should be more
properiy called delusions, because always sudu The sane and the crimin^
ally insane have like ddurions.
I wiD, in the first place, confess my own delusion in r^pect to this case,
by way of illustration, and then of some other delunons.
The first opinion which I formed, which is frequently called an opinion
or conclufflon, was that th^ prisoner was probably insane. It was, however,
a delusion, and was founded upon a description given me of the facts by one
of the most respectable citiaens of this place, whilst riding upon the railroad.
My second delusion in this case was, if he prove insane, that the prisoner was
sane. Tlds delusion, if it prove to be one, was when we had partially tra-
versed the issue. This enables me at this time to define two terms found
every where in the medical books on insanity. These terms are ** illusions'*
and ** hallucinations."
<' Blttsions'' are false impressions produced upon the mind, redembfing pre-
cisely impresdons made upon the external senses, as when we dream We
hear ndses or see sights. When seen in waking hours, they are part of our
day dreams, and the higher degree of day dreaming is a hallucination.
'^ Hallucinations" are false thoughts taken as realities. In dreaming, haDo-
einationB and illusions are always mistaken for the realities of things. For
122 XHSTBlALOr
example, if we dream that we see a horse, it b an iUusioiD ; if we dream we
purchase a horse, it is a hallucination. In night dreams, both are taken is
realities. In day dreams, we soon correct the error by our other senses, or
by the power of reason. Insanity is equivalent to a night dream in this re-
spect ; every thing is taken for a reality.
In a strict sense of the word, night dreams are not always delusions,
because some minds have performed high acta of reasoning, such as mathe-
matical calculations, and awake to write out the concludon, and when so
written out, such calculatbns have been found in waking hours to be the
truth and not deludve-
From these definitions, it will be perceived that the minds of noen can be
in all states ; of sleep, of healthy wakefulness, of insanity, of sanity, and of
criminal insanity. By this enumeration it will also be perceived that the
mind may be in every possible condition ; and every of these conditions is
to be found in the two forms of insanity and the one form of sanity which I
have designated and described. The question whether Freeman is insane,
must be determined by an approximation resembling the approximation in
mathematical calculations, where we can never reach a perfect result £?-
ery thing depends upon comparison, and in determining which sympton
occurs mo^t or least in the several forms of mental condition— 4n8amty, sanity,
knd criminal insanity.
With these facts classified, if we find them describing the ease of the par-
ticular individual, we may name the case sanity, insanity or criminal insanity,
according to the proof derived from the facts. To borrow a figure for illiu-
tration : in order to reach a conclusion which ehall not prove a delurion, we
may liken the process, not to a city set on a hill to guide the night wanderer
by its thousand lights, but to a search in the deep, dark forest, guided only
by the track of the wild deer or the path of the savage, to the rich mine of
truth that lies in its darkest recesses. To such rules of reasoning have I
confined myself in thb most responsible investigation.
In order to ascertain the physical diseases of the body, it is necessary to
understand its structure thoroughly, by dissection, as a point of comparison,
in order to understand its diseased condition, because each organ has some
symptom, peculiar to itself when diseased. It may be called the language
of symptoms. So the mind needs dissection, or to be understood in its seve-
ral faculties, as so many points of comparison, to determine its diseased con-
dition. I propose a very brief reference to the several faculties of the mind
as points of comparison.
The faculties of mind may be divided into three classes, all conspiring pa
one whole, to govern human action ; and may be called '* involuntary,"
" partly involuntary,** and ** voluntary* faculties of mind. These terms are
comparative, and mean, least voluntary, intermediate, and the most voluntary
operations of mind.
When the " involontiry" operations of mind are the seat of disease, so as
WILtlAM flUtnfAN. 123
fx> render an in^vidnal anconscious of what he does, he b irresponsible £ar
lus actions. This is " insanity" in its highest degree. In the other two forms
of mind, sanity and criminal insanity, conscience still holds its control over the
mental operations. This is therefore the balance wheel, between the volun-
tary and involuntary operations of mind, always whispering to the sane and
criminally insane, right, or wrong, before every action. This then is the di-
vision line, between right or wrong, in human action ; the one is voluntary
and the other involuntary. The sane act under the direction of the under*
standing, in subordination to the force of reason, comparison and judgment,
which may be called the moral faculties. These faculties having sat in judg-
ment upon motives, the will is ezeiicised under the whisperings of right or
wrong, made by conscience. I will subdivide them.
I hardly need say what I mean by sensation. It means an impression
upon the eye, ear, or any other organ of Sense, received into the nund. Un-
der this, as the first range of faculties, I have only to enumerate them, to
have them understood. The more prominent are, hunger — ^thirst — ^love of
society — love of children — ^love of money — ^love of combat We have undet
this category, also, anger— revenge — ^fear— joy and love, as passions to excite
the affections or propensities. These give spring to motives.
I have before spoken of whisperings of conscience, and the balance of un-
derstanding, as the guide to will. By " will" I mean the mental faculty,
which puts the body or mind in action. Besides conscience, as an interme-
diate faculty, we have three others, conception, imagination, association. As
voluntary operations of the mind, we have attention, perception, memory,
understanding, a point I have before reached, with conscience as a guide to
human action. By conception, as an intermediate faculty, b meant the
springing up of any impression previously made upon the, mind through the
oi^ns of sense. In sleep, those impressions i^pear as realities ; conception
gets up illusions in sleep, and realities in waking hours. It may be called
the stark-thought of mind. Imagination, or imaginary thoughts, are excited
by the passions of anger, hunger, and joy, and are a succession of thoughts,
passing through the mind, without much connection, and naturally involun-
tary. When asleep, such thoughts appear as realities, and are hallucinations.
Thoughts of imagination are incoherent thoughts. If a man were ploughing
with his oxen turned towards the plough, it would appear like reaUty, in
sleep.
But now for reality, in a singular though real shape. The description of
the Dutchman's horse is an illustration. He lost his horse. Whether he had
run away, or was stolen, he couldn't say. He described him thus : ^^ When
he stands up to the stable, his head comes first; when the boys plague him
mit the pitchfoik, his tail comes first" This would be a reality.
I come next to the other intermediate faculty of the mind, called associa-
tion. This is partly voluntary, and partly involuntary, by which ideas be-
come grouped together in some natural relation. If drawing a horse and
124 VHSTKULOf
eamage, we dKMild generally place the lione's head fixst Of the TolnntaTj
operatioDB of the ndnd, attention is the power of concentrating our thonghli
upon our seneations, or objects of thought ; it majr be considered the ear of
Blind.
Perception b the apprehension of a thing hy the mind. It may be caUed
the eye of the mind. The subject of sensation, or of thought, When received
by the memory, is committed to the powers of the understanding, called com*
parison, reason and judgment*
I have thrown upon paper a rapid analysu of the most prominent symp-
toms of INSANITY. They are strange sensal^ns mistaken for re«Uties—
strange sights and noises — ^strange thoughts — strange illusions — strange halln-
cinations— delusions— expresnons — ^incoherent thoughts — ^unreasonable ao»
tions— impulsive actions — steady fury or intermittent fiiry — steady ineohe-
rence or intermittent incoherence of thought — ^intermittent confusion of
thought — continued confusion of thought— -violent chaos of thought — nmper-
ing chaos of thought—partial destitution of thought, or inability to start a
thought One of these symptoms occur in all eases of insanity. I do not
think a case can exist without exhibiting one of these symptoms. Atten-
tion, weakened or suspended, is the more common symptom* Comparison
difficult— feeling of embarrassment in the head— lies unconsciously — treasons
nght from imaginary thoughts — reasons wrong ftom trath-^ressons and
judges wrong on all things, because conscience has lost its influence. When
a person is bereft of reason, he justifies aU his acts — while reason remains^
or in some forms of insanity, he reasons not at alL Calm action ahemates
with impulsive action-— calmness steadily, such as prisoner has in this case.
Truth-tellers become liars unconsciously — disclose and express regret at his
impulsive intention to commit acts criminal in the sane. When he has furi-
ous mania, he threatens and acts simultaneously ; may be conscious or un-
conscious of what he does. Makes odd expressions. The insane may be
Steadily grave, or steadily cheerful ; he may be exceedingly restive, or quiet
as a lamb — carelessly indifferent to acts criminal in the sane ; more rarely
the insane exhibit extraordinary ukill in their p^ans. The faculty of combi-
nation is confused, or may be suspended — ^builds casties in the air— feels no
remold of conscience— or occasional glimmerings of conscience are displayed
on most subjects, or none— and passion rules the muscular actions. I statb
MT OWN BELIEF HERE, THAT NO CASE OF INSANITT EXISTS WHERE THB
INDIVIDUAL IS IRRESPONSIBLE, UNLESS THB PASSIONS ABE DISBA8BD TO
SOME EXTENT.
These constitute the prominent symptoms of insanity, mixed np together.
There are othen of a subordinate character, which are not necessary, as
points of comparison. I projf>ose to read the more prominent points of crim-
inal insanity. It comes on slowly — the person is nuschievous— cheats a litde
— swears— lies — steals, then lies again — the sjrmptoms mix up together, and
grow worse— he suffers from dreams— restiveness, asleep or awake — sleep*
WWLUM VEmUK. 125
leameM — sUrts jounieTs nights or Svindajs — ^loiten in bar rooms — xneete hale
ooinpani(»8 — ^has frightful dreams — ^haa nightrwalldngs, or voluntary somntxmi'
huiUm, If at a tayem, he sleeps awake, because conscience pricks, qr be-
eanae he tries to torn day into night— feigns calmness, especially when plan-
ning crimes-^arefuUy arranges time, generally for the night time — ^place —
inatnunent, and companions, if any ; carefully plans an escape ; all things
we then ready for crime — arson, theft or deaiL Those are some of the more
prominent symptoms. I would then state here that I have carefully drawn
up the Tery symptoms of insanity and sanity in parallel columns, and re-
curred to. them mentally.
I belieye tiiat oare required this mode of examination in order to make
an opinion oonclosiTe ; although in a case not involving Hfe and deadi, I
should have found but little difficulty in coming to a satisfactory conclnsbn.
I kept carefol minutes of the testimony, and at each point in the progress,
noted down their relations to each of the faculties of mind I have defined,
and to the symptoms of sanity and insanity, as they were arranged in my
mind. The result at which I arrived was, that aix the faculties of
MINB WERE POSSESSED, IX A DEGREE, REKDERINO FrESMAN A RE8P029-
BIBLE BEIKO.
The first witness called, Mr. Curtis, testified substantially to Freeman's
cgitataon when he went into the ceU. At the time of this agitation he an-
swered, they intended to kill him. Why kill the child? Some feeling was
exhibited in the answer. Didn't kill the child ; State owed him fyr five years
labor— some body had got to pay hiuL He believed him more of a knave
than a fool, when a boy. Putting aQ these facts together, he (Curtis) came
to the conclunon that he had idiocy or insanity, or a mixture of both. Here
we find exhibited in these facts the passion of fear, or as he testifies, feeling.
I wouldn't make much of that Somebody had got to pay him. I infecthat
love- of money, as a means of getting something to eat and drink, was a desire
remaining in Freeman. This would imply concealment, or forgetfulness, or
errors of recollection on the part of Freeman. The balance would be in fa-
▼or of sanity tram that symptom, because concealment is more common to
fhe sane, than to the insane. He told Mrs. Gedfrey he had been in prison
live yean ; did not steal the horse, and wanted a settlement The sai%e ev-
idence of love of money is obvious then. Any one with conunon sense wiH
decide whether it is on the side of sanity or insanity. It is answered by the
question, *' Which is most provident j the sane or insane f
The witness Green thought he had not much intellect He said he would
lather not give an opinion. He was good at blowing ; was a half-pay man ;
he had not much suocess in teaching him to read. Those facts would impif
email intellect
Mr. Hopkins stated that he got the idea of heaven that it was above. He
thought from what he said that the Savior still remamed on earth. On the
qnestk>n of who ought to pay, he liiought ill oi^ht to pay ; looked as if ex-
126 raxAiALOV '
pecting pay. That woald «eem to imply the love of money. Then whether
the one standing by ought to pay ? He replied well do what is right
about it That would seem to imply a knowledge of right and wrong as t
fact. He thought him a monomaniac on the subject of pay for eerrices in
the prison. 'Witness draws inference from these faints that the priaoner hk
bors under a form of monomania, which implies partial mania, partial mad-
ness, in opposition to furious madness, the highest form of mania, character-
ized, in its usual form, by hallucination on some particular subjects. Allow
me to make the distinction between them. Hallucinations in onr waking
hours are soon corrected by the sane. Delusions, on the. contrary, which
are founded upon false facts, or facts of opinion, are Tery common to the
sane. For instance, if this witness is right, his conclusions should be design
nated in strictness, an opinion. If wrong, it should receive the name of de-
lusion. The witness or myself must, therefore, labor under a delusion, be*
cause one or the other must have made up that opinion upon false facts, or
false facts of opinion, or both. Which is right ? Tmth is always conastent
with itself. Freeman cannot be both insane and sane. Here is the adyao-
tage of my tiresome definitions. *
There arc three forms of insanity ; mania, numomaniaj demenHoj and. some
add, idiocy. This brings me to a point where I need to tell what monomania
is, as a point of comparison in this case with the i^rda or actions of the pri-
•oner. The symptoms of monomania are illusions or errors of the senses-
hallucinations or errors of thought, and delu^ons founded thereon — ^that is,
nnusual things or thoughts get up the feeling of reality in the patient, just ai
much as when illusion or hallucination occurs in dreams. If upon one sub*
ject, it is called monomania. In this case I would appeal to the common sense
of every one who hears, whether Freeman has had strange dghts or heard
strange noises, or had unusual thoughts as the foundation of his beliell I
have listened to the testimony with great attention, and have found neither
of these present, nor any errors of sensation as to the sense of sight or sound ;
I have not been able to discover a single one ; they are among the most com-
mon 83rmptoms, and the other symptoms characterizing monomania present
Incoherent connections of thought are the subjects in monomania, that is, if
the Ifve of money be the subject, confusion of thought, incoherence and sin*
gular action would be developed, when his mind was turned to that subject
The prisoner had one singular thought on the subject of pay : that «*all of
them ought to pay," as he had expressed hunself. It means the people. That
must either be a delusion to which the sane are alike subject, or it must be
a hallucination. Which is it, a delusion or hallucination ? He always coo-
nects with it the stealing a horse. In a low mind, the nice distinction wouldn't
be drawn between the people's having imprisoned him rightfully or wrong'
fblly. We should most of us say that was a delusion of the mind of^ Free-
man. A mind like his would readily make him believe he ought to have his
pay ; a Araong conclusion founded on a right opinion, and grounded on a false
WISUAlf IBUMIK. 127
original fact It, therefore, comes under my definition of a delusion founded
on false facts. Mr. Hopkins considered him a monomaniac. A conclusion,
therefore, founded upon such a false fact is valueless. In saying that " well
do what is right," he showed the power of distinguishing between Right and
Wrong I ! Monomaniacs are generally impulsive when the patient is moved
by any thing which usually arouses the passions ; all the ideas on that sub-
ject become confused and incoherent, and it i^ no uncommon circumstance
for all the powers of the mind to be involved in great -eonfusion for a time,
by any exciting cause. In the calmer moments th^ patient will be only de-
ranged upon the particular subject ; at other times on all subjects. Such is
the general character of monomania — such its general aspect as a disease,
especially when it assumes that exalted state called homicidal monomania.
Is it homicidal monomania, or criminal insanity ? Here comes a nice distinc-
tion, for several have avowed their belief that it was monomania. Are these
opinions truths, or are they delusions ? The farther s3rmptoms of homicidal
monomania, as laid down in the books, are these : First, that the patient acts
firom the sudden impulse of tiie moment. On the contrary, a sane criminal
generally acts deliberately, arranges the time, place, instruments, accompli-
ces, if they have them ; do every thing with deliberation ; scarcely an excep-
tion can be found to the general fact, that such insane patients as commit
homicide, at once confess what they have done. They frequently, by no
means generally, and perhaps, half the time, disclose their intentions before-
hand. Tha mother is suddenly taken with an impulse to kill her own child ;
in her lucid moments, she shudders at the thought ; discloses her intention,
and asks her friends to prevent so terrible an act. Man, guilty of crime,
rarely discloses, except to confidants. The homicidal monomaniac confesses
his crime, if it can be called crime. The sane criminal conceals his crime ;
he confesses his crime as honestiy as the insane, when he gets caught, and
can't escape punbhment. These are the facts of medicine and law, as laid
down by writers, and according to my own observation.
Apply these principles to this case and how stands the balance ? So far as
the facts of Mr. Hopkins go, the circumstances and facts considered alto-
gether, are very much on the ride of homicide, resulting from moral depra-
vity. Has conscience lost its influence over his mind ? The next witness was
Wm. F. Smith. Smith considers him a man of limited ideas. Why go so
far to kill ? " Stand a better chance to fight"—" sorry I killed the child"—
** looks kind o*hard." There is, then, the same ideas with respect to pay ;
the avowal to fight until he died ; about the liver ; sent to prison wrongfully,
wefe the leading thoughts. The answers as to child, imply the remains of
conscience ; that he could stand a better chance to fight, away from a thidc
population, the evidence of reason. Moral depnwity, not insanity, are infer-
able so far as these facts go.
The opinion that this witness gave, that he could not distingush between
right and wrong, being founded on false facts, was a delosbn of the witness.
128 .fnsBiAiiOV.
JosCice Faine's testinoDj, of wboift be waaled • wainnt; Ststo Fiibob;
didn't steal; repeated denial; speared in a pawion ; said he was abased;
■mat have satisfaction ; threw two shillings at the Juatioe. lij mai^ginal in-
ference was " love of money, reTonge,** in balancing the account Here ii
the passion of anger, stroi^ly developed ; a sadden impalse, one of the lead-
i^ characteristics of mania. The common sense of the jorj will detennina
whether this is the rasalt of rev9nge,aad love of money. The leading flKti
of Mr. Parsons were,* enquired for an Esquire's <^ce. Why ? <' Wantsd
to get damages; explained that he naa deaf; wanted » warrant for the man
who pot him in Prison." Whether the mistake between an Esquire and a
Justice is not sufficient to account for this, I need not say.
Sally Freeman next: '* talking; laughing boy; learned to read in apeHiag;
opinion that he is entirely changed; dull; didn't talk." That showa a great
ehange of character; that is a strong 4»vidence of insanity. She thooglit
him insane. Whether the chan^ from boyhood to manhood, ai»d deafiies^
would account for the change ? In jail, the prisoner iranted counsel; Hr«
Boatwick asked him. Had youan accomplice? Ko. Wei?e you told that
Van Nest helped to get yQU in prison? Ka Asked who he wanted for hii
attorney ? "I don't know the lawyers." Wouldn't take pay of Mujfey ;
would have all, or wouldn't take any. H<^ of eicape, horn, wanting an
attorney, implies a reason, and a good reason.
Mary Ann Newark: says he was a smart, active boy; after prison, re-
quested her to apeak louder; propoped to board; woman poor; wouMn't
say any thing> only answer questions ; would do his work. She aooounts for
his ** acting queer" because he was dea£ To eon^pare the palaent with him-
self as well as with others, is important The witaeas was under ^ delosion,
or she thought right My maiiginal references are, '* he reasoned like otfa-
ets; hewasfoithful; a9dtacittmibee«Hsedea£" ButshestateaoBeofthe
strongest syn^ms of insanity. The prisoner ahould have the whole advaa*
tage of it, via : The |irisoner appeared to be in hkwty; he iq>peared to aet
from impulse. Just as he was going to start out, he was in a hwrry* This
foet^ in medMM>>legal science, implies insanity. What else is.ihere to balance
the account? The person acting in this hurry, adi;ed what he should do?
There is delibenlbn as well as hurry. He stopped to pat snow in the tai^
My marginal query, ia-^was it the impulse of insanity, or the hurry of sail-
It accords with the laws of mind that the impulses of insanity should not
thus alternate with detiberatioa. In drawing my balance, therefore, I ahouM
put it on the ride of sanity. If he acted from impulae, waa it that of mania?
Dementia has no impulses^ except sudden ones. Time, place, instruments^
are generally carefoUy arranged in the sane. Freeman caiefoUy threw his
knife out of the window. Hie truth of science, tiberefore, tells me that all
these acts, coupled with the facts of the cise developed by legal aoniiiny,
I not hav« been done but by a sane nind.
129
DebonhDepuy testified: Does not talk of' hu own accord; diill; dumged
from bojhood ; dedhest. Thiese, as points of comparison, are sufficient to
•ecomt for them oo estabHshed prindples of ph^rsic^omy.
Doctor Hermance said: Beasona for murder same as others; wooldn't
pajr. He bdiered prisoner was insane, because there was apparent sincerity
when he spoke aboat pay; dull; ear^lropped. Ear-dropped is a angular
expression. In the ordinary sane, when they iqpoke of pay for being in
prison, it would appear as an absurdity ; it would seem to be a dduaon. In
tins case, he had argued himself into tiie belief that he ou|^tto have his pay
by a false course of reasoning, connected with his confinement in prison.
This opinion of Br. Hermance should, in my mw, be called a fidse ftct of
opinion, or a delusion.
Bobert Freeman next called: <<Heatdwellwhenaboy; mOTemeats never
ntary quick; slow; same as other boys; playful; oftra played with him.
Changes head down ; don't appear like the same boy." Compare an or-
phan boy with a man grown, from ten to twenty-one, and with the fact of
his present deafkiess.
John Depuy observed that he was *^ Smart, iitely, active, danced, could
throw any boy." He also describes some of the most general symptoms of
insanity, ^ dancing, getting up nights, talking to himself beEeving he wasiii
a real fight when there was no one to fight with."
My marginal note is — illusion, hallucination, delusion, xeTcry, (revery is
a waking dream.) As iUustrafting the laws of mind, I would state tMs &ct»
that for a moment I had this ilhiaion in my mind— that of seeing the negro
dance, or hearing him sing ; — the haUucination that it mnst have been a real
dance ; and hence an opinion, which shoidd always be based upon true foots,
that it was a dance. That opimon was a delusion, lliis I can but stale,
was, for a short period, the pleasantest period of the trial onmymfhtL I
didn't stop to reflect. I foU the strong foelingofjoy that I had reached cer*
Umtj in relation to this poor prisoner's insanity. A little refiection satisfied
me that this joyous period was delusion. I was looking with anxious solki-
tude for the symptoms^of insanity, if existing. The syn^itoms as described,
(although the symptoms of insanity,) in general are found in other fbnns of
insanity besides those already noted; they are oommon to mania, but not
oonfoied to any of the four forms of insanity described in medical books*
They are alike the symptoms of drunkenness, which I hnTC not studied
spedally as a disease. I thus account for my own temporary folse fact of
opinion. It was just as good an opinion as any one fimnded upon false foots.
The thought that I had seen drunken men f^aently sing and dance and
fight, coming up in my mind, oozvected the whole deluskm. The insane,
monomaniac, demented person, or idiot, can make no sudi correction. At
tins point, I would state that no medical man on the stand has expressed the
<^KnMin that thia is mania; or, mania with ludd intervals of incoherent
9
180 caBmA&4Mr
tiioagbt Upon this pcmit, I will sty there can lie no doobt that he is free
from mania. Furions raving is all the definition I need to give of mania.
Doctor Briggs asked, ** Why commit murder ?" Bill, like the yaakee,
asked, ^ Why did they put me in prison for nothing ?" This was a delu-
sion ; but was it the delusion of a demented penon ? Opinion, insanity ;
after alluding to '^ eating liver,** and perhaps othw facta, which I have not
abstracted. These reasons for murder were all unsatisfactory to Dr. Briggi^
mind. His opinion corresponds with Doctor Van Epps', next called ; except
Doctor Van Epps expressed the opinion that it was dementia and idiocy
combined. This was founded on all the facts he had heard ; and the fact
that Freeman said, ^ they said I was craxy in prison." When deqperate acts
are performed, they glory in telling them; sometimes talk oonsideraUe.
These were the leading facts of Dr. Van Epps.
Thte facts and false facts of opmion* — First interview of Bev. John Ans>
tin — ^religions feeling. Second interview, to ascertain what relaticms Free-
man's crime had with Wyatt's trial-— eleven answers to questioas, all pertinent
Why he killed Van Nest, pu/ repeatedly ; no intelligent answer. Why he
killed Van Nest when not active in getdng him in prison. His being in
prison is the sole idea to which his reason referred, to get pay. Had seen
Mrs. Godfrey, and tried to get pay; had been wrongftxlly imprisoned and
wanted to get pay ; had called on Bostwick and Paine to get pay ; Freeman
had also called on Bostwick and Paine to see if something could not be done
about pay ; got no satisfaction from them. Is it right to visit the deeds of
one on another? no definite answer; right to kill child? shook his head in
tokenof ^'Na** Why begin at this house? I went along and thoi^ht I might
begin there; liver; stones in ears; ear dropped; incoherent; Testament
given by Mr. Austin. How many would you have killed ? A great many
il wrist had not been cut Do you know they hang folks for killing ? Yes.
What do they do to ibiks that kill? Hang 'em ; if you wSl let me go tJus
time I will try to do better. This was a strange state of mind.
Marginal inferences-— Beason, memory, revenge, or pay. Acted by shake
of head, as sane lay, Na Then with respect to the thought, I thought I
mi^ b^in there, and to the liver, I have in a marginal note— Illusion or
defect of memory. Deaf persons are liable to iUuaions of hearing; blind
persons imagine they see sights they do not He must have remembered
the words he heard, or the words must have been an illusion. It is pro-
bably an expression he has somewhere heard, and called up by association,
when committing the muider.
He was asked if he would like to have Gov. Seward defend him? Tea.
Didn't first understand until after repeating and varying phraseology ; he
then answered, yes.
As indicative of the state of the ndnd of the prisoner, I have in a marginal
note--fear; hope; conscience; intention; attention; understanding; me-
mory; comparison; righter or better reason; moral powers, such as all
reasonable beings possess.
WUtlAH TSEEHIN. 181
I haTe, under the head of " motives^ — Had he a motiTe to get clear ? and
the answer ig, " Yes."
Demented persona could not understand and give so correct answers as
those made to Mr. Austin, in one case of a thousand ; nor do IhelieYe, from
what I know of medical science, they could give such answers at all. What*
ever form or degree of dementia, my own opinion became here fixed, still
making a voluntary effort to give 'attention to eveiy point of testimony on
the other side of the question ; and had I been summoned, as in one case of
my past life, to prove tiie insanity of the prisoner, I should have announced
to his counsel that 1 had no reasonable doubt of it
Take this with the general fact which was stated upon the affinuative
yesterday, that the prisoner was sane, that I did not believe any insane
person would fix his attention, and understand or comprehend, and, by the
power of memory and association, give answers so exactly correspondent as
those I had heard given on the various examinations of the prisoner made
by myself and in my hearing, I feel as little doubt on the question of the
prisoner's sanity, as I have felt in distinguishing ordinary diseases in my
professional practice. The reason is, that I have derived my conohision
from facts instead of faUt facU^ I have &und from facts^ in this case, the
evidence of thk healthy kxsbcx8e of bverV facultt or the muo).
Q. In arriving at this conclusion have you taken into consideration all
the testimony in this case ?
A. I have, and have analyzed it all with great care.
Q. Has the investigation removed all doubt from your mind that the
prisoner is perfectly sane ?
A. The scrutiny, so fiur as I can judge, has been impartial on my part,
and conducted according to the strictest method of induction which shoald-
form the foundation of all medical iSKts of opinion.
Q. What chair do you at present occupy in the Medical College ?
A. That of Professor of the Theory and Practice of Medicme, but have
collaterally lectured on Medical Jurisprudence.
Q. Have you given particular attention to the subject of insanity ?
A. I have. It has been a subject of engrossing attention with me for
several years.
Q. Have yon from your exarainadons and the evidence, proof of the iUl
exercise by the prisoner of each and every fitculty of the mind ?
A. I have ; yet that his metals are blunted as in men of feeble intellect.
Q. How do you determine that the system is diseased ?
A. To say that a disease exists, we must find some of tiie essential as well
as the oocasicmal symptoms of a disease.
Q. Are not diseases of the mind manifested in such a way as to be ob*
servable?
A. They are manifested through the brain and nervous system. Insanity
may be dependent on a disease of the more fdlid parts of the )xrain, or a
derangement of its functions.
139 tarn tbial or
Q* When calWd m a witnais to detennine a qoestiofi of auiify, ean yon
determine it in any way other than by witnessing the ^^ration of every
A. We eommonly detesmine it by a shorter inetiiod- We look to the
symptoms (^ insanity, and if we find most of them pi^sent, we take it for
granted the person is insane.
Q. Are you icom reading or. from observation aoqoainted nilh the Indian
mind?
A. I have some aecfuaintanoe with them, and have observed their pecu-
liarities.
Q. Have yon studied the Indian character so as to be able to give its
leading traits?
A. Many of them, I can. I lived several yean near the Qneidafl.
Q. What is their character in reiqiect to taciturnity ?
Objected to and otjection sustained.
Q. What is their diaracter in respect to answering questions briefly yet
pertinentiy?
Objected to and objection siBtuned.
Q. Have you observed the smile of tiie prisoner?
A. I have, occasionally.
Q. Can you say whether it is indicative oi any peculiar kind of insanity ?
A. I cannot draw any conclusion from it that is worth much. It reiem«
bles very much the demented saule.
Q. CSan you determine from the physiognomy whether a person is insane
or not, and if so, the kind of insanity that exists ?
A. I cannot In lecturing, I tell my class that they should visit patients
in the day time and at night, so as to see their condition and appearance,
but not to place their principal reliance on appearances.
Q. Do negroes tan in the sun ?
Objected to and objection sustained.
Q. Do they grow pale by impriaonroent?
Objected to and objection sustained.
Q. Doctor, is there any feature more eicpressive of disease or of passbn
than the eye ?
A. I do not think of any feature that is more so; others might think dif-
ferentiy. ,
Q. Is the eye more expressive of insanity than all others ?
A. I cannot answer that
Q. Is insanity an epidemic disease ?
A. I have never considered it particulariy so, yet all diseases are liable
to become epidemic.
Q. Have you ever known a case where insanity has been epidemic?
A. I never have known an instance where it prevailed as such.
Qi Do you regard the &ct that the prisoner cannot read, but thinks he
can, as any evidence of insanity ?
WIUJIX IRXBIIAN. ^ 138
A. It is one of those irregularities that others might consider as some
eTidence of insanity, but with me it has but very little weight Those bom
blind cannot be taught the character of objects of sight so as to understand
pictures as those who see can. They compare them to objects of hearing,
tasting, smelling, or feeling, or some of the senses. Ask tiiem what a pic*
ture is like, and they will perhaps teU you, the soond of a trumpet Chil-
dren, who have not learned to put sentences together, when set to read wUl
get up a mummery in imitatkm of reading, resembling that of the prisoner.
He had poor opportunities for learning, and therefore could not be expected
to read, and would imitate in tliat respect a child.
Q. Whatdoyott think of hb determination to get pay?
A. I think it a delusion.
Q. Of ii^at character?
A. From all the evidence before me, I consider that it arises finom his
having associated the idea of having been imprisoned wrongAiily with the
idea that the laborer is worthy of his hire, and that he tried to get his pay.
Q. But concerning the killing to get pay, how do you think his delusion
was in respect to that ?
A. B; is a common-place remark that every one must have heard among
boys, if one makes an assault upon another, ** Fll pay you for that" It is
equivalent to revenge.
Q- Do you regard an intention to get revenge for a conceived injury as
evidence of insanity ?
A. I do not Persons aggrieved or insulted very frequently make use
of the expression, ^ Fll have satisfaction," which means, *<I will avenge the
wrong."
Q. Upon the subject of dementia do you discover any evidence of it in
the prisoner ?
A. I have not, except that his powers of mind are below that of ordinary
men.
Q. How do you define dementia?
A. Feebleness of intellect and incoherence, define dementia better than
any two other words.
Q. Is incoherence an invariably attending S3nnptom of dementia?
A. It is so rarely absent that I cannot, from any thing in my reading or
experience, believe that dementia can exist without it It la the veiy word
by which some define thd disease.
Q. Is there not absurdity in the idea that the prisoner is demented ?
A. Absurd thoughts and incoherent thoughts mean very different things.
Absurd thoi^hts have come before me in the evidence, but very little of in-
coherence.
Q. Do the books which are regarded as authority on this subject, mention
incoherence art an essential symptom ?
A. They do ; and it should be regarded as an essential Bympkm,
134 iHS ^uL or
Q. Have not all diseases some essential sjniptoin ?
A. They have.
Q. Are you confident that there is no incoherence in the prisoner ?
A. I hare not heard one answer evincing incoherence, where the ques-
tion was understood and within his comprehension.
Q. What are the other essential symptoms of dementia ?
A. Forgetfulness, incomprehension^ imtionality and inappetency.
Q. EJAve you discoyered any want of memory in the prisoner ?
A. I have found as few instances of fSuldre of memory as I have ever found
in any other individual, and yet, in most cases, it u the first symptom.
Q. Have you discovered any want of comprehension in the prisoner ?
A. I have not, except that which arises from his deafiaess.
Q. Have you discovered any other symptom of dementia in the prisoner ?
A. Several symptoms have been observed that would, if standing akme,
get up the surmise that he was insane, but of them there is not one symptom
which is not common to a sane mind.
Q. Did you examine the prisoner with Doctors Doane and Brigham?
A. I did.
Q. What is the standing of Dr. Doane in the medical profession ?
A. He is a man of considerable celebrity as a writer and translator.
Cross Exahikation. — Q. What was Doctor Doane's opinion about the
insanity of the accused ?
Objected to, and objection sustained.
Q. If the attorney general should go to-n^ht and steal hens, what would
be your opinion of his sanity ?
Al Not doubting but that it might be a supposeable fact, I would not make
up any opinion.
Q. Suppose you were required to make up an opinion ?
A. Taking his character as I know it, I should say it would be an evidence
of insanity.
Q. Suppose he should arise here and fire a gun into this crowd, what state
of mind would it indicate ?
A. I should think it a much greater evidence of insanity than to steal hens.
Q. Why so. Doctor?
A. Because he would be much more likely to do the latter. I should put
such an act in one side of my balance ?
Q. What would you put in the other ? '
A. I cannot get up the symptoms on the other side. It would be the ab-
sence of symptoms of insanity.
Q> If you found him in possession of memory sufficient to answer thirty
questions coherently, would that balance the account ?
A. No ; it would not
Q. If you found an appetite for chickens, and that he was hungry, would
that accoont for it?
1 wiuiAM nmuN. 135
A. Tes; if lie was likalj to ttBrve.
Q. Doctor, in your opinion which of theie portndti has the most exprea-
siTe featurea ? (Counsel here presents the witness with Bees' Encyclope-
dia.)
A. In one figure the month, in the other the eyes are most ezpressire.
Q. Then yon think there is expression in the jnonth?
A. I should think a negro's mouth and lips were as expressive as his eyei
but as a general role the eye is most expressive.
Q. Speaking metaphorically, as yon have, has the mind any nose ?
A. I have not studied bnmpology sufficiently to answer that question*
Q. Speaking metaphorically, as you have in relation to the eye and ttar
of the mind, has the mind any mouth ?
A. I do not know as it has*
Q. Was Paradise Lost written under the excitement of himger or anger ?
A. I never supposed either.
Q. Was the tragedy of Hamlet?
A. I have never supposed sa
Q. Do you condder Paradise Lost a coherent woik ?
A. I do. It is a work of reason combined with imagination and volition*
Q. How is the tragedy of Handiet ?
A. In that there is an imitation of incoherence. I think it is coherent in-
coherence.
Q. Was either of them composed under the excitement of joy ?
A. They were deliberate, no doubt, although compositions of that charac-
ter excite the feelings Poets are, therefore, more frequently found in Lu-
natic Asylums than mathematicians. All exciting pursuits are more likely
to lead to derangement than others.
Q. How io poets compare with mathematicians or reasoning men as to
their liability to become insane ?
A. They are more prone to insanity.
Q. Do you know of any poet in this country that ever was confined in a
madhouse?
^ A. I do not
Q. What faculty or power of the mind moves the mouth in taking food ?
A. Hunger excites the motives, and the will infiuences the muscles.
Q. What faculty moves the feet in walking ?
A. The will.
Q. What faculty moves a horse to open his month to take his oats?
A. The will.
Q. What is it that induces a hqne to move when driven ?
A. £[is will, or the will of the driver, both combined.
Q. Has the horse the involuntary faculties you have ascribed to men ?
A. Some of them ; the instructive fiMSulties are as strong as in men. They
180 vtm fUiL 09
poBsess the iacnlty of voliuitary modon ; hsve a limifeed undentaBding^no
nMMon — some oompanton^-do not know how inneh.
Q. Have 70a ever seen an insane hone ?
A. I have seen an insane horsey cow, and other animals, when affected
with hydrophobia. ML the mentid facnltiet of the hoiise, that do not belong
to the human species, may be deranged, bat none diat bdong to the human
species exdttsiYeljr.
Q. Are quskers more liable to insanity diab other mrin ? ^ r
A. I diould think they would be less so.
Q. Do they more often manifest the symptoms of what yoa call crimintl
iaaamity?
A. No ; much less.
Q. Do they traTel on Sunday more than oiher people ?
A. I don't know, indeed.
Q. Can you refer to a case of insanity that you hare seen or read ?
A. I have read the case of Abner Sogers.
Q. Was he, in your opinion, insane ?
A. I consider his a case of insanity. In his ease there was the fbUestevi-
dence of it
Q. Have you any evidence that he oonld answer questions more cohe-
rentiy than Freeman ?
A. I think so, but I don't know.
Q. How were Rabello's powers of memory?
A. Inever made it a special point of examination. A great many insane
people g^ve correct answers until you happen to hit the veini of Insasity.
Q. What is the charactenstic of Rabdlo*s case ?
A. I cannot say. I cannot remember the names^ but mean to reixiember
the ftcts of cases.
Q. Did the case of Rogers show the case of one insane who i^as c^[>able
of performing much more labor throughout than Freeman ?
, A I believe it did.
Q. If the prisoner thought the Van Nest's had something to do with ge^
ting him in prison, when he killed them, did he act under a delusito ?
A. He probably did.
Q. Was it an insane delusbn ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why was it not an insane delunon ?
A. Because we have no evidence, in the testimony in the case, that he
either believed it or imagined it to be true.
Q. Suppose the prisoner was insane, and knew the Van Nest ftmily had
nothing to do with sending him to the State Prison yet dew them for the
reason that he believed th^ had, was he under a delusion ?
A The qnestiott is absurd, and I am not bound to answer it I will re-
WIUJAM VUBHAH. 137
call tbat remaric* An uttane man cannot believe tliat which he knows to be
lUse. He miatakea imaginary for leal thoughto.
Q. Suppose a man who knew he was not the King of England, but who
supposed he was, having the imagination that he was King, to give notice to
his Secretary of State that he was, what would you think of that ?
A. It inTolves an absurdity.
Q. Suppose a man beUeved that he was the Savior, and under that im-
presBoHttliMnitted a erime, would yon say ^at he was insane ?
A. I don't reooUect to have heard of such an instance.
Q. Would it be an insane delusion ?
A. Upon a question of that kind I will not venture an opinion until sack
n net tnmspiresL
Q. If a man were to believe himself the Savior of the world, would he
then be under a delusion ?
A. He would.
Q. Would it be a delunon peculiar to the insane, or belong, according to
your classification, to criminal insani^ ?
A. I should hardly imagine that the oriminally insane could get up sAch
A belief. It would be a delusion and would be a strong indication of insanity.
Q. Could a sane man indulge such a delusion ?
A. I should think it involved an impoasibility. If a man should tell me
he thought so, I would'nt believe him.
Q. Have you ever seen an insane man under that dshmoa ?
A. I have.
Q. Can a sane man indulge such a belief?
A. I cannot think he c«i.
Q. Why?
A. Because it involves the attributes of the Deity, which are above men.
Q. Do you believe that there are women, besides Victoria, who lielieve
they are Queen of England ?
A. I do.
Q. Are such women sane ?
A. No one perfectly sane can indulge that delusion. One partially sane,
if she had the bump of ambition largely developed, might
Q. Why cannot a perfectly sane woman believe eo ?
A. Beci^use she cannot believe and disbelieve at the same time.
Q. What is the reason that a sane man, who believes thi^ the Van Nest
family had nothing to do with putting him in prison, cannot be under the
delusion that they did, and slaughter them for that reason ?
A. Because it is impossible for a sane man to believe what he don^t know.
Q. 1£ yon dream you see a horse is it a hallueinatMn ?
A. It is.
Q. If you dream you see a horse is it an tUuaion ?
A. The horse is an image then, and is an illusion whenseenin dreaming.
188 TOMTaUhQIW
Q. If you dream joa buy a lione is thai an ittnaon ?
A. It might be both hdlucination and illuaian. The image and the ab-
atract idea would be a eompoiind of the twa They cannot well be separated.
Q. Is every self-evident proposition a fact ?
A. It is considered so. ,
Q. Are all facts self-evident propositions ?
A. Not necessarily so.
Q. Did you state to the juvy that by fads yon meant aell««ililBl propo-
sitions?
A. Not as a general thing.
Q. Can insane men think ?
A. Yes, and a great share of the time invbhntarily ; and that is the very
essential fact in those cases.
Q. Can an insane man have attention ?
A. He can.
Q. Can he conceive ?
A. Yes, and apprehend.
Q. Can an insane man apprehend correctly ?
A. He can, in a high degrecj on some subjects.
Q. Can an insane man have memory ?
A. Hia memory can never be perfect
Q. Can his memory be inappreciably impaired ?
A. I presume such a case might exist
Q. Can an insane man have hunger and thirst ?
A. Certainly.
Q. May an insane man exhibit anger and revenge ?
A. Yes ; they perform acts indicating these.
Q. May insane men have understanding enough to comprehend the ten-
dency of their actions ?
A. They can, but not where conscience is gone.
Q. May insane men have fear ?
A. They may.
Q. Do they exhibit prudence ?
A. They often do.
Q. Is there any act of the mind but what is common to both ?
A. There can hardly be said to be any.
Q. Do insane men write poetry ?
A. They frequently da
Q. Do they compose orations and essays ?
A. They do, and often with ability.
Q. Do they phin escapes?
A. There are such cases on record.
Q. Do they pUn murders and execute them ?
A. They have murdered their keepen.
WXXiUAM VRUHAN. 189
Q. Can Uiey compare ?
A. They often do, yet that faculty is generally very much impaired.
Q. Con an insane man have method in his madness ?
A. Yes, bnt it is not usuaL You cannot find any thing in the sane but
what occurs in the insane.
Q* Do the insane often think others so ?
A. Man is a bundle of absurdities, and no wonder the insane should con-
sider others insane.
Q. Is an insane nun like a sane man sometimes awake and sometimes
asleep?
A The same in that respect, but the characteristic is that insanity is a
continued day dream^ unless lucid intervals happen.
Q. Have yon not likened insanity to night dreams also?
A. I have likened insanity to night dreama—the mistaking imagination
to fact
Q. If a man take &lse dungs for true, is that insanity ?
A. That is one of the strongest evidences of insanity.
Q. Is there any symptom that is not an invariaUe symptom ?
A. I never would rely upon any one symptom.
Here the testimony closed.
During the examination of the witnesses, numerous questions of interest
arose, which were argued and decided, but which have not been noticed
^re, for the reason that the testimony which was the same as upon the tra-
verse has not been fully reported. It is presumed that they are measurably
unimportant to medical men, and as they are clearly indicated in the opinion
of Mr. Justice Beardsley, lawyers are referred to that paper for information
respecting them. [See opinion of Supreme Court, granting a new trial.]
Mr. J. Van Buren then addressed liie jury in behalf of the people, and
Mr. W. H. Seward for the prisoner, concluding at a quarter past eleven,
P. M., on the 4th day of July, when His Honor, Judge Whiting, charged
the jury substantially as follows:
JUDGE WHITING'S CHARGE.
Gentlemen of the Jury :
The prisoner has been indicted by a grand jury of this county for the
murder of John G. Tan Kest Upon being brought into court to be ar-
raigned on that indictment, counsel acting in his behalf interposed for him a
plea that the prisoner is in a state of insanity. The district attorney denied,
' ore tenus, the truth of that plea, and thus formed an issue preliminary to any
further proceedings upon the indictment.
By the statutes of ihu State, it is humanely provided that no insane per-
son shall be tried. Insanity is a disease which so far impairs the mental
faculties and powers, that, whilst it continues, the victim is not supposed to
140 TBM VB1A3L Of
be capable of answering to a criminal charge. No inaane person can be
tried, sentenced to any punishment, or punished for any crime or offence
whilst he continnes in that state. [2 & S., 682.]
To try that question in the case of the prisoner, you have been empanelled
and sworn, and after the court shall have discharged their duty, you wiH
proceed to determine the fact according to the eridence. The rules of law
which the court may suggest for your guidance in this case, may serve to
direct you in your investigation. From your patient attention during tUi
protracted trial, I cannot doubt that your minds are duly impressed with the
importance of this question, as well to the prisoner as to the people. Humaa
life probably hangs upon the issue.
Although the examinations of witnesses have taken a wide range, and have
developed a large portion of the entire history of this prisoner, llie onlj
question for you to determine is, whether he is at present insane. If insane
for any cause, or upon any subject, he cannot be tried upon the indictment
The evidence of the &ct attending the alleged murder, his flight and arrest,
as well as his former conviction and imprisonment, has been given, not for
the purpose of determining his guilt as upon a traverse of the indictment,
but for the purpose of exhibiting the life and conduct of the prisoner as
bearing upon the issue of present insanity. In that view you will consider
it, leaving the question of whether he was sane or insane on the twelfyi day
of March, to be settled hereafter, in case you find him sane now.
The law presumes eveiy man sane until the contrary be proved. It i%
therefore, a fact to be proved, like any other fact, to the satisfaction of a
jury. To estaUish the fact of the prisoner's insanity, it must be proved that
he is laboring under such a delect of reason from disease as not to be able
to distinguish right from wrong. If some disease is the acting power within
him winch he cannot resist ; or if he has not sufficient use of his reason to
control his passions ; if he is dispossessed of the free natural agency of lus
mind, he is insane, and cannot be ^ed. Or if his moral and intellectnal
powers are so deficient that he has not sufficient memory, will, conscience,
or controlling power, or if through the overwhelming violence of mental dis-
ease his intellectual power has for the time been obliterated, he is not to be
placed on trial for his acts. Does the proof in this case bring the prisoner
within this rule ?
The clanification of insanity by learned men has no influence in deter-
mining the question. If he be insane, the form of that insanity is not mate-
rial, finr the result must be the same. Ignorance is not ihsanity. The law
does not require any degree of knowledge to render a person respondble,
beyond a knowledge of right and wrong. The evidence of the prisoner's *
insanity is derived from three sources, viz : from comparison, fVom facts, and
from opinions of medical witnesses.
It would be idle to decide upon the toundness of his mind by expecting
Of looking for knowledge and intelBgence in him about matters of which he
wiUiiAM nnuN. 141
had never ieamed. He matt be iak^en in his own grade of life and intelli-
gence to detennine whether in that he has reason, judgment, memory, and
consistency of conduct If compared with other men, those with whom he
is compared should be of his own grade, ignorant and uneducated, but yet
who have a knowledge of right and wrong, and whose Utcs and conduct are
under the control of conscience and reason, although in a low degree.
From facts in the case. The facts from which the evidence tending to
show his insanity is principally demed, are those which relate to his ap*
pearance and conduct ; to the change in him since Ins boyhood ; to his read-
ing and counting ; to his hearing ; to the breaking the knife in prison ; to
his resistance of authority, his punishment and his complaints while there ;
to his deeplessness ; to his buying the steak ; to the flunily insanity ; to his
stupidity ; to his ignorance and indifference to his fate and the proceedings
on this trial ; to his habits of silence ; to the expression of, and smile on, his
countenance; to his want of early education ; to his ftmner conviction and
imprisonment; to his protestation of innoeenoe ; to his claim for pay and its
refusal ; to the blow which he received with the board ; to his conduct after
that circumstance ; to his persistence in the belief that he should be paid for
his time ; to the murders because of refusal to pay him ; to his laneny of the
horses ; to his riding into Mrs. Godfrey's yard ; to his denial of the larceny
to Amos and others ; to his denial of the murders ; to his being confronted
with the dead and with hb accusers; to his committal to jail ; to his confea-
sions there and the manner of them ; to his simplicity ; to his memory of
events and to his taciturnity of manner and his mode of answering qnestioos.
All these have been alleged to bear upon the question of his present insa*
nity. You will connder tliem, and judge of them as you would of other fiusts
bearing upon the reason of human action. And, gentlemeniyou should also
inquire whether the prisoner is under a delusioii. [The judge here presen*
ted them the case of Kleim, tried at the Oyer and Tenniner in Kew Yoric,
and explained his case, and submitted to the jury whether the acts of the
prisoner were the effect of delusion, or oi unsound and erroneous judgment.
The judge then continued.] The jury should consider the proof in regard
to the prisoner's uniform assertion diat his conviction and imprisonment had
been wrongful and unjust, because he was innooent of the crime of stealing
the horse ; his ojnnion that he ought to be paid for his time in prison ; his
demand of that pay of Ifrs. Godfrey ; her refusal of that payment; his i^
plication to magistrates for process to compel payment, and their refhsai of
it; hb declaration that the people had taken his time and labor from him;
that there was no law for him. Also his preparation of the fiital knife ; his
conduct on the night of the murder ; his concealment of the weapons under
the wood; his answer to Doctor Bigelow's question, what he didin the house
after hiding his weapons, *< nothing, but I stood roimd there and thought
about it I didn't know what to do» but finally I thought Fd go any how."
All these matters are ftcto relidd upon by the oososel aotmg in behalf of fk%
142 «HS VUAL Of
prisoner, as tending to piOTe the prisoner insane. You will oonsider the
tesdmony on the subject, and give to them the force and importance they
deserve.
We now come to the opinions of medical witnesses. The opinions of pro-
fessional men on a question of this description are competent evidence, and
in many cases are entitled to great consideration and respect This b not
peculiar to medical testimony, but is a general rule alike applicable to aD
cases where the question is one depending on skill and science in any pe-
culiar department In general it is the opinion of the jury which is to go-
vern, and their opinion is to be formed upon the proof of facts laid before
them. But some questions lie beyond the scope of the observation and ex-
perience of men in general, but are quite within the observation and expe-
rience of those whose peculiar pursuits and profession have brought that
class of facts frequently and habitually under their consideratbn. Upon
this groand, gentlemen, the opinions of witnesses who have been conversant
with insanity in its various forms, and who have had the care and superin-
tendence of insane persons, ai'e received as competent evidence, even thou^
they have not opportunity to examine the particular patient and observe the
symptoms and indications of disease at the time of its supposed existence.
It is designed to aid the judgment of the jury in regard to the influence and
effect of certain facts which lie out of the observation and experience <^per»
sons in genend. And such opinions, when they come from men of great ex-
perience, and in whose correctness and sobriety of judgment just confidence
can be had, are of great weight and deserve the req>ectful consideration of
a jury. But the opinion of a medical man of small experience, or of one who
has icrade or visionary notions, or who has some favorite theory to support,
is entitled to but very little consideration. The value of such testimony will
depend mainly upon the experience, fidelity, and impartiality of the witness
who gives«it.
The opinions of persons not educated to the profession, but who have been
so situated as to have given particular attention to this disease, and to pa-
tients suffering under it, are also competent evidence, but not to the same
extent as those of medical men of the same experience. The evidence de-
rived fom all these several sources should be applied to the condition of the
prisoner's mind, at the present time, and is received with that view.
A hirge number of witnesses have been ewom on both sides. Their testi-
mony is voluminous. I cannot believe it necessary to detain you with its
reading. Indeed, the day is nearly spent, and the reading of it would carry
us into the Sabbath. You will determine this case, not by the number <£*
the witnesses on either side. The amount of their knowledge, their integ-
rity, and every thing that gives weight and vahie to testimony, should W
considered ; and if, afier carefully weighing the evidence in this light, under
the responsibility of your oaths, you arrive at the conclusion that he ia in-
sane, you will return such a verdict to die court 5 if not, then you will find
WILUAM FRXSMAN. 143
the prisoner at the bar sane. Take the matter into connderation, and let
your verdict be aach as €rod and yoar consciences shall approye. Be just
and fear not
To this charge the counsel for the prisoner excepted.
The Judge concluded his charge at fifty-five ^minutes past eleven o'clock
p. M. Two constables were sworn to keep them, &c., when his Honor re-
marked to them that in case they should agree upon a verdict, the court
would convene on the next day to receive it
On Sunday, the fifth day of July, 1846, the court again convened between
the hours of eight and nine a. m. The jurors then came into court atten-
ded by the said constables, and were inquired of by the clerk whether they
had agreed, to which they replied *< we have nof
His Honor, the circnit judge, then inquired what the difiiculty was among
them ; whether it was a disagreement as to the evidence, or any thing the
court coald remove by furdier advice.
One of the jurors, in reply, stated that it was not a di^kgreement as to the
evidence ; that they stood eleven against one in opinion.
Mr. Davis, one of the jurors, remarked that he was the one dissenting. '
He did not believe the prisoner was a responsible agent ; that although he
was'proved to have memory and knowledge of events, he had not been proved
to have made an induction of reason. He, therefore, could not agree to a
verdict of " sanity."
His Honor then remarked to the jury that in his desire to compress his
charge on the night before, he had omitted one suggestion upon a point men-
tioned in his charge, but from the lateness of the hour he had forgotten to
speak of it as he had intended. It was the evidence of his guilt as lud in
the indictment The prisoner is not on trial before you on that charge, yet
the evidence was deemed proper for the purpose of comparing the knowledge
of the prisoner with the knowledge of other persons of the same facts ; and
if his knowledge of many of these facts corresponds with others known to be
sane, then the jury were to say whether the prisoner did not disclose a state
of mind sound and sane as to those matters. And so of other events and
transactions of his life. If he shows a knowledge and memory coinciding
with the knowledge and memory of others known to be sane, the jury are
to say whether that is, or is not, evidence of sanity. Insanity is unsound-
ness of mind ; a change of character from soundness to unsoundness. It is
alleged that the prisoner has dementia. Instances of this condition of the
mind are doubtless familiar to some of you, in cases of extreme old age, where
the mind and memory have decayed and lost their power. If the prisoner
have that form of insanity, when did it occur, and when did the change take
place ? The main question for the jury to decide b whether the prisoner
knows BIGHT FROM WRONG. If he does, then he is to be considered sane.
I do not believe that there b evidence of delusion, as there is proof that it is
common for convicts to claim pay for being confined.
144 nantuiior
. One of the jaron here obaenred, ** raeh is the ofuiuoii of the jury*"
He further said it was important that the jury ahoold agree upon a Tei^
diet, and it was the duty of the court to keep them tc^ther until they agreed.
Tour verdict is for the informatixm of the court, and hence, the court may
confer with you with more freedom than in a case where your verdict would
be final » to the guilt or innocence of the accused. The aheriff will pro-
Tide you with refreshments, which, wilh a walk in the fresh air afler your
night* s confinement, the court hope will enable you to ddiberate further, with
a deske to anive at unanimity.
These remarks were excepted to by the counsel for the prisoner. The
judges then retired from the court house until eight o'clock, p. m., of tiie
same day. On taking their seats at that hour, the jurors were called and
interrogated by the clerk as to whether they had agreed upon n verdict,
when the foreman delivered to the court a verdict in writing, as fioUows :
** We find the prisoneb sufficiently sake in kind and kxmobt
to distinouish between bight and wbong."
I£8 Honor directed the jury to* render thdr verdict orally, whereupon
'the foreman declared the same verdict orally to the court, and being polled,
each answered that it was his verdict
The prisoner's counsel, who had just arrived, then requested the court to
reject that verdict, and to instruct the jury to find n verdict upon the issue
raised by the plea of insanity, i. e., whether the prisoner is " sane or insane."
The court refused, and counsel excepted.
His Honor, the circuit judge, directed the deik to enter the verdict as
rendered, saying that it was equivalent to a verdict of sani^, under the rule
laid down in his charge.
Excepted to, and court adjourned to nine o'clock the next morning.
TRAVERSE OF THE INDICTMENT.
THE AKRAIONMBNT AND PLEA.
On the morning of the sixth daj of July, 1846, Litmak Sherwoob, Esq.,
district attorney, moved the court that the prisoner be brought in and ar-
nugned upon the indictment for the murder of John G. Van Nest
Mr. Seward felt obliged to oppose the motion. A plea of present insanity
had been inteiposed in behalf of the pxisoner, upon which an issue had been
joined. Until that issue shall have been disposed of, or a verdict of sanity
found, he denied either the propriety or the right of the court to require the
prisoner to plead.
Mr. Van Buren replied, that although the juiy had not found a verdict
of sanity, in form, they had in effect, and the court had so decided.
His Honor, the circuit judge, observed that the court would not hear an
argument of that question. It was for the court alone to say whether they
were satisfied that the prisoner was sane. The verdict, although not pre-
cisely a verdict of sanity in form, was that in substance, and the same had
satisfied the court that the prisoner should be tried.
Decision excepted to.
The motion d[ the district attorney was granted, and the prisoner was
brought by the sheriff to the bar.
After reading the indictment, the District Attorney, in a very loud tone
of voice, asked the prisoner if he demanded a trial upon the same, to which
the prisoner answered ** Now"
The prisoner was asked if he had counsel, to which he replied '* I don't
know."
The prisoner was then asked if be was able to employ counsel, to which
he answered "No."
His Honor, the circuit judge, then directed the clerk to enter for the
prisoner a plea of ** Not Guilty."
MOTION TO POSTPONE THE TRIAL.
Mr. Seward moved the court that the trial of the prisoner be put over
the term, and in support of his motion read the following affidavit :
Cayuga Oyer and Tbbmiker : William Freeman, ads. the People.
Cayuga County, n : William H Seward, of Auburn, in the county
10
146 THS TBIAL Of
of Cayuga, counsellor at law, being duly sworn, saith, tliat William Freenum,
the prisoner at the bar, is a person of a mind so feeble and a knowledge sa
limited as to be absolutely unable, in the belief of this deponent, to make,
with requisite understanding, any deposition or perform any other legal act
That from the most careful personal inspection of the prisoner which this
deponent has been able to make, and the best judgment he has been able to
form from the testimony upon the preliminary issue in this cause, this depo-
nent believes, without any resenrataon, thai;, the prisoiyer ^t.tbe bar was insane
at the time of committing the offences alleged in the indictments, and re-
mains in that condition.
This deponent further says, that it seems to Jift^e been judicially estab-
lished on the preliminary trial in this cause, and this deponent believes, that
the natural feeling of indignation excited by the prisoner's inhuman homi-
cides, swelled by other circumstances, rose so high on the arrest of the prisoner,
that it was only by the most diligent efibrts of the police that he was saved
from being the victim of the blind fury of the people. That that popular
indignation has by no means so far subsided, in the belief of this deponent,
as to leave any ground pf hope that at this time a jury of twelve indifferent
and unprejudiced persons could be found in this county. That any trial
which could now be had, however fairly conducted by the court, would,
in the belief of this deponent, be but a hollow form, unless by, mere ac-
cident some cool, dispassionate persons might find their way into the jury
box.
This deponent further saith, that the trial of this cause requires witnesses
unpaid, numerous, and Qome of whom reside at a distance. That so far as
this deponent knows, several of the prisoner's witnesses who have been in
attendance, have withdrawn under the supposition that, having testified on
the preliminary issue, their duties were ended, and without any expectation
of being obliged again to attend a court which has. exacted a large portion
of their time during five weeks ; and that A. Sidney Doane, an important
and, as this, deponent believes, an indispensable witness, could not be pro-
cured to attend this court, but could be procured at a future time.
This deponent further says, that his client is cast upon his help now, more
helpless than ever. That this deponent could not relinquish his defence to
any other of the members of the bar who are willing to assume it, without
what would seem to be very great danger to the defence. That this depo-
nent's engagements require him to attendee supreme court which commen-
ces its session this day at Utica. That other professional business, not
inconsiderable, has been necessarily neglected by him. absolutely for five
weeks past, in consequence of his attendance on this court in behalf of
prisoners who needed the highest professional effort without being able to
render any reward. That this deponent's private affairs of extreme im-
portance iare suffering from neglect, and that he can truly say that his health
WILIIAM fRnoCAK. 147
and strength have been already so severely taxed that he is apprehensive
they win be insufficient to sustain him through the fatigue and labors of a
more protracted session of this court
This deponent doth, therefbre, for his own sake, for the sake of his imbe-
cile and insane client, and for the sake of public justice and of humanify,-
most humbly ask and implore that these indictments may be continued until
another term of this court WILLIAM H. SEWARD.
Sworn before me this sixth day of July, 1846.
Philip Van Absdale,
Clerk of Cayuga County.
Mr. Van BuBiOf oppoaed tlie motion, and insigted that the trial proceed
without further delay. It was true that it might disoblige the counsel, but
he did not believe, and therefore would not concede, that the excitement
raged so high but that an impartiid jury might be obtained in this case.
Sufficient had been already developed to render it obvious that the trial
might be had in a very short period of time, unless the prisoner's counsel
saw fit to protract it by a defence of insanity. Hie public demanded the
trial of the prisoner, and he must protest against any postponement
Mr. Seward felt constrained to say that the public did not demand the
trial of this man until he could be fairly tried. Whilst the blood of Free-
man can never atone for the homicides, it can neveir satisfy public justice nor
make amends for the wrong of forcing him to hb tried by men who have
partaken of the excitement which the Fleming tragedy has occasioned. Let
it be remembered that the* prisoner is incapable of any act respecting ISn
defence, and is without capacity to name or the ia>ility to obtain witnesses.
Motion denied, and decision excepted to.
Mr. Seward then moved that the indictment be quashed, and interposed
a plea that John O'Hara, one of the grand jurors, who found the same, waa
at the time a brother-in-bw of John G. Van Kest He then read the fbl-
lowmg affidavit:
Catuga Oter akd Terminer: William Freeman ads. the People.
Cay^a Ontnty, as : Christopher Morgan, of counsel for the defend-
ant, in the indictments above mentioned, says that the said defendant is
unable, by reason of mental imbecility, to make a deposition, as this depo-
nent believes. That John O'Hara, one of l3ie grand jurors named in and
who found the said indictments, as deponent has been informed and believes,
was son-in-law of Mrs. Phebe Wyckoiff, brother-in-law of John G. Van Nest,
broAer-in-law of Mrs. Van Kest, and uncle to George W. Van Nest, all of
whom are alleged in the said indictments to have been murdered by the said
defendant CHRLStOPHBR MORGAN.
Sworn before me, this sixth day of July, 1846.
Philip Yan Arsdale,
Clerk of Cayuga County.
Motion denied, plea overruled, and decision excepted to.
H8 «n ni^ii Of
Tbe otmrt then ordered thai the prisoner be pot upon trial.
Mk. Sewabd requested that other oonnsel might be associated vith lir.
Morgan and himself on the defence.
The court app<»nted David Wright, Esq., as assoctiite counsel^ and ordered
a jury to be empannelled for the trial
The prisoner's counsel thereupon interposed the Mowing challenge.
CHALLENGE TO THE ARRAY OP THE PANEL.
CATT7GA Oybb akd Tebmixsr : William Freeman, ads. the People.
And now at this day, that is to say, on Monday, the sixth day of July, in
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-six, came as
well the aforesaid William Freeman, in his proper person, as the People
aforesaid, by Luman Sherwood, Esquire, district attorney of the county of
Cayuga, and the jurors afi>resaid, also come, and hereupon the aforesaid
William Fr^em^ challenges the array qf the panel, because he s^ys that
l^chard Searing, of Yenioe, a juror duly returned by the supervisor, town
clerk and assesaora of his town, to the clerk of the county of Cayuga, as a
suitsble person to aenre as » juzor according to law, and who was duly
drMrn, empannelled, mmmoned^ and ratumed, and who i^ipeared at this
court as a juior, and answered to his name as such, and the ballot of whose
name was put into the jury box tobedzawn in drawing a jury for this cause,
was, without notice to the said William Freeman, in his absence, irregulariy
and unlawfully, without appUeakion by the said Richard Searing, w by any
person in his bel^lf» or by any person whomsoever, discharged from attend-
ance as a juror, by th^ court And that the order of this court, entered in
the minutes thereof, for the dischaige of the said Richard Seariug, and the
facts therein recit^, are untrue and folse, and this he is ready to verify.
Wherefore, he prays judgment and that tiie panel may be quashed, &c.
To which challenge the district attorney pleaded the record of the saidcouii
in the following words, to wit:
'<It having a^^eared satisfactorily to this coprt, that Greenfield Iden and
Richard Searing are members of the society or religious denomination of
Friends, and whose opinions are such as preclude tiiem from folding a de-
fondant guilty of a^ offence punishable with death, the court di^chaIge them
from further attendance as jurors at this court"
Mb. S&waxi> said if ike cf^ptriet attorney offered that entry as a plea oC
justification for the court, he must demur to it, as he then did.
The court overruled the demurrer.
Mb. Wright then replied to said plea, aUeging it to be false in foct, and
offered proof, by Richard Searivg himself then in court
WILLIAM TKEMHAX. 149
The court refused to receive tibe replicttdon or to hear evidence in rela-
tion to the challenge, but overruled the same and ordered the clerk to pro-
ceed to empannel the jury.
Decision excepted to.
THE JUB0B8 AND THEIR EXAMINATION.
William Boss, called md answeringf was challenged for principal cause
hj the prisoner's counsel examined briefly by the court and set aside.
Abijah p. Olmbted caUed, challenged by prisoner's counsel, and set
aside because he was a juror on the prdiminavy triaL
Henbt Ackbb called, challenged by prisoner's oomiBel, and set aside on
same grounds.
Bbhjamin Atwood called, was challenged f(nr principal cause, and being
sworn, testified : I have heard some of &e testimony, and have seen the pri-
soner. I consider the prisoner an accountable being. That opinion i^ fixed
and settled. It would require sobm testimony to remove it.
Question by the court — Have you any opinion concerning the guilt of the
prisoner from the evidence heard in court ? Answer— No sir. I formed
that opinion from what I first heard. It was not Mrengthened by what I
heard in court I formed my opinion that this man committed the murder
before I came here.
Challenge sustained. Except^ to by attorney generd«
Sbeli>ok Goodbich called, was challenged for principal canse by pri-
soner's counsel, and being sworn, testified : I was one of the jurors on the
last jury in tins cause, and then came to the conclusion that the prisoner was
iane, and so found. I have not changed my (pinion concerning his sanity.
From aU I have seen and heard of him I think him guil^, and responsiUe
fbrhisacts.
Challefige sustained.
Jambs Ammbbxak was next called by the dei^, and being challengeid
by prisoner's counsel, for principal canse, was sWom and testified : I believe
the prisoner or somebody else killed John G. Yan Nest I believe he is the
p^rsofi who killed him. I made up that opinion at first I was present at
the funeraL I made up my opinion on what I heard, ihat the prisoner is
guilty of murder. I have not heard any of the witueases BworH. I have no
doubt from what I have heard and read that the prisoner is tlieman. Ihave
read the newspaper accounts of the murder. I saw the bodies brought out
of church at the fbneraL Was here in court afierinsanily was pkaded* and
part of the time dnxing the trial of that plda. I heard a pari of Dr. Brig-
ham's, and a |>art of Dr. Spencer's testimony. I should judge that th6 pri-
soner was sane. As a juror I calculate to go according to Uie witnesses. I
150 IHSTJUAL09,
think the pruoner, however) b the man that mardered the family, and that
he is sane and ought to be punbhcd for it That is mj fixed opinion aod
has been ever since I was at church.
Cross Examiked. I never heard abont this insanity until I came here
to court I heard that his name was Freeman, and I heard, too, that the
jury brought him in sane. I think there is nothing to prevent me firom try-
ing this man fairly. I have no doubt I could try him fairly. I have no feel-
ing or bias that will prevent me from trying him fairly.
Challenge overruled, and exception.
The prisoner's counsel then challenged tiie jaror for favor and demanded
triors ; whereupon the court appointed counsellors John P. Holbert and
Daniel Andrus.
The court read the foregomg testimony, by consent of counsel, after which
the juror further testified: I had thought a man could not be crazy who
would get knives and kill these folks as he did, or else folks would have
known it and have taken care of him. It is sud he stole a horse and ran off.
I should think & crazy man wouldn't go off, so I think the prisoner sane. I
heard it said that they were going to have a jniy of doctors to see if he was
sane. When I came, he sat here in court I heard Yan Arsdale and Miss
Holmes testify. I heard Van Arsdale identify him. It would take as strong
evidence as theirs to remove my opinion, I heard all of Yan Arsdaie's tes-
timony, and that establiAed my opinion that the prisoner was the guilty
\ Cboss Ex AMnncD. I know Yan Arsdale. He is on our nde of the lake
frequently. If I was sworn as a juror, I should look at the prisoner myself.
Q. Supposie Yan Arsdale should swear the other way, would you beHeve
lun?
A. I should go according to the witness who should be on the stand at
that time. If he should twear it was another man I should go according to
evidence.
Ailer counsel had addressed the triors, the court charged them to give pa-
tient care to this man's case. None but competent jurors should enter the
jury box. Whilst a person having a fixed opinion should be rejected, a man
may have an opinion founded on information which will not resist evidence.
The triors found the juror not indifferent
Charlbb Eldrsd was next called, and answering, stated that he had
conscientious scruples against finding a verdict of guilty where the punish-
ment is death, and for that reason declined to sit
Q. by the court Are you a member of any religious society whose rules
forbid capital punishment ?
A. I am not a member of any religious society ; my scruples are of a civil,
not of a religions character. I think a juror should uphold the law as it is,
yet I am unwilling to participate in the death of any body. It would be my
duty, if I sat as a juror, to render a verdict according to evidence. If he
WILUAK VSUKAN. 151
WM guilty it would be my dufy 80 to fiad. But I Itave ootucientioufi scru-
ples against sitting as a juror at all in this case.
Juror discharged. Exception. '
Gyrus H. Davis was next called by the clerk, and answering, was chal-
lenged by the attorney general ; on being sworn he testified : I was on the
former jury in this case, and have heard the testimony relating to the pri-
soner. From the testimony that I have heard I think the prisoner irrespon-
sible, and would under no circumstances find him guilty.
Challenge sustained.
Thomas J. Slates was next called, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause, by the prisoner's counsel, and being sworn, testified: I have
the same opinion qow that I had when called to try the issue of insanity. I
thought him a sane man then, and the evidence ihat I have heard since has
strengthened my opinion. It would require stronger evidence than any I
have heard here to remore that opinion.
Cboss-Examination. — ^I did not know Van Nest I have been heiB only
part of the time. I saw the prisoner for the first time on the first day of
June. I have no feeling of prejudice on my mind that would prevent me.
from weighing the evidence. I should feel it my duty to hear the evidence,
but I don't know that I could give all the evidence its proper weight
I formed my opinion upon an account of the coroner's inquest. I have
heard most of the testimony given in court From that evidence I believe
the man is guilty. I haye expressed that as my fixed opinion.
Challenge sustained.
Ltman Soule was next called, and answering, was challenged for prin-
cipal cause by the prisoner's counsel On being sworn, he testified : I have
A fixed and settled opinion that the prisoner is guilty of the murder of the
Van Nest family. From his confessions, and firom the evidence, I have no
doubt of it I also have a fixed opinion that the prisoner was sane when he
comnutted the act
Challenge sustained.
John Bid well was next called, and answering, was challenged for prin-
cipal cause, and being sworn to answer, testified : In my opinion the pri-
soner is guilty. I formed that opinion when I read the account of the
murders. I have also an opinion that he is sane and accountable, and it
would take stronger evidence than any I have heard to remove that opinion.
Cboss-Examikation. — Q. Suppose Dr. Pitney should swear he was
insane, what would you think then ?
A. I don't know but I should believe it My mind is open to a fiur con-
sideration of the cause. I have no prejudice or bias that would prevent me
from trying him fairly as a juror. I am not sensible of any prejudice that
would resist the evidence or struggle against it
Challenge sustained.
WiLUAM E. Vail was next called, and answering, was challenged for
152 nn tiial or
principal cause by the priaoiier*8 coanael, and being sworn, testified : * From
tlie e^dence, I belieye the prisoner goilty. I saw the prisoner brooght into
oonrt Haye seen him nnce. Have heaid the testimony of Dr.-BrigfaaiiL
I think the prisoner sane. I think so from the way he prepared his kniyei,
and ihe way he escaped. I read the aeconnt of it in tiie newspapers, and
then fi>nned my opinion.
GROSS-ExAXiXRDd — ^I live west of Aubam. I did not hear Doctor Me-
Call's testimony. Heard a part of Dr. Brigham's. If Dr. Pitney shodd
testify that he is insane, I don't know as I would beUeve he was insane then.
Challenge sustained.
Mabtik HodFORD was next caUed, and answering, was challenged fat
principal canse, and being sworn to answer, said he had no doubt of the
prisoner's guilt
Challenge sustained.
GEOBas H. Carb was next called, and answering, was challenged fer
principal cause, and being sworn to answer, &c., testified : I have expressed
the opinion that the prisoner is guilty of the mnrder of the Van Nest family,
and that he is sane. That is my opinion now.
Challenge sustained.
Bbkjamik Tatlox was next called, and answering, was challenged ftr
principal cause, and being sworn to answer, &c., testified in substance as the
last
Challenge sustained.
Edward Morbt was next called, and answering, was challenged for
principiLl cause, and being sworn to answer, &c., testified : I have heard
much of this case and have conversed about it I have formed an opinioa
that the prisoner killed the Van Nest family, and that the killing was a
wicked, wilful murder. I formed that opinion from the evidence given upon
the coroner's jury, and it has not been changed by any thing I hare hMrd
here.
Challenge sustained. ^
Samuel GuBRNSxr was next called, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause, and being sworn to answer. Sec., testified in substance the
same as the last
Challenge sustained.
JoHH YosLER was next called, challenged, and disposed of the same as
the last
Thomas F. Graham was next called, and answering, was challenged
fbr principal cause, and being sworn, said : I desire to be excused from
serving on this jury. I have conscientious scruples about finding a man
guilty where the punishment is death.
Excused.
Cornelius Flint was next called, and answering, was challenged for
principal canse, and being sworn, testified : I have heard much of this case,
WILLUM VSJUSMAir. 158
but had not Mfy come to a conclusion about it until t came Here. I now
think the pruoner goiltx. I think he was sane when he acknowledged the
oommianon of Ihe crime. Until I hear testimony as strong the other way,
I cannot change that opinion.
Challenge snstained.
JoBL HoFF was next called, and answering, was challenged for principal
cause, and being sworn, testified : The prisoner is guilty of the murders
alleged. It is a case of wicked, deliberate murder, done when he was in his
senses, and he is moraHj responsible.
Challenge sustained.
Akpbews PBESToar was next called, and answering, was sworn as a juror
to try the prisoner. (1)
William Stsbi. was next called, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause, and being sworn to answer, testified : I have formed an
opinion of the guilt of the prisoner. That opinion is that he is guilty. That
is a deliberate opinion, which has been freely expressed. I formed that
opinion from what I have both heard and read concerning this affair, as well
before as upon the prelimmary triaL I haire had my doubts some whether
or not the prisoner is responsible, but I heard the testimony of Dr. Biighaat
md others, and did not really find any occasion to change my previous opin-
ion. The evidence which I heiuti rather confirmed it A crazy man is one
Yotd of common sense.
Challenge sustained.
Lymak Botoe was next called, and answering, was challenged for prin-
cipal cause, and being sworn, testified : When I first heard of the murder
of the Van Nest family and the arrest of the prisoner, I thought him guilty
of murder. It has been my opinion ever since. I formed it from reading
the newspapers. As to his sanity, I haye formed no fixed opinion one way
or the odier. I consider my mind open on that subject. I have not been
able to satisfy myself in relation to that
Chafienge withdrawn.
Q. by attorney general What is your opinion concerning capital pun-
ishment?
A. It is, that the law as it is should be executed.
Ltman Botcb was then sworn as a juror to try the prisoner. (2)
The number of ballots in the box being reduced below twenty-four, the
counsel for the prisoner objected to the drawing further fh)m the box until
there were at least that number in it fh>m which to draw.
The court overruled the objection, and decided that all that was required
was that there should be at least twenty-four ballots in the box when the
drawing commenced.
Excepted to.
Lemtbl a. NBWLAin> was next called, and answering, was chaOenged
for principal cause, and being sworn, testified: I think the prisoner is
154 IHB tBUL Of
guilty, wickedly and deliberately guilty. I read Hie newspti^jpeT accounts of
the affair and the testimony taken before the coroner's jury ; and that has
been my settled ofunion from that time until now. .The testimony of the
prisoner's statements of having committed the murder and how he did it, .
confirmed qiy previous opinion. I think he was sane. I presume I have
expressed that opimon, also that he ought to be punished.
Cross-Examixatiok. — I came to the conclusion that he was sane. I
had heard enough to satisfy me, and had formed an opinion that he was res-
ponsible. I don't know that there is any thing on my mind to prevent me
from weighing the testimony fairly. Don't know but my mind is open to a
fair consideration of the evidence. I think I have command of my mind.
Challenge sustidned.
P£T£K G. FosDiCK was next called, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause, and being affirmed, testified : I have made up my mind
that the prisoner is guilty. My opinion is fixed ; fixed as the rock of Gi-
braltar.
Challenge sustained.
Abel Chasb was next called, and answering, was challenged for princi-
pal cause, and being sworn, testified : I have formed an opinion that the
prisoner is guilty of murder as alleged in the indictment I formed it &om
reading the testimony on the coroner's inquest, and it has remained un-
changed. I have heard a part of tl^e testimony, and that has confirmed wj
opinion, so that I have now a firm and established opinion that the prisoner
is guilty.
Challenge sustained.
Washington Bogardus called, and answering, was challenged for prin-
cipal cause, and being sworn, testified : I have formed an opinion that the
prisoner b both guilty and sane, and have so expressed myself
Challenge sustained.
William Tremaine called, and answering, was challenged for prindpal
cause, and being sworn, testified : I have never expressed any opinion that
the prisoner is guilty, and don't know as I have formed any. I have heard
a part of the testimony given on the preliminary issue, but I don't know as
I formed any opinion. I did not know but he might have killed these per*
sons. I read the testimony published, but I left the matter for furliier
disclosures. I don't know but he may be sane. There was testimony for
and against his insanity. ^
Challenge withdrawn.
Q. by attorney general Have you any scruples about finding a man guilty
where the punishment is death ?
A. I have not The law ought to be carried out
William Tremaike was then sworn as a juror. (3)
Habyet C. Beach was next called, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause, and being sworn, testified : I am of opinion that the pri-
WILLIiJf VRSmiAN. 156
Boncr is guilty, and have repeatedly ezpreaeed that opinioii to others. I
think him sane enough to be responsible for his acts, and it would take more
testimony than I have heard to remove that opinion.
Challenge su5t;ained.
. Jacob Booert called, challenged for principal cause, sworn, and set
aside for the same reason.
Aj>am Fries was then called, and being challenged, was sworn, and tes-
tified : I have no doubt he is guilty if he is the man. I was at Van Kest's
house when the prisoner was brought there, and it was the common talk
that he was the man. I was at church at the funeral — heard the sermon of
Mr. Winfield, and have heard some of the testimony. I cannot tell whether
the prisoner is the man or not, yet I think he is guilty. When the man
who sold the knife testified, I became satisfied the prisoner was the man.
It is roy opinion that the man who committed the murders ought to be hung.
Don't know but I have said that Freeman ought to be hung.
Challenge sustained.
Jacob H. Rosa called, and answering, was chaUeqged, and being sworn,
testified that he had formed an opinion that the prisoner was guilty.
Challenge sustained.
Isaac Follett and Joseph Thompson the same.
John R. Hopkins called, and answering, was challenged by the attorney
general, who demanded that the question be tried by triors.
The first two jurors were appointed and sworn as triors. The juror after
being affirmed, testified : I was sworn on the preliminary trial as witness
in relation to the mental condition of the prisoner. I have been to see him
in the jail I have more tiian once expressed an ofpinion as to the state of
his mind, but not that he was irresponsible. I do not think he is responsible
in the degree that men of higher intellect are, but I have not expressed an
opinion that he is not responsible in any degree. I said that from my inters
course with him, my general conclusion was that I believed him a monoma-
niac upon the subject of pay ; and that he was of low intellect. I was
requested to see him by Mr. Seward, I presume with a view to learn the
stat^ of his mind and to testify. I have requested others to see him. I re^
quested Mr, Horace Hotchkiss for one. I requested him to go with me to
see the prisoner, to ascertain the state of his mind. I have taken a genersl
interest in this man as I have in other cases. I was never a witness in a
capital case before. In conversation I believe I have always maintained the
Qpinion I now express.
Cross-Examination. — The opinion I formed was upon those interviews.
L don't design to entertain any opinions that are fixed. I don't think I have
an opinion on any subject that would resist evidence. I am not conscious of
having any thing on my mind that would prevent me from trying this cause
fairly between the people and the prisoner. I never formed an opinion that
the prisoner was not sane at the time the acts were committed. I have not
156 VHB TRIAL 09
anj fixed or deliberate opinion upon tluit sabjeci. I suppose it is imposable
for men to get rid of impressions. Mj mind is not closed against evideneef
nor would it resist it My mind would not straggle against evidence of the
prisoner's guilt, nor with evidence relating to his sanity. I was present da-
ring a considerable part of the triaL I heard a part of Dr. Brigham's testi*
monj. I heard a part of Dr. Bigelow's. Did not hear Dr. Darrow nor Dr.
Spencer, nor Wood, nor Lynch. Taylor and Churchill went with me the
first time to see the prisoner.
Rr-Examikatiok. If Taylor and Churchill should swear to a state of
facts different from what I saw, I should, as a juror, be obliged to belieTS
them. If they should swear I did not see the prisoner, I would not beliere
them. Sitting as a jurOr I should be obliged to throw away my own know-
ledge.
Q. Are you opposed to capital punishment?
A. Society has a right to decide whether it is, or is not necessary. I think
it would be well to try other modes of punishment I have thought so, bat
I can't say so now. My mind is somewhat unsettled upon that point I
have sometimes thought I should not be willing to sit as a juror in a c^tel
case, but I think if I sat upon a jury in a capital case, that I would try to
bring in a verdict according to evidence.
Counsel on both sides addressed the triors at length, on the subject of the
indifference of the juror, when his honor, the circuit judge, chai^ged then
and they retired. On ooniing into court, they say they find the juror **not
ndifferenf
The panel having been exhausted, the eourt ordered the sheriff to sum-
mon thirty persons qualified to serve as jurors, from the body of the people
of the county, and that he furnish to the prisoner's counsel a list of them be-
fi>re returning them to the court
Hie Hst being returned, the derk proceeded to draw.
AroelOs Taylor was next drawn, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause by the counsel for the prisoner, and being sworn to an-
wer touching his indifference as a juror, testified : From what I have read
of the accounts of the murder, I have formed an opinion that the prisoner is
guilty. From what I have learned of the circumstances, I should say I had
ibrmed an opinion that he was guilty of the murder of John G. Van Nest,
his wife, child, and Mrs. Wyckoff. I have had that opinion since I read the
account of the examination on the coroner's inquest, and from what I have
noe heard ; ^so from the examination of Van Arsdale before the magistrate.
I have read accounts in the papers since the examinations. I read the ac-
u nt with which there was a portrait of the negro, and a plan of the house.
I made up my mind then, and it is my opinion rince, and it is my deliberate
and settled opinion. The proof on the trial might turn it some ; might change
t, but I should want proofi Before I could relinquish that opinion, I must
have proof that the prisoner is not guilty. My mind now presumes the pri-
wiuJAM WMJoaujx. 157
tooBT gnil^. I hftve expressed tbia opinion heretofore in a number of oon*
TerMtionB. I haye said the prisoner ought to be hung fixxn the reports I have
heard, which I still believe, and that is nowmj opinion ; which reports I n^
Ter heard contradicted, and hare no reason to disbeliere them. I hare
heard conversation about prisoner's sanity. From what conyersation I have
heard I hare formed an opinion that he was sane. I made up that opinion
partly from the preparations he made for the murder, and partly from what
I heard, and his flight. This is now my opinion.
Cboss Examination. I saw John G. Van Nest a number of yean ago ;
some ten yean ago; had no particular acquaintance with him. I saw the
prisoner in Auburn, before he went to Uie State Prison. I knew who he
was but had no particular acquaintance with him. I don't know as I ever
saw anyone that knew the facts. I never said the prisoner ought to be hung,
whether guilty or not I said if the accounts and reports were true he was
guilty and ought to be hung for it I took them to be true, and I never
heard them contradicted. I have no means of knowing whether he was
guilty, except from reports.
Q. Do you recollect any of the particulara of the examination of Van
Arsdale?
A. I don't know that I can relate the particulan ; don't recollect the par<
ticulan of what I did read.
(^ Are you conscious of any thing on your mind that would prevent you
from weighing the evidence ?
A. Nothing except the reports I have heard. I don't know any thing
else against him. I know of nothing myself. I don't know that I have any
doubts but that I could weigh the evidence fairly.
Q. If sworn as a juror are you conscious of any thing on your mind thai
would resist the evidence and strug^e against il?
A. I don't know that my opinion that he is guilty would have any influ-
ence on my mind. I should think I had not such an opinioa. I don't know
whether it would have any weight on the trial or not
Q. What is your best befief about it?
A. I should think I had not
Q. IsyourmindqBenasfarasyottknowtoafairoonsiderataonofthecase?
A. I don*t know but it is.
Q. Don't you know that it is, as far as you are conscious?
A. Why, yes sir, I should think h was.
Sr-£xamikation. I don't know hardly what my opinion would be if I
Ao\M hear the evidence. I would try to do as well as I otold according
to the evidence, and that is what I mean when I say my mind is open. I
don't know as my mind is as much fixed as it would be if I had been a juror
and had heard the evidence. I have an opinion, without any doubt, tiial
the prisoner is guilty of murder. Il might be removed by evidence to con*
158 nn TRIAL ov
iradict it I don't know diat it is a mere matter of speculation as to my
ability to remove mj present opinion. I think my mind, if I were in Uie
juiy box, woold be the same as now. I conld not foi^et what I bad heard.
I coaldn't say that it would operate dn my mind. It woald be in my mind ;
I could not forget it I mean to say strong evidence of prisoner's innocence
would be necessary to remove my impression of his guilt. I recollect of
reading the examination of Van Arsdale, identifying this man as the murderer
at the house and in the presence of the dead bodies. I recollect Miss Hohne^
testified about going to the hall door and opening it for Mrs. Van Nest to
come in, and I think these examinations were taken under oath.
Cross Examination. I don't know but I could go according to evi-
dence. I said I didn't know hardly what my opinion would be if I should
hear the evidence.
Q. When you say you have an opinion without doubt, do you mean that
you have heard the reports and have no reason to doubt them ?
A. Yes ; that I heard the reports and formed my opinion upon them.
Q. If you have heard, or know, or feel any thing which would prevent you
from weighing the evidence fairly, state it ?
A. I don't know of any thing more than what I have read and heard
about it I feel as if I ought to be bound, as a juror, to act according to the
evidence, and I feel that I could do so.
Q* by Judge Richardson, one of the court If you were sworn as a juror
to give a verdict according to evidence, would you find a verdict of gnOty
upon the opinion you have formed without any evidence on the part of the
people?
Question objected to by prisoner's counsel, and objection overruled.
A. No.
Q, Has your opinion been so formed that if the evidence shall prove the
prisoner to be guilty you will find him guilty ?
Objected to and objection overruled.
A. Yes.
Rb-£xamikatiok. Q- If you' had seen this murder committed, and
should be sworn as a juror to try the case, would you not feel just as much
confidence that you could exclude the opinion yon have formed and give a
verdict according to evidence as now ?
A. I think not, for I should know it were so.
Q. Would you not be bound to reject what you had seen and give a ver-
dict on the evidence ?
A. I don't know how I eould get around it I should think it was so. I
diould believe iHiat I saw.
Q. Had you seen this murder committed, and were sworn as a juror, would
yoo feel entitled to give a verdict upon what you had seen, or would you
require evidence and feel bound to go according to law and evidence ?
wiudAM fuauK. 159
A. If I had seen it wiih my own eyes, and I elioald be a juror, and eri-
dence should be to the contrary, I think I should believe what I saw.
Q. Could that influence you in giving your verdict?
A. I think not
Challenge overruled, and decision excepted to.
The prisoner's counsel then challenged the juror for favor, and demanded
triors.
The court, by consent, read the fbregoing testimony to the triors.
Afler remarks of counsel, the court charged them that it was manifest that
the important question to be tried by the jury to be empannelled, was the
question of sanity or insanity. The trial upon the preliminary issue has
settled but one point as to that, viz : that he was sane at the time of render-
ing that verdict The law presumes a man to be sane until the contrary is
cleariy proved. The juror indulging an opinion that the prisoner was sane
at the time the act was committed, being but a legal presumption, does not
disqualify him, unless the juror had attended a trial upon that issue, and heard
the testimony and made up his mind upon that The case of this juror is
distingnished from the case of Hopkins, who was challenged by the attorney
general, an^ found by you to be not indifferent He had formed his opinion
ftom personal observation of the prisoner, not from information. In this
case the opinion is fbrmed from information. If the juror had got the in-
formation from those who knew, the opinion would be stronger. If you find
the opinion of the juror so strong, as ih your opinion to influence his action
and thus disqualify him, then he is not indifferent On the other hand, if
you find the opinion a floating one, and such as may be removed by the evi-
dence, and that he will give an impartial verdict from the testimony, he is com-
petent If it is formed upon a Supposition that certain facts be true, then it is «
hypotlietical opinion, and does not disqualify him, as that presupposes that the
facts are to be proved. The rule for determining the indifference of jurors by
which this court have been governed, is laid down in the opinion of Chief Jus-
tice Marshall, on the trial of Aaron Burr for treason. (The court then read
from Burr's trial, as follows :) ** Were it possible to obtain a jury without
any preposesAons whatever, respecting the guilt or innocence of the accused,
it would be extremely desirable to obtain such a jury ; but this is, perhaps,
impossible, and therefore will not be required. The opinion which has been
avowed by this court is, that light impressions which may fairly be supposed
to yield to the testimony that may be offered, which may leave the mind
open to a fair consideration of that testimony, constitute no sufiicient objec-
tion to a j«ror. But that those strong and deep impressions which will close
the mind against the testimony that may be offered in opposition to them,
which wiU combat that testimony and resist its force, do constitute a sufiicient
objection to him. Those who try the impartiality of a jnror ought to test him
by this rule. They ought to hear the statement made by himself or given
by others, and conscientiously determine according to their best judgment
160 onnu&av
wbether, in general, men under mch cinmBwtances, ought to be conrideied
as capable of hearing fairly, and of deciding impartially, on tibe teatunony
which may be offered to them, or as possessing minds in a situation to strug-
gle against the conviction which that testimony might be calculated to pro-
duce. The court have considered those who have deliberately foxmed and
delirered an opinion on the guilt of the prisoner, as not being in a state of
mind fairly to weigh the testimony, and, therefore, as being disqualified lo
serve as jurors in the case." That is the law as applicable to this case, and
sets forth the rule which you will observe in arriving at your verdict.
Chaige excepted to by prisoner's counsel, after which the triors retired,
but after deliberatkig for a while, they came into court and asked iar fiir*
ther instruction ; whereupon His Honor, the circuit judge, remarked to diem :
^ If the juror says he has formed a fixed and deliberate opinion, he is not
indifferent But you are to look at the whole examination, and say whether
he has suchan opinion as will resist the evidence; if he has, he is not in-
different If you believe his mind is open to a £ur and impartial consideri*
tion of the evidence, then he is a proper jurar. Ckmrts would at all times
be bound to declare a juror not indifferent when he has stated that he had
formed a deliberate opinion."
Mr. Preston, one of the triors, inquired whether an opinion formed from
reading the accounts in a newspaper could be called a deliberate opinicm.
His Honor replied, ^ that it w$8 difficult to understand how a man oould
be said to fonn a deliberate opinion upon a mere matter of infbnnation ; but
that is a question for the triors. The resort to the triors, by the prisoner's
counsel, is in the nature of an i^peal from the opinion of the court upon
the facts. The question of law is tiiie same before the court in some respectk
The court apply the law and exclude a juror when there is no dispute about
tiie focts as to the state of the juror's nund. In this case it is for the triors
to determine upon the indifference of the juror. The triors must find
whether the opinion which the juror has formed will have a controlling efiSMt
upon him in opposition to the evidence in favor of the prisoner; if it wiD,
the juror u not indifferent"
The prisoner's counsel excepted to the above, and requested the court to
chaige the triors that if they find that the juror has formed an opinion which
will exert any influence upon his mind in the jury box, then he is not in law
indifferent
His Honor declined to vary his charge. Excepted to.
The triors report that they find the juror indifiarent
The prisoner's counsel then challenged the juror peremptorily, and he was
set aside.
John Millsb was next caUedi and ati8Wering» was challenged fbr pxinci«
pal cause, and being sworn, testified! If what I have heard and read is tme
I think the prisoner is guilty and ought to be hanged. I never heard any
one talk of it who was there. I lupposed the flocountfl given of the matter
wiuLUM rawuH. Idl
were tnie, as I never heard to the contrary. I hAve heard folks sa/ it was
the greatest murder thej ever heard of, and that he ought to be hung ; and I
may hi^re said the same, and think it is likely I have. I heard they talked
of Lynching him at the house. I might have said that would have been well
enough. I thought he ought to be hung. I may have said he ought to be
hung without a trial. I have said the trial took a good deal of time, and I
see now that it will take more time than I thought it would when I cane
here. I have believed him guilty ever since I heard of the mnrder.
By the court: The juror^s opinion seems entirely hypotheticaL
Challenge oyemiled. Exception.
The juror was then challenged for favor, and found by Preston and Boyce,
triors, to be not indifferent
Hknbt Chaddebdon was next called, and answering, was challenged
for principal cause, and being sworn, testified : I thought the prisoner com-
mitted the murders firom what I have heard. I heard that a colored man
committed the crime, but did not know his name. I may hav.e been told
that he was recently from State Prison. I heard a person read about the
case in a newspaper, which stated that the murder was committed by Wil«
liam Freeman. I heard that he was there a few days before ; pretended to
be deaf; tried to get work, and then went and committed the murders in the
night That he sUbbed Mrs. Van Nest first, out door, then Mr. Van Nest
in the house, then stabbed the old lady, then the child, and then the young
man. If these reports are true, my miud is fixed that he is j;uil^ and ought
to be punished. I think I have no impression that would- prevent me fipom
weighing the evidence fairly.
Cbobs Examination. Q^ What do you mean by your opinion b«ng
fixed. Do you mean any thing else than that you have heard thisstory and
do not know whether it is true or not ?
A. ThatisalL
Q- Have you any feeling against the man ?
A. I have not
Q. Have you any opinion or impression that will prevent you firom weigh-
ing the evidence fairly ?
A. I think not
(^ Don't you know you have not
A. Yes ; I know I havn't
Q. Is your mind open to a fair consideration of this case ?
A. It is ; yet I never heard any one express a doubt that the report was
true.
Bb-Examination. Q. Have you not an opinion that he is guilty untQ
it shall be removed by evidence to the contrary ?
A. I have.
. Q. Can you tell whether it will resist evidence ?
11
A. I ihodd thmk it wvtald Bot
Q. YHiy do jod Uunk 90 ? Hsve jon erer tried it in such a case ?
A4 Indterbate.
Q. IGglit foa not find it ^Sflkmlt to give up yoat opinioa ?
A. I don't ^liiik I wodd.
Clialtenge overruled.
Prisoner's couniel then challenged tiie jnror fiir fiivor, and demanded
triors, wlio, after hearing evidence in sabitanoe as above, and being charged,
say they find the Jnror indifferent
He was then challenged peremptorily and set aside.
Javbs Bboabbs wm next called, and answering, was challeBged for
principal canse, and being sworn, testified : I have frequently heard ttiis
matter talked about, and h«fe believed the prisoner goilty of murder. I
have been told since I came here that the prisoner is the man wha commit-
ted the murders, and I think he is guihy. My mind is not made up as to
whether he was sane dt not I heard they talked of Inching him at Van
Nest^s house ; Chat the peoi^e were very much excited there. I don't think
I have any doubt that Ae prisoner killed tiiem. I think he is the man, and
Aall believe he waa the man until I hear something to the contrary, and I
should reqtuie pretty strong evidence to induce me to change that belief. I
think I would be more likely to believe evidence agunst him than for him,
aAer all that I have hettrd. t would feel bound, however, to give a verdict
aooordmg to law.
Challenge sustained.
Ansel Bbucs was next called, and answering, was challenged foar prin-
c%»al cause, and being sworn, testified : I cannot really say I have formed
any ofnnion, and have never sud much about this case. I read the account
and the testimony taken at the coroner's inquest, in the newspapers. When
I heard that he was arrested, I made up my mind that he would have a trial,
and if guilty would be dealt with accordingly. I did not know who did it,
but I made up my mind that it was a wicked and deliberate murder in some
one ; a wilful and cruel murder. If it is proved that he is the man, it would
settle the whole matter in my mind. I have heard thai he was identified by
Yan Arsdale, and if he should be identified on the trial I should think ^e
chaige ihlly made out I think there can be no evidence that Van N'est was
not Ulled. I have no doubt but that I could find a verdict according to the
testimony. I have no feefing or excitement that would prevent me, nor
any bias.
Challenge overruled.
Prisoner's counsel then challengedthe juror for favor, and demanded triors,
who, after hearing testimony, in substance as above, fotind the juror indiffer-
ent, when he was challenged peremptorily and set aside.
jAifse S. JoHNftON was next called, and answering, was challenge for
wtU^UMmitilux. 168
principal cause, tad being sworn, testified in snbst&nce, t^e same as last ju-
ror, and challenge oyermled. He was then challenged for fayor, found in-
different bj triors, then challenged peremptorilj and set aside.
The panel being again exhausted, llie court ordered the sheriff to sum-
mon twen^ other men fnym the bod/ of the people of the county, to serve
as jurors.
joim Jones was next called, and answering, was challenged for princi-
pel cause, and being sworn, testified r I wa^ summoned here, I suppose, at
the suggestion of Samuel BelL I don't know as I ever told him that I would
do him as good a favof some other time, and don't know but I have. It is a
rery busy time to be called out 1 don't know but I did say that if it was
through Bell's means that I was called here, I would do him as good a faror
some other time. From the papers and what I hare heard, I hare fi>rmed
an opinion that the negro is guilty of the crime, and hare expressed that
Opinion quite frequently. I have said that he ought to be hung if that re-
port were true. My mind is that he is guilty. Before I can change that
opinion I must hare evidence to the contrary. I think I should be more in-
clined to receive evidence corroborative than evidence to the contrary.
Ben told me they had found the black man sane.
Csoss ExAikmATioir. Mr. Bell is one of 1h^ assemblymen from this
county. He is a very respectable man. I suppose it wodd be better for
me to be trying this cause than to have my fim^y killed. Hoddns, the de-
puty sheriff, snmmoned me.
Q. Have yon any impression about this case that would prevent yon ftom
weighmg the Evidence fairly ?
A. No, sir ] I iMnk not.
Q. Do you mean to say that you would receive evidence against him more
favorably than fbr him ?
A. I could tell better if I could hear ^e evidence.
Q. Do you feel any thing in your mind now that induces yon to believe
you would receive evidence against the prisoner more favorably than for
him?
A. No.
Q. Is your mind open to £ fair consideration d this case ?
A. Yes, sir.
Attoustub PsTTiBOins, called as a witness, and being sworn, testified : I
am sheriff of this county. I undertook to get a jury in this case.
Q. Did Samuel Bell suggest to yon the name of John Jones as a Juror ?
A. Some one handed me a list of names during the Wyatt trial, and his
name was on the list
Q. Did you follow that list?
A. I think likely I <frew off the name of John Jones*froni that letter, to
snmmon hnn this tune.
Q. Wm yon jHTodace thai letter ?
164 DBS mux* Of
A. Yes, sir. This is it (Here exhifait^A letter iddresfied to hiniyfllgiied
Samuel Bell, and containing a list of persons proper to be Bammoned as
talesmen, among whom is tlie name of John Jones.)
The court overruled the challepge. Excepted to.
The juror was then challenged for favor. Triors demanded and appdated^
and the foregoing testimony, in substance, read to them bj consent.
By the court : It is said that here is an attempt to pack a jury ; if so, it is
the first attempt I ever heard or read of in the United Statep. Hia Honor
then referred to the Irish rebellion and 0*Connell^s trial He was not pr»-
pared to believe that any person in this country was so corrupt as to he
guilty of the practice ; yet the testimony of the juror, as well as that of Pet-
tibone, should be closely and carefully examined. Excepted to.
Verdict : that juror is indifferent
He was then challenged peremptorily and set aside.
Elias Milleb was next called, and answering, was challenged for prin-
cipal cause, and being sworn, testified: I read of the murder of the Van
Nest family and believed it I was told yesterday that it was through Sam-
uel Bell that I was summoned here* I fonned an opinion from what I read,
and other reports, that the prisoner was a murderer. It would require con-
siderable strong proof to remove that opinion. Think I should be more
likely to believe evidence against him than for him.
Cboss-Examination. — Q. If you weve sworn as a juror, would any
thing you have heard induce you to give a verdict, if no proof was given ?
A. I think not
Q. Would what yon have heard be any evidence to you as a juror ?
A. I shouldn't think it evidence enough to convict him.
Q. Would you connder it any evidence ?
A. Not in this case.
Q. When you say you have fonned an opinion, do you mean move than
that you have heard of it and supposed it to be true ? ^
A. I have never heard it contradicted and supposed it true.
Q. Do you know any tiling of this matter yourself?
A. I do not
Q. Is your mind open to a fair consideration of the testimony?
A. I believe it is as far as I know.
Q. Suppose some of the witnesses swore in his favor and sol^e against
him, would you ^ve the same weight to both ?
A. I don't know as I should, if it was eqnaL
Q. Can you weigh the evidence fairly ?
A. I don't think I could. I think I could fiot
Q. Why?
A. Why, I have heard a great deal against him and believe it to be t|«e,
and I don't think I could give equal weight to evidence that should go to
show him innocent Challenge sustained.
wnxuM fExmAN. 165
Thomas C. McFarlake called, and answering, was sworn as a ju-
ror. (4)
John Chkistiait called, and answering, was sworn as a juror. (5)
Norman Peters called, and answering, was challenged hj the attorney
general, and being sworn to answer, testified : I have no conscientious
scruples against finding a verdict of guilty where the punishment is death,
where the eyidence shows clearly the guilt of the party on trial. I don't
know as I would be called an abolitionist, yet I have voted that ticket and
have voted other tickets.
Q^ Suppose It should be proved that the prisoner is a poor demented ne*-
gro, would you think society ought to be punished and not the negro ?
A. I should hold him responsible the same as any other man.
Challenge withdrawn and juror sworn. (6)
Matthew J. Conklin called, and answering, was challenged for princi-
pal cause, and being sworn, testified : I heard of this murder soon after it
took place. Have heard different remarks made about it I have said if it
was true, that no punishment was too bad for him. If h^ is guilty of the
crime he ought to be hung. I believe he is guilty. I have heard nothing
to contradict it. That opinion is founded on the reports. It has not crea-
ted a prejudice in my mind. IVom report I have no doubt but he killed
Van Nest It would require evidence to remove that opinion.
Challenge overruled and challenge to the &vor interposed, and trion ap-
pointed. Verdict indifferent.
Juror was tiien challenged peremptorily and set atdde.
Benjamin Beach called, and answering, was challenged fbr principal
cause, and being sworn, testified : I have heard this murder talked about
Have heard the coroner*s inquest read in part I don't recollect reading
any thing since. I believe the Van Nest family were murdered, and, ac-
cording to accounts, I had no reason to disbelieve it But I can't say the
prisoner is guilty, for I have read accounts that men have been hung who
were not guilty. At times I have doubted whether he was guilty. I have
expressed my opinion that if he murdered the fiimily he ought to be hung,
but never said he was guilty, because I did not know. I rather leaned to
the opinion that he was guilty, but I have doubted it My belief now is that
I rather think he has murdered the fanuly. It is a pretty strong impression,
but if evidence came forward that he was innocent I would believe it If
the testimony was equal on both sides, I would throw away my impressions.
My present belief would not turn the scale. I should not want to act upon
my belief, and would not I have heard nothing of his sanity, only that he
was going to be tried on that first I am rather induced to think, from oil
accounts, that he was sane. . If the evidence was equal I would not hang
him. I would not put a man to death unless I knew he was guilty. I have
heard of the attempts to Lynch him. I said if he had done it, it was not too
good for him. I was excited then, but I don^ think so now.
Clialleiige overruled. Deciflioii escepted to.
PziBoner*8 couiuel ihen challenged the juror for faTor, and dfimanded
triors, who were appointed and swqkii, and the fore^^oi^g evidence sobmitted
to them b J coiuent.
The court then charged the triors in substance as in the cuae of the joroc
Taylor, [ante 159,] which was excepted to.
The triors found him indifferent, and he was then sworn as a juror. (7)
Garbst Y. Peak was next called, and answering, was challenged, bul
the same was withdrawn, and he was sworn as a juror. (8)
James McLeod was next called, but was disduu^ged on his teatif jing
that he belieyed capital punishment wrong, and had oonsdentioua scmplei
against finding a verdict of guilty where the pumshment is dealli.
Juror discharged.
Jacob Crowlbt was next called and dischairged on the Sfu^e grounds.
Joseph Weston ^ras next called, and answering, was challenged fi»
principal cause, and, on being sworn, it appeared that he had fozned aa
opinbn that the prisoner was guilty, and he was disdiaiged.
ToHPKiKS Tripp was next called, and anawering, was challenged by the
attorney general, and being sworn, said:
Q^ Ajre you an abolitionist ?
Objected to and objection sustained.
Q. Have you any peculiar views «s to oolpxed pers(|DS which wo^]d aAct
your verdict ?
A. Na I shodd endeav<^ to hold him, as 1 9hoi4d other peq, aocooatsr
ble lor his acts.
Q. Would yon attiu^h no more weight to the testiimmy of colored peisoM
than to white ?
A. I should not
Challenge withdrawn and juror svonv (9)
JoBN P. HuNTBB was next called, and answering, was challenged fi>r
principal cause, and set aside on the ground of having formed and expressed
an opinion of the guilt of the prisoner.
Preston Thohpson was iiext cfilled, challenged and discharged on the
same ground^
Nelson Burk|e was called and disp^ed of in the same manner.
Nathaniel C. Cart was next called, and answering» was challenged for
principal cause, and being sworn, said his mind was open to a Uir conside-
ration of the evidence.
The challenge was overruled, but he was challenged peremptor^y and set
aride.
Charles Comstock was next called, and answering, was challenged and
set 9^e.
Nathaniel Yilas was next call^ and challenged peremptorily, and set
aside.
wiLUAK jqapmH. ler
Oba»iah a. €k>OPBB WM'nexi c4kd, luod «|i8veriiig, wu cMlenged for
pfuidpil e«iiie» And bdng i womy te»lifi^d : I hare heard of this murdev,
and whea people thought Lynch-lair ought to be a{^lied to hiinlfeit aony,
and leasoned with them. What I have refd and heard, has brought epnTii^
tion to my mind that Buch a family was murdered, ^nd that the priaooer
murdered them, and I now beliere that as I do other hutorical factum I
ihould not give any more weight to the evidence confirming my opinion
than to eridence coa^radieting it The heart is deceitful, but I think I can
weigh the evidence fairlj.
Challenge withdrawn and juror swotil (10)
Abchbb Hagombbb wat ne^t called, and anawering was not challenged,
but waa interrogated by the court in respect to serujAea of conscience aboiil
finding a priaoner guiltj where the puniabment is death; but ea the jiiror
aaid he had no conacientioua acruplea, he waa awom. (11)
William B. Schobkt was next called, and anawering, waa challenged for
principal cause bj the prisoner's counsel, and being sworn, testified : I have
formed an opmion that the prisoner la guilty of murder, and have expressed
it in plain language. I. have aaid that he ought to be executed, the sooner
the better. I think I nu).y have aaid he ought to have been executed withr
ant a trial, but not in this pUce. As to hia aenity, I think he waa a aina
man— ea aane as men in Ids condition usually are, and that he Is xespoaaible.
I have expresaed an opinion that there waa not a pretence of inaanitj in hia
caae. I feel that I ahould not be an indiffeient Juror in thia ease.
Cnoss-ExABONATiON,— I havo atated my opinions on this subject yestert-
day and to-day. I presume I aaid ao to Mr. Moigan this mconung. I spoke
tQ Mr. Mbigan about being called sooner; told him I thought him guillj.
I have a clear atid decided opinion that he ia guilty.
Challenge aaataiaed-
William Cube was next called, aad answering, waa ohallenged for pm^
eipal cause by the priaoner^ counsel, and being sworn, taetified : I have
heard and read of the murder of the Van Kest famfly, and it ia said the
priaciner murdered them. I have no opinion that would Infinence my ver-
dict When I read the aooounti in the newspapers I be&eved that Freemait
murdered them. I think I read Van Aradale'a depoation. I have not, nor
never had any doubt that the prisoner killed the family, but never expreased
any cf inion concerning his sanity or insanity. I am not ao well satisfied
about hb state of mind. It would require pretty strong evidence to aaliafy
me that he did not kiU the fiimily. If the Evidence waa equally balanced, I
might believe those who swore he waa tlMure, rather than those who should
swear he was not But I think if the testimony was balanced, itty ofiin*
ion would not turn the scale, fi m^j^t have a bias if the teatbnony waa
doubtluL
CbO08-Examikatioh«— I do not think I have any feeliiq; i^gainst the
prisoner that would influence my judgment as a juror. I have talked fre-
168 no «EAl. ^ '
qnently abont it, and mBj hare talked witii Wflliian Aflen about it. May
Lave said KMuetfaing to Amos Bathbun directly after the muider. I iboold
think there was no impression resting on my ndnd that wodd prevent nqr
ireighing the testimony ftirly. I should think that I stood indifferent be-
tween the people and the prisoner.
Challenge orerruled.
The prisoner's counsel'then challenged the juror fbr ikvor, and demanded
triors, to whom the foregoing evidence was submitted by consent The tiiorB
found the juror indifferent.
He was then challenged peremptorily and set stside.
Aaron Yalb called, and answering, was challenged, and was set aside
because of his not having the requisite property qualifications for a juror.
John Hvbsbt was next called, and answering, himself asked to be ex-
cused from serving, as he was opposed to capital punishment and had con-
scientious scruples against sitting as a juror in capitaP cases.
He was discharged.
John C. Yawoeb was next called, and answering, was challenged for
principal cause by the prisoner's counsel, and being sworn, testified : - 1 have
heard and read of the murder of the Van Nest .fiunily, and of the general
opinion that the prisoner murdered them. Silas Ludlow told me about it
Peter Howell, who was present at the fbneral and saw the dead bodies, toM
me that Freeman killed them, and that he had been caught I heard he
was taken to the house and identified. I read some of the testimony taken
before the coroner. Ludlow saw the prisoner in jail, and thought him a
pretty hard looking fellow, flying reports said he had confessed the mur-
der. From all that I have seen and heard I conclude that he is guilty. My
opinion now is that he is guilty. I think there is no doubt of it I have
heard the question of his sanity talked about also. I believe him to have
been sane at that time. I have no doubt that he was. This ofnnton might
be removed by proof to the contrary. I shall believe it until it is positively
proved to the contrary.
Cbosb-Examinatiok. — Q. If yon were sworn as a juror, have you any
Impression that would prevent you from weighing the testimony furiy ?
A. Nothing more than that I think him guilty, and should want poative
testimony to the contraiy.
Q. With your present information could yon find a verdict either way ?
A. I don't think I could.
Q. Do you not know that it is the duty of the people's eoansel to prove
him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, before yon ought to convict him ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do yon know that yon cannot as a juror act upon previous impres-
sions?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have yon any nnpression on yoor mind that will prevent your il^igh*
ing the evidence fairiy ?
wiLJUAir rifenliK. 169
A. I think I hare some litlile.
Q. Do you know any thing of his guilt except what you haye heard and
read?
A. I do not
Q. You say you think you hare some liitie imprewioa on 'your mind that
might preyent yon from weighing the evidence ?
A. I did say so, but I don*t think it will disqualify me from bearing the
^yidence and finding a yerdict in this case according to it
*Q. Haye you any desire to haye him conyicted unless he shall be proved
guilty?
A. No, sir ; but I must say that it will require strong proof, after aH 1
haye heard, to make me think him innocent, or rather staronger proof than
if I had neyer beard of the ease before.
Challenge sustained, but finally withdrawn by prisoner's comiael ; when
he was challenged by the attorney general, who inteiinogated him about his
Tiews o# capital punishment; but as the juror testified that he had no con-
icientious scruples against finding a prisoner guilty in a capital case, it was
subsequently withdrawn, and the juror permitted to be sworn to try the
prisoner. (12)
TRIAL OF THE MAIN ISSUE.
Ik court, July 10, 1940. Pinesent, Hon. Bo Wen Wnirrxa, circi ft
judge, and Joseph L. Richardson, Isaac Sisson, Abxkr HoLLi5?TKir,
and Walter G. Bradlet, associates. '
John Van Buren and Lttman Sherxtood, of coun«e! for the *)<*nplc.
William H. Seward, David Wright, and Christoiiier Mano.vrc,
for the prisoner.
The clerk proceeded to call the jurow decided competent to try the pri-
soner, who answered to their names and entered the box, lo xvit :
1. Andrews Preston, 7. Benjamin Hkactt.
2. Lyman Rotce, §. Garret V. Peak,
8. William Tremaine, 9. Tobifkins Trifp,
4. Thomas C. McFarlanb, 10. Obadiah A. Cooper,
5. John Christian, 11. Archer Macomber,
6. Norman Peters, 12. John C. Yawger.
Mr. Sherwood, the district attorney, then opened the case to the jury,
in substance as fbHows :
May it please the Court —
Oentlemen of the Jury : After having spent much time in a fruitless at-
tempt'to ascertain, with the aid of the learned counsel and learned witnesses,
the menial capacity of the unfortunate prisoner at the bar, we hare arriyed
I7f <fWf9|i*a9
at the point, where, in my judgment, it were belter for the pi|falic md as well
for the accused; to have commenced* For I discover from the names of tbs
witnesses, who have just been called by the direction of the prisoner's coon-
sel, that the question of inssaity, which has for weeks occupied the attention
of this court, and finnUy been detennined by a jury, is to be submitted to
yon. Of this, however, yon will nqt uadesstend me as complaining. The
magnitade of the case you^axe empanneled tp tiy, will induce you to hear
with patience all that may be said by witnesses and oounsel in favor of oae
irhflse life depends lyon your declnon.
This cause, and oue trial of it, in substance, which has abeady transpired,
have been the subjects of so much public discussion, that it seems ahnoBt
unnecessary that I shouhi stale to you eny of the facts concerning it, or any
of the evidence upon which the proseeution rely fox a conviction of the
prisoner. But ftpm the &ct thai you ha^ been seloeted from a very laige
number, for the reason that yom knew less than others of the history of tkii
prisoner and the iirimes he has committed, and that your^minds ant nnpre*
judiced in regaard to him, you will, doubtless, listen padendy to the relatJOB,
which I shell endeavor to pve, as briefly as possilJe, of the history of tiie
prisoner, and the evidence upon which we rely far his conviction.
The prisoner was bom in this village, and with the exception of sobm
brief periods of time, has always resided iiere or in the immediate vicini^
of this place. His fatiier was an African — his mother was the offspring of
an African and Indian. Be resided with different pemms in the village, or
adjacent to it, during the period of his boyhood and till the age of sixteen
or seventeen yean, when be ^as convicted of the erime of larceny for steal-
ing a horse, the property of a widow lady in an adj<nning town, and sen-
tenced to State Prison for the term of five years. I sm i^ware of nothing in
his character or conduct, previous to that eonvictaon| not common to colored
boys in his circumstances and condition in life, except, perhaps, he was more
vicious than ordinary boys, which resulted in frequent changes of abode.
During this period his education was entirely n^ected, so that he entesed
the State Prison an ignorant boy at the agd of seventeefi. Tou are awars
that the discipline of that institution inhibits that social intercourse which,
with the uneducated, is essential tp their intellectual advancement ; and ex-
cept with the ch^Ugn and principal officers, only admits of such communi-
cations between convicts ai^d keepers as are uecessary in reference.to the
work at which the fbqner f^ engaged. Practically, the chaplain is the only
officer from aocial intercourse witl|whom convicts may be said to derive any
benefit Ju this casC) that officer found the prisoner so deaf that it waa dif-
ficult to converse with him, and we may fairly infer that tl^ prisoner's mind
could not have been improved by five years' tuition at hard labor in the State
Prison. He was discharged ficom prison on the 90th diyr of September, 1^5.
From the time of his dischaige until the 12th of March last, (when he com-
mitted the crime for which he now staodi indicted,} he remained jlioet of
mumm ranuH. 171
the time in tlie ifiH«g#| and earned his attbmst^ace principallj by pawipg
wood.
Gentlemeiii jrou will readily see from the hasty narratiT^e I have giren of
this man's life^ that he eould not have been otherwise than an ignoranti
degraded being. Yet, ignorant and degraded as he was, he had sufficient
^owledge to pi^Ji a crime, and sufficient sagacity to contrire all the meanf
of its execation ; and, that too, with as much skill as the more gifted in in*
tellectual capacity. A (eyr days previous to the commission of this crime,
the prisoner purchased of a blacksmith in this village, by the name of HyaU,
this knife, (holding v^the knife, then in two parts, a part of the blade having
been broken off, with which the murder was supposed to have been com-
^tted.) About the saqie tame, or shortly before, he took to the shop of
another blacksmith this dirk pajLtem* (holding up the pattern of a diik,) ^d
attempted to negotiate for the making of a dirk like it In these transac-
tions he manifested a regard for money which resulted in his purchasing the
knife at half the price which the blacksmith asked for it, and broke otf th^
nagotiation for the dirk without a bargain. Failing in procuring the dirk aa
|ie desired, he finally obtained a oommon butcher knife, which he ground pn
the back and inserted in the endof aclub some four feet in length. He wa#
seen with these instruments at a n^echanic's shop, in the east part of tibe village,
shortly before the murders were oommitted ; and it will appear in the qqiuae
of tihis investigation, from the confessions of the prisoner and from other ev-
idence, that just at twilight on the evening of the 1 2ih of March, he proceeded
fith th^se instruments from his boarding house, in the east part of the village,
to the hoiise of the deceased) about three miles distant; that he was seen
in the vicinily of Yan ISes^s house about nine o'clock in the evening ; that
he remained near the house till Van Andale, who was staying at the house^
had retired to bed in the chamber, and a man by the name of Williamsoii,
who had been spending the evening sociably in the family of Van Nest, had
proceeded toward his home in ihaf neighborhood* The family of Van Nest
consisted of his wife, three children^ Mrs. Wyckofif, (his wife's mother,) a young
lady by the name of Helen Holmes, and Yan Arsdale. After Williamson
had left, and Yan Arsdale retired, the prisoner entered the house, and with
the knife you have s^en, stabbed Yan Nest in the breast, penetrating the
heart, and inflicting a wound of which he instantly fell lifeless. He thep
came in contact with Mrs. Yan Nest, and stabbed her '^ the i^bdomen, in-
flicting a wound of which she expired in a few minutes. He then proceeded
to a bed on which their youngest child, a boy of two years of age, waslyinf^
and thrust the knife entirely through his body, severing the bowels, and in-
flicting a wound of which he expired after languishing in agony about thirty
minutes. He then came in contact with Mrs^ Wyckoff, and infficted upon
her A wound of which she died in so^e two days thereafter. He then pror
ceeded to the room of Yan Arsdale and stabbed him in the breast, and had
an encounter which resulted in Yan Arsdal^'s driving him from the house*
172 Tin TRiiL 09
After this, the prisoner again came in contact fniSti Mn. Wyckoff at the gate
of the door yard, and had an affray, in which she, with a butcher knife with
which she had taken the precaution to arm herself, inflicted a wound upon
him, seyering the tendons of his wrist, and disabling him from further prosecu-
ting the work of death. Mrs. Wyckoff, wounded as she was, proceeded in
her night dress to her neighbor's, carrying the marks and giTing the alarm
o( tliis family slaughter, while the prisoner proceeded to the bam of Van
Nest, stole and mounted a horse, and proceeded towards Auburn, passmg
Williamson in less than a mile from the house of Van Nest, and continued
till within a mile of the Tillage, where the horse fell with him. He then
left that horse and proceeded to the bam of a man by the name of Burring-
ton, some three miles east of Auburn, where he stole another horse, with
which he made his flight, by way of Syracuse and Baldwinsville, to a Tillage
in the county of Oswego, where he was arrested, first on suspicion of haying
stolen the horse, which he there offered for sale, and finally for the crime of
which he now stands indicted.
It is proper to call your attention to the fact that the prisoner is, and has
for years been, partially deaf. And in this connection I may say that his
ability to hear appears to be suddenly effected by circumstances, if not
measurably affected to suit the occasion. For, when offering this horse for
•ale, and when charged simply with larceny, those with whom he conyersed
found little difficulty in making him understand, or in understanding him.
But when charged with the higher crime of murder, and when inquiries were
oiade of him concerning it, and from whence he came, he suddenly became
00 deaf that it was only by threats of Tiolence, which were in some measure
executed, that he could be made to hear at all; Upon his arrest, he was
taken to the scene of his crimes, where he was identified, and thence to jail
to await an indictment and the trial in which we are now engaged.
Gentlemen of the jury, I haTe thus far giyen you an outline, a mere sketch
of the life and crimes of this prisoner. Under ordinary circumstances and
in ordinary cases, I should go no farther, before proceeding directly to the
proof by which the charge must be maintained. Nor do I now propose to
giye you a minute detiul of the eyidence upon which the indictment is to be
sustained. I ^rill not exhaust the patience which the importance of the case
iriQ require you to exert in listening to the testimony of witnesses.
The fact that one trial has already been had upon the principal question
ihat inyolyes the guilt or innocence of the defendant, is, I trust, a sufficient
i^logy to detun the cause to allude briefly to some of the circumstances
attending it, and the eyidence upon which the prisoner's counsel rely for his
acquittal.
This indictment was found at the May term of the General Sessions of
the Peace, and ordered to this court On the first day of the present sitting,
the prisoner was brought in to be arraigned, and before his arraignment his
counsel appeared at the bar and interposed in his behalf the plea of present
insanity. Never before having seen the pxjaoner, except as he entered the
jail upon his arrest, and knowing nothing of his mental condidon, I took issue
upon that plea, had him ramanded to prison, and while another trial was
progressing^ instituted such investigation, through the aid of medical men and
others who were acqualntod with the prisoner, his past history and habits,
as induced the belief with me and my learned associate that he was in a
sititable condition to be tried.
The law of this State (8 R. S. 697, § 2) prescribes ihat " No act done by
a person in a state of insanity, can be punished as an oiSence ; and no insana
person can be tried, sentenced to any punishment, or punished for any crime
or offence while he continues in that state."
r Had my associate or myself believed that the prisoner at the bar was in
tbe condition of one whose trial is inhibited by this section of the statute, we
certainly should have saved the court, the jury, and the counsel the labor of
a protracted investigatbn, that resulted in a verdict of sanity. And I doubt
not, our learned adversaries will give us credit for believing, not only that
the prisoner is now sane, but that he was so when he committed the horrid
crimes that convulsed a neighborhood, by striking from existence a number
of its most respected citizens. Yea, gentlemen, solemn and awful as these
murders a^ to dwell upon, their terror sinks into insignificance in compari-
son with the thought of hanging a maniac. God has stamped the maniac
with irresponsibili^. Our law has recognized the mark, and I trust you
will not believe that the public prosecutors would urge this miserable man
to trial, in violation of law, and against the common dictates of humanity.
We believe the jury that pronounced the prisoner sane was composed of
honest men. We believe the court that approvingly received their verdict
was also honest Believing thus, and knowing that most of the evidence up-
on which the prisoner's counsel rely to establish the prisoner's insanity, has
arisen from conversations with him since the commission of his crimes, and
since his imprisonment under charge of them — conversations in which the
prisoner is himself the principal actor, if not the atUkor of the disease impu-
ted to him — it seems to me, we would be wanting in fidelity to the public^
whose duties we have been delegated to perform, should we refrun from
porsoing, with proper diligence, the prosecution of this criminaL
Gentlemen, I am willing to concede honesty to the prisoner's counsel in
believing that their client b insane. But in making this concession, I most
be allowed to differ with them in judgment of the facts upon which they ar-
rive at such conclusion.
From what I have already said of the prisoner, you must have inferred
that he was never in a situation to have obtained much knowledge. On the
part of the prosecution we concede that he is an unleamed, tgnarant^ stupid
and degraded negro. With this concession, we will not daimfor him the
power of feigning insanity or any of its appearances, so as to deceive those
who have known him^ and been familiar with his history and habits. Yet,
i74 ram tbujh tnr
gentlemen, yon will readily perceiTe wliat faidncementtf a man lias, diargeil
with a crime IDte this, to affect a diflease wUch has become the common de-
fence of mnrderenr. And I apprehend 70a will have learned before the
close of this trial, how men of learning and of $cience tsibj be deceiTed h/
converting natural imbecilitjr and taciturnity into strong ^ symptom^ of men-
tal derangement In listening to tiie disquisitions of learned doctors of me-
dicine and of mind, upon the symptoms of insanity, witMn the hist !bw weeks,
I have at times been almost led to exclaim, in Ae language of Festns to
Paul, '* Thou art beside tiiyself ; mudi leaming doUt make thee mad."
Gentlemen of the jury, the main question you will be required to decide,
will be the insanity of the prisoner at the time the murder was comnutled.
I might, perhaps, assume that it will scarcely be questioned by his conssd
ihat he took the lifb of ^e deceased at tite time, and in the manner described
in the indictment, and as I have already, in substance, related. It wiO,
howeveir, be necessary first to ptoye the crime, and that the prisoner com-
mitted it As we shall proceed with this proof, you will dlscorer that ibe
perpetrator must have possessed memory, sagacity, judgment and afl the
common attributes of mind. There are certain principles established by the
sages of the law and sanctioned by tiie bench for ages, by which criminals
have been tried. I #ill here briefly advert to them, and give ihe court,
(turning to the bench) refbrehce to the autiiorities :
1. If a man kills another suddenly, without any, or without a conrider-
able provocation, the law hnplie^ malice; for no person, unless of an aban-
doned heart, would be guOty of such an act, upon a slight, or no apparent
cause. (4 Black. Com. 200.) It is presumed a man had a premeditated
design if he kills. (Foster 295, Starkie 514.) The law implies* mi£ce if a
man does a deliberate, cruel act (1 Kep. 492.)
2. Every man of the age of <^retion, is presumed of sound memory
until the contrary appear ; which may be, either by tiie inspection of tiie
court, (1 Hale, 88, trials per pais 14 0. B. 1788 Na 4,) by evidence given
to the jury who are charged to try the indictment, (8 Bac. Abr. 81,* 1 Hal^
88, 5, 6,) or being a Collateral issue, the fact may be pleaded uid replied
to ore tenus, and a venire awarded returnable in^tanter, m the nature of an
inquest of office. (Foster 4$, EeL 18, 1 Lev. 61, 1 Sid. 72, 1 Hawk P. C.
ch. 1, § 4, note 5.)
8. Insanity^ to excuse the commission o^ a crime, must have existed at th^'
time of the commission of the offence, and such a^ to deprive the accused of
the power of distinguishing between right and wrong.
In the case of Lord Ferrers, who was tried before the House of Loi^
for murder, it was proved that his Lordship was occasioni^y insane and in-
capable, from insanity, of knowing what he did, or judging of the conse-
quences of his actions. But the murder was deliberate, aind it appeared tiiat
when h6 committed the crime he had capacity suMcient to farm a design,
and knaw its conseqruences. It was ul*ged 01& the part of the prosecution, ^t
#1111111 fBSBuii. ns
complete poMe«ion of Mwon was uaneeeisarjr to warnmt tb^ judgment of
the law, and that it was sufficient if the party had sueh possession of reason
m enabled hhn to comprehend Ihe nature of his actions and discrinUnate he»
tween moral good and evU. And he was Ibnnd gmltf and executed. (1 9 8t
Trials hj Howell, 947.)
In the ease of Arnold for shoodng at Loid Ondow, tried befbre llr. Jns^
ticelWcy, it appeared clearly that the prisoner was, to a certain extent, de-
ranged, and that he had gready niilconceiTed the conduct of Lord Onslow ;
bnt it also appeared that he had farmed a regular design and prepared the
proper means for carrying it into effect, Mr. Justice Tracy left the case with
the jury, obsenring that ** where a person has cominilted a gr^tH offence, the
exemption of insanitgmust be very detarly made ottt hef&re k is oBowed. That
it 18 not every kind of idle and frantic humor of a man, or someUiing unae-
countable in his tuitions j which will show him to be such a madman as is to be
exempted from punishment" (16 St Tridb by Howell, 764, 765.) The
jury found the prisoner guilty.
In the case of Paricer, tried by a special commission, llth February, 1912,
for high treason, (the defonce insanity,) it was held^ Ihat before it coidd haye
any weight in rebutting a charge so eleariy made out, the jury must be pro^
perly satisfied that at Me time when the cxime Was committed, the prisoner
did not really know right f¥om wrong. He #a9 convicted. (CoOison 477.)
In the case of Rex ts; Bowler for shooting at a person and wounding hinif
tried at the Old Bailey on the 2d of July, 1812, (the defonce insanity,) Mr.'
Justice Le Blanc, after summing up the eridence, concluded by obsM-ring
to the jury, that it was for them to detenmne wheAer the prisoner, when he
committed the offence with which he stood charged, irtus capMe of dittin*
gmshing right from wrongs or under the infoience of any iSusion^ in respect*
to the prosecutor, which rendered his mind at lAe moment insensible of the
nature of the act he was about to commit Hei was cohyicted. (Coffisoa
678.)
In the case of Bellingham for the murder of Mr. PerclTsl, (the defence
insanity,) tried at the Old Baley, May 15, 1812, Mansfield, Chief Justice,
stated to the jury, ** That In order to support such a defonce, t^ ought to he^
proved by the most distinct and unquestionable evidence, (hat Ae prisoner was
ineeq>ai)le of Judging between right and wrong; that in fact d must he proved'
beyond all doubt, thai at the time he committed ^ atrocious act with which he
stood charged, he did not consider that murder was a crime againrt the laws
of God and nature ; and that (here w&s no other proof of insanity which
would excuse murder or any other crime. And that in the species of Iok
rtsdty in which the patient fancies t%e existence of injury, and seeks an op-
portunity of gratifying revenge by some hoetBe act, if such a perim be eapa*
ble in other respects of distinguishing right foom wrong, there i^odd be no
excuse for any axst of atrocity which he might conmiit utider Uds oetfcnptKNt
ofderangemetit* (C^UBson addenda 636.)
In Um case of Hadfield, for sbootiiig at tl|e king, tried in ike. coort of
King's Bench, in 1800, (defence insanity,) it was proved that he had beea
a private soldier in a Dn^;oon Begiment in 17^3 ; received many severe
wounds in the battle near Lisle, which caused partial derangement of mind,
and he had been dismissed from the army on accoont of insanity ; that
since hb return to his country he had been actually out of his mind from the
beginning of ^ring to the end of dog-days, and had been under confine-
ment as a lunatic. Acts of insanity were proved on the 11th, and on the
morning of the 15th of May, the day the murder was committed. On thfe
part of the crown it was proved that he sat in his place in the theatre
nearly three quarters of an hour before the king entered ; that at the mo-
ment when the audience rose, on his majesty's entering his box, he got op
above the rest, and presenting a pistol loaded with slugs, fired at the king^i
person and then let it drop. And when he fired his situation appeared fa-
vorable f(»r taking aim ; for he was standing on the second seat from the or-
chestra in the pit ; and he took a deliberate aim by looking down the barrel
as a man usually does when takipg aim. Lord Kenyon held, that as the
prisoner was deranged immediately before the offence was committed, it was
improbable he had recovered his senses in the interim ; and although, were
they to run into mcety^ proof might be demanded o£ his insanity at the pre-
cise moment when ^ oct was committed^ yet there being no reason for be-
lieving him to have been at that period a rational and accountable being, he
ought to be acquitted. (Collison 480.)
Such has been the law fi^r ages, sanctioned by the fifleen judges of Eng-
land as late as 1843, in answer to questions suggested by the trial of Mc-
Naughton, in which they say, << The jury ought in all cases to be told that
every man should be considered of sane mind until the contrary were deariy
proved in evidence; that before the plea of insanity should be allowed,
undoubted evidence ought to be adduced, that the accused was of diseased
mind, and that at the time he committed the act, he was not conscious of
right and wrong. This opinioa related to every case in which a party was
chaig^ with an illegal act and the plea of insanity was set up. Everypez^
■on was supposed to know what the law was, and, therefi>re, nothing could
justify A wrong act, except it was clearly j)n>ved that the par^ did not know
right from wrong." (Forensic Medicine, by Guy, 832.)
Gentlemen, I have thus alluded to the fixed and settled principles of law
incident to all criminal trials upon an issue like this; more fully perhaps,
than was necessaiy for the purposes of this case. If so, my apology is, that
my acquaintance with this cause, arising from the trial of the preliminaiy
issue, together with the cause of Wyatt which has just preceded it, in which
Uie same defence was interposed, has instructed me, that these established
maxims, which have fiat ages governed criminal trials in the country from
whish we have derived our laws, and which have been sanctioned and up-
held by our own tribunals, and which have thus far preserved society and
wnuAK VBHBtur. 17T
pomshed crime, are now uaghi to be orenniled; not bj learned judges,
not hj the sages of the legal profeBsion,^lmt by the new light of our learned
adyersaries, with the help of learned Doctors of Medicine, and speculatite
Ilieorists, upon the various and multifarioiis dirisioBSof insanity. When we
shall haye proved to yon the commission of this crime, and fixed the pri-
soner as the perpretator, instead of allowing you, as the law directs, to imply
that malice prompted it, you will be told by his learned counsel and his body
of learned doctors, that no motxyb has been proved fi^r the shedding of so
much blood, and that in the absence of such proof, yon are to regard the
horrid deed itself as the strongest evidence that it was the woik of a maniac.
Such doctrine, genUonen, has been inculcated in this court by the pri-
soner's counsel, and, it is fair to presume, will be advanced again upon the
present trial It is proper that I should caution yon against the adoption of
such heresy to the law. I can in no way better expose the fallaicy of such po-
sitions, than by quoting the language of a doctor of insanity, which will be
used by the prisoner's counsel, and the commentaries of an author upon
Medical Jurisprudence. The doctor says : " These acts are without motive.
They are in opposition to all human motives. A man murders his wife and
children, known to have been tenderly attached to them. A mother de-
stroys her inftnt" The commentator adds: "It is hereby assumed or
implied, that sane men never commit a crime without an apparent motive ;
and that an insane perKm never has a motive, or one of a delusive natore
only, in the perpetration of a criminal act If these pootioos were true, it
would be YBTj easy to distinguish a sane from an insane criminal; but the
rale wholly fails in practice. In tiie first place, the nonrdkcwery is here
taken as a proof of the non-^xistenee of a motivct while it is understood that
motiTes majr exist for many atrocious criminal acts, without our being able
to discover them ; a &ci proved by the numerous recorded oonfessions of
eriminals befi>re execution, in cases where, until these confessions had been
made, no motive for the perpetration of the crimes had appeared to the
acutert mind. It is clear, that if before inquiring into the perpetrai^on of ti
mvrder, the law were to search £ot motives, and rest the responsibility of an
ascused party upon the accidental discovery of what ought Ui be deemed
a reasonable motive, many most atrocious criminals would necessarily go
unpunished, and some lunatics be executed. Besides, if one accused person
is to derive benefit from an apparent absence of motive, there is no reas<m
why the same benefit should not be 'extended to all who are chaiged with
crimes. In the (iase of Courvoisier, who was convicted of the nsorder of
Lord William Russell, in June, 1840, b was the reliance upon this fallacious
criterion before the secret prooft of guilt accidentally came out, that led
many to believe he could not have comikdtted the crime ; and the ^ absence
of motive" was urged by his counsel as the strongest proof of the man's inno-
cence. It was ingeniously contended * that the most trifling action of human
life had its spring from some .motive or other.' This is undoubtedly tme,
12
178 in»tiiAi..af
bnt it 18 not alirays in the power of a man untttnted widi crime, to deted
and unravel the motives whkh iaiflnence oriminak in the perpetration of
murder. No reaacmaUe motive was ever discovered for the atrocious mur-
ders and mutiktions perpetrated bj Greenaere and Good. Yet these i>erBoiii
were very properiy made responsible for their crimes. On the trisl of
Francis, for shooting at the Queen, the main ground of defence was, that
the prisoner had no modve for the act, and therefore was irresponsible ; bat
he was convicted. It is difficult to comprehend under what circumstances
any motive for such an act as this could exist ; and therefore the admisaon
of fich a defence would have been like laying down the rule, that the evi-
dence of the perpetration of so heinous a crime should in all cases be taken
as proof of irresponsibility 1
** Crimes have been soni^times committed without any apparent motive by
sane individuals, who were at the time perfectly aware of the criminality of
their conduct. No mark of insanity or delusion could be discovered aboat
(Jiem, and they had nothing to say in their defence. They have been very
properly held responsible. On the other hand, lunatics, confined in a luna-
tic a^lum, have been known to be inflnenced by motives in the perpetration
of crimes. Thus they have often murdered their keepers out of revenge for
ill treatment which they had experienced at their hands. See the case of
the Queen vs. Farmer, York Spring Assizes, 1S37. This man was acquitted
as insane, while the clear motive for the homicide was revenge and iK feel-
ing.** (Taylor's Med> Jurisprudence, 510.)
Thus you see, gentlemen, that this is not the first time that such fallacies
have been ui|i^ in a conrt of jnstice. Yet, notwithstanding their exposure,
they are to be here urged again upon you and upon this court — ^with what
effect, your own good sense must ultimately determine. I may add, that if
such fallaeiea shaU obtain with jurors, we may bid adieu to al> hopes of pun-
ishing the atrocious crane of murder, until some new discoveries in science
shall enable liie learned doctors to enter the nmrderer's heart or analyse
his mind, and discover the influeoces by which it is operated.
Gentlemen, yon are to receive lessons upon the subject of insanity, in ths
ooorse of this prisoner's defence, which doubtless will appear to you, as they
hftve appeared to us, not only as strange innovations upon the law, but which
expose the rii^ular vagaries of the human mind — lessons which, if fully
in&bibed and thoroughly established, would not only acquit this prisoner of
hb present crimes, and pardon him for his past offences, but which would
open your prison doors to their present inmates, and close them against
future culprits. Witnesses, learned witnesses, in behalf of this prisoner, will
swear that crime itself, where no mo^ve can be diiicovered, is an invariable
'* symptom" of insanity. You will by them^ with the aid of the prisoner's
oounsel, be instructed in the various classificaftions ami divisions that science,
upon a careAil analysis^ has made of mania. You will learn the complicated
character of the disease with winch this distinguished patient is afflicted, and
wiLUAir jauHDOM. 179
tbe different types it has aoBumed dufiog his career of erime. You will
learn that he was first afflicted with what his scientific witnesses denooiinatB
CLBPTOMAiYiA, a madncss that induced stealing, and which, hj its strange
infatuation, carried him in a regular gradation of crime from the hen-roost to
the peddler's cart, and thence to the hone stable, and which could only be
relieved by & prescription from a court of justice, which fi>r five years reduced
his circulation by confinement withui the walls of a State Prison.
During this period it will be claimed far him that he underwent a change ;
not only a physical and mental, but a maniacal change ; that while laboring
fbr the State and brooding over his misibrtunes, or his faults, he not only
received an injury upon his head which, affected his brain, but that he con-
tracted a strange " delxman^ which he brought from the prison, that he was
entitled to pay for his five years* services, and hence became a " monomaniac"
upon the subject of his pay ; that^ failing to obtain payment at the office of
the prison agent, the delusion carried him to justices' ofilces £ar warrants to
prosecute the person whose property he bad stolen, and who caused his imr
prisonment.
This fbnn of his disease increased with his disappointment, until it armed
him with the instruments of death, and led him to the destruction of one of
the most respected and beloved families in community. This family sUm^
ter is made the evidence that the prisoner's disease assumed another ^ype,
and he became a homocidaz. monohaniac.
Grentlemen, you would naturally here suppose that be had idready evinced
insanity enough, upon the theory of his counsel, to excuae a doien culprits.
But his apobgutB will not stop here. Shortly after he was lodged in jail
upon the charge contained in\he indictment, it was discovered by those who
deefrfy sympathised. with the prisoner in his misfortunes, that ]>SM«iitiA,
the very last and fittal stage of insanity, the olimaz and ultimatum of all tha
varied forms of mania, had commenced its ravages upon his miserable sys-
tem. Such, gentlemen, is an outline of the theory with which they will
attempt to connect the history and crimes of this prisoner. I shall not attempt
to detail to you the evidence with which (hey will attempt to fill up this
sketch. It will be sufficient here that I glance hastily at the prominent
fiMtures of it, and refer briefly to the evidence by which we shall atteoipt to
rebut ^eir ingenious theory, and hold this distinguished culprit responaiblft
for the blood of our esteemed citiaeas, in which he has so deeply imbrued hie
First, they will attempt to show that there was something ringojar in the
change he underwent from the age of seventeen to twenty*two. Gend^
men, you have doubtless been sufficiently close observers of mankind to hav«
learned that the natural vivacity ofthe ftoy is lost in the more staid and sober
habits of the men. And when you add to this, the ftct that the prison con]
vict is cut off firom society and social intercourse, you wiH naturally iafyg
that he might lose a portion of his social qualities. If, therelbre, the pii*
180 WKM m4L Of
goner nnderweat a change during the period of hit fiv« fern' confinement, and
at a time of life when a change takes plaoe in every mortal, your own good
sense, in the absence of all proof, would enable you to determine whether
such change was natural or unnatoraL But, in addition to this, we shsll
diow yon by witnesses who hare known him from eariy boyhood, that time
hss effected no change in him beyond the change that under like circum-
stances is common to his spedes.
Again, they will attempt to show yon, that while in prison he receired an
injury upon his head that resulted in deafkess, and may have terminated in
a disorder of the brain. In answer to this, we shall prove to you that his
deafness preceded the blow upon the head ; 4hat that blow was called upon
himself by disobedience or an insurrectionary movement, and was inflicted
in a manner that could have resulted in no essential injury.
The notion he entertsined that he was entitled to pay for his services, we
have once shown, by a former chaplain of the prison, and shall again if we
shall be able to obtain his attendance, instead of being an ^ msarie delusion,"
was a notion somewhat common to the ignorant inmates of that institution.
I have already commented upon the fallacy of attempting to fathom the
motives of a criminal for the perpetration of a murder. But we shall prove
tliat the prisoner, when a boy, shortly before he was sentenced to State Pri-
son, resided upon the premises where these murders were committed, and
in a log hut a few feet from the dwelling of the deceased ; that he was ac-
quainted widi the family and mnst have known them to possess a d^ree of
affluence } that he was at the house about a week prerious to the fatal deed ;
and shall submit it to you to determine whether his object was plunder, or
whether he took refuge in some fancied wrong, and sallied forth with ample
preparations to seek revenge upon society. It matters not what may have
been his motive, nor whether we discover any ; for if, in the Unguage of the
law I have read to you, ''he had sufficient capacity to form a design and
know its consequences," the law holds him responsible for his crimes, and no
fancied injury can shield him from its consequences.
Gentlemen of the jury, after the coutisel fbr the prisoner shall have collected
all the trifling circumstances fWim wluch an inference might be drawn that
he has been afflicted with, or predisposed to, any of the forms of mania, men
of science, and I doubt not of «kfll, wiR be called from the Insane Asylum
and other institutions of learning, who have visited and conversed wi^ the
prisoner in his cell, and introduced to, prove him in a state of absolute and
irrecoverable dementia. Gentlemen, I hope X do not undervalue learning,
nor wonld I depreciate in your estimation the value of science, and of skill,
and of experience, in determining the true character of any <fisease that those
attainments can discover. But in view of what has transpired in this court,
and of what ire have every reason to apprehend may again occur upon this'
trial, I do feel called upon to caution you against ' receiving the dogmas of
men, learned or unlearned, in viohition of the {>lain prineiples of common
WILIIAM FBBBEAir. 181
sense. How many patients, ibink jo% are there inthin the ptJL% of our
lunatic asylums, whose insanity was not discoYered before tfaeir keepers
knew them ? Insanity, unless occasioned by some sudden injury, is generally^
if not always preceded by some marked change, altering the habits or eon-
duct of the patient, and which alteration is as readily discorered by a man
of ordinary astuteness and sense as by ihe man of extensive learning, and
more likely to be first discovered by the most intimate fiiends and acquain-
tances of the diseased. I am willing to concede, that science and skill, with
the aid of experience, often trace out the causes of disease, and alleviate the
sufferer. But I am unwilling to concede that vast learning is neeessary in
detecting the mental aberrations of our intimate acquaintances. Who that
has ever watched by the side of a friend afflicted with occasional delirium,
but has discovered the first wanderings of mind ? Think not, gentlemen,
that I desire to prejudice your minds against the learned men who will be
called in to aid tills defence. I am sure that I respect them, and believe
that I fully appreciate their merits and their skill. All I desire is, that the
LAW shall be upheld ; not only the law that defines and affixes a penalty to
crime, but the law that governs the testimony of experts. The law allows no
witness, skilled in science or in art, to give an opinion, without at the same
time requiring him to give the reasons upon which that opinion is founded.
Why is this ? It is to guard against empirics^ and to test the value of opin-
ions, by subjecting the facts upon which they are based to the analysis of
juror^s judgments. Hence I say, gentlemen, should any medical witness
give an opinion, which may not be well founded upon the facts from which
he derives it, it will become your duty to look carefully at the facts, and
determine for yourselves his knowledge, or his empiricism, according to the
merits of his opinion. I doubt not that my respect for medical witnesses
upon a trial like this, n full as great as that of our adversaries. It is natural
that we should all respect most those opinions that concur with ours. I am
ftee to acknowledge, that I have very littie regard for that opinion, that
science, or that skill, or whatever you may please to call it, which makes a
particular crime a ^ symptom" of a particular mania—or any crime more a
^ symptom" of insanity than of depravity. In what I have already said, I
trust you will have discovered the faUacy of such positions.
We are all aware that in phynology different theories have fbllowed each
other in rapid succession ; and we know not, from the doctrines of the
schools to-day, what they may be to-morrow. And whatever they are now,
liable as they are to fluctuate, we cannot be too cautious in incorporating
them into the law of the land.
The different conclusions at which witnesses have arrived, and the differ-
ent opinions they will express with regard to the mental capacity and intd-
lectual soundness of the prisoner, you will ascertain from their testimony, are
the results of the different modes of testing it One thinks that the prisoner
supposes he can read, but finding he cannot, makes this inability evidence
182 «n «UA& Of
of insanil^. If all aro insane who know leM, or who can do lees than they
had supposed, who cottld number the cracj ? Another, in conTernng with
him, askt} him who Grod is* He answers^ a Being above. He asks fur-
ther, " What is he like T* He answers, or the <* best he could gather from
his answer was" that he is " like a man ;" and from this dialogue he thinks
him crajE7 or an idiot If this is a true test, shall we pronounce all who look
upward in their addresses to the Deity, and all who believe that " man was
created in the image of his Maker," insane ? If this learned catechiser, when
upon the stand, shall fail to give a better definition of the Deity, we trost
you wUl not pronounce him instoe.
Such are some of the tests that have been applied by the prisoner's wit-
nesses to ascertam his sanity, and from such results they call him a fool;
while others have thought the best way to test his knowledge, was by obser-
ving him in his daily life and different vocations, noting his actions, and his
capacity to perform different kinds of labor with success, and by conversing
with him upon subjects upon which he may fairly be supposed, from his
condition in life and from the manner in which he was raised, to have some
knowledge.
In answer to all that may be adduced in the prisoner's behalf, with a view
to show that he is a demented being, we shall prove to you that his memory
is such that he readily recalls to mind all the occurrences of his life. We
9hall test the aceui^y of his recollecftion by those who have been familiar
with his histoiy. We will prove that he antwers readily all questions that
he is made to understand, in relation to sfibjects of which he has acquired
any knowledge; that his lodes, appearance and actions are, as*near as may
be in any individual, what they were before he entered the State Prison;
that his atdtude and the expression of his countenance are the same, and
both hereditary ; that hb health has been, and still is, good ; that his appetite
is good ; that no change is discoverable, either mentally or phjrsically, by
those who were best acquainted with him ; that his moroseness is natural to
him, and, yon will observe, is a trait in the natural character of his maternal
ancestry ; that in the concealment of his instruments of death, he manifested
a criminal intent; that in their preparation, and in the execution of his de-
ngn, he manifested sagacity, judgment, will, and all the common attributes
of mind ; thai in the time he chose fbr the perpetration of his crime, and in
his flight, he sought concealment, and manifested what he subsequently con-
fessed, a consciousness of the wrong he had committed. We will prove by
medical men, some of whom have known him firom boyhood, that they dis-
cover in him no change, uncommon to others, in passing along with the same
period of time, and nothing that indicates insanity in any of its forms. And
upon such proof, aided by scienoe, and by sense, we shall rely for a convic-
tion of the prisoner.
In opposition to all this, you will be told, by witnesses who have never
known him till since the (Commencement of the present tenn of this court,
and who haye attempted te co&Tene with this unletteied and ignoramt ne-
^ i^ion theology, physiobgy, moral philosophy, and those higher branches
thai pertain more appropriately to the schools than the cell or the cabin,-
that, in their jodgments, be is in such a state of dementia as to be uncon-
scious of the commission of a crime. They are willing to bdieve the pii-
soner honeit in all he says, save in the confession that his murderous deeds
were wrong.
I have hinted, gentlemen, at the prominent features of the ease sufficiently
for you to undenAand and appreciate the evidence to be adduced. I should
say no more but for what has fiiUen fixm the prisoner's counael during the
progress of empanneling this juiy. They haye innsted that a fair and in4MU>
tial trial cannot be had in this coutity ; that the public mind is so enraged
at the prisoner's horrid crimes, that the good sense and sober judgment of
ou^ citizens are paralysed. And to illustrate this assumed position!^ and as
if to censure the court and the proaeeution^ in a reasonable ^fibit to obtain
a jury, upon the trial of the simple qoe^on of a juror^s indifference, they
have stepped amde to portray in fancied colors, the excitement of the public
upon the arrest of their offending ^ent
Gentlemen, I am wiUing to concede that some excitement, yea, even that
great excitement did exist Nor am I certain that I would like a reaidenoe
in the commoaity, if such an one there is, that would not manifest excite-
ment, eviea great excitement, when four cold-blooded murders ave perpeir**
ted in its yery heart 1 The society that has been robbed in numbers of its
brightest ornaments; the neighborhood called to mourn over the lifeless bo-
dies of its most beloved family, with every corse exhibiting the marks of the
assanin's knife, that woohl not be excited, must be bereft of all sympathy,
and of the common feelings of humanity.
Yes, gentlemen, ih» public was excited 1 Society was convulsed I ^ But
that excitement has subsided, and wak into a quiet grief that still lives, and'
must long live, to wet with its tears the turf now growing upon the common
grave of a venerated mother, a kind husband, an affectionate wife, and a
lovely child, whose corses are now nungling with the sepulchral ashes of the
dead.
While you are called upon to perfbnn the most solemn duty of your lives,
I will not ask you to forget the dead, whose virtues daily call up the ten-
derest emotions of the living, for I should be asking more than any one
who may sit in judgment upon the offender can do. I cannot ask you to Iot'
get considerations that are due to society and to humanity. But, gentlemen,
if any of you shall have imbibed prejudices against the prisoner, I ddl on
you rei^iectively to eradicate them now. If you have any wone leelinp
than of pity and compassion for this misereble culprit, and if you have any
desire but to arrive at the truth in the investigation of this chaige, I call on
you, for his sake and for yours, for the sake of justice to him and to your-
selves, justice both tei^>oral and eternal, to drive them from your minds.
184 ram nuh ov
The people do oot aeek the blood of the innocent ; pnblie jnatice does not
demand it ; nor shall you, with the consent of the prosecntion, become the
insfcroments of shedding it No ; and notwithstanding the public excitement
to which ooansel haye so often alluded, and which has doubtless existed to a
great extent, I am more ready to hc^, and more willing to believe, that yon
Will acquit than convict the prisoner, unless his ccmviction, in view of all the
facts, shall be required by impartial justice and the stem demands of law.
Gentlemen, much has been said by the prisoner's counsel, not only on the
motion to postpone the trial, but during the investigations to ascertain the
indifference of jurors, about the verdict of the jury upon the trial of the pre-
liminary issue. The jury who rendered that verdict, and the court that re-
ceived it, have both been arraigned by his counsel, and in your presence
have received his censure. This, gentlemen, I regret I can readily over-
look, and forget, and forgive all that has been said and hinted against the
prosecution. Whatever has fsUen from counsel that savored of severity or
unkindnesB, has been regarded as the ebullition of uncommon aeal, wanned
into being by a cause of unusual magnitude, and has fallen hannless at our
feet But so far as the integrity of the jury that rendered that verdict, and
the impartiality of the court that received it, have been questioned by the
counsel, I deeply regret his course. I hanre referred to the law that governs
the court when the plea of insanity is interposed preliminary to a trial upon
an indictment There is no pardcnlar manner in which the court is bound
to test the question. It is sufficient that the court, in any of the modes pre-
scribed, satisfies itMlf of the prisoner's present sanity. In this case the mode
was tsken deemed most advisable by the court, and which was the choice of
the prisoner's counseL The result of that trials patiently and impartially
conducted for two weeks, satisfied the conrt that the accused was in a suita-
ble con<£tion to be tried for his offence. With that the counsel should have
been content We claim not fbr that verdiet that it should influence you in
the one you are to render. We claim for it no merit but that of deter-
mining that the prisoner is in a suitable condition to be tried i^n the indict-
ment prefeired against him.
Gentlemen, I have warned yon against the indulgence of prejudice to-
wards the prisoner. I have no fears that any lliing counsel may have sud
has created any against the court or the prosecution.
I have now said aU that I deem necessary, upon the introduction of the
cause, against the prisoner at the bar. While I have much more upon my
brief of what I had noted during the progress of what has here occurred in
regard to it, I will save your tame by withholding it, and not exhanst the
patience you will be required to exercise in the future progress of the trial
And, in concludon, I have only to add, that when you shall have heard the
evidence, the comments of counsel who are to fi>llow the witnesses, and the
charge of the court, from whom yon are to receive the law, yon will render
such a verdict as your judgments shall direct, and yonr consciences iq[>pTOve.
M5
Dr. Jossfh T. Pitrct was then called and sworn, and on being interro-
gated by oounoel, testified as follows : I am a physician and surgeon, and re-
side in the village of Anbum. On the night of the twelfth of March I was
called to visit the house of John G. Van Nest, in Fleming, about three miles
south of this village, where, it was said, murders had been committed by
some person then unknown* I arrived there a little after midnight, and
found John 6. Van Nest, Mrs. Van Nest, and a little boy, said to be their
son, lying dead in the house. I also found a man by the name of Van
Arsdale there, wounded, and Mrs. Wyckoff, the mother of Mrs. Van Nest, at
Mrs. Brooks' near by, also wounded. The body of Van Nest lay upon the
kitchen floor, that of his wife, on a bed in the north-west part of the house,
and that of the boy on a bed. in the dining room. Van Arsdale was lying
upon a bed in a room said to have been occupied by Mrs. Wyckoff, wound-
ed, yet living. 1^ wound appeared to have been inflicted with a knife,
which had cut the cartilages of the ribs, and entered the left lobe of the
lungs, just above the heart Mrs. Van Nest had also been stabbed in the
sto^nach, in the left side and above the umbilical region. She was enciente
at the time. The boy was wounded through the left side of the abdomen.
The wound was deep and the intestines badly cut Van Nest had also been
stabbed, and his wounds, as well as those of the other persons, indicated that
they had been inflicted with a knife.
After looking at the wounds on the bodies of Van Nest, his wife, and
child, I attended to Yan Arsdale, whose wound was bleeding profusely.
From indications, some two or three quarts of blood had already escaped,
and he was rery faint After prescribing for him and dresring his wound,
I proceeded to the house where Mrs. Wyckoff was. I found her lying on
a bed widi a severe wound in the left side, and of the lower part of the
abdomen. From this wound some portion of the intestines were protruding.
She had not bled mucL I examined her, but found no wound in the pro-
truding intestine, but fh>m the symptoms which followed I have no doubt
that some of the intes^es were wounded. Violent inflammation ensued,
and she died on the Saturday following. The 'affair at Van Nesfs occurred
on Thursdi^ night I attended there again on Saturday, when, at request,
'I made a post mortem examination of John 6. Van Nest, by opening his
chest I found an exact correspondence with the external wound, in the
right cavity of the heart The external wound was in the left side of the
breast bone, between the fourth and fifth ribs ih>m the top. The wound
was from one to one and a half inches in breadth, and from three to four
inches in deptL I found no other wound on his body. The wound de*
scribed was suflkient to have caused his death, and I am ftiUy satisfied that
his death resulted from it Such a wound could not have resulted other-
wise. He could not have lived many seconds after having redeived such a
wound, and I doubt whether Van Nest breathed three times after the knife
reached his heart He must have expired instantly. The blade exhibited
186 Sra TKAL •v
may have caused the wound. From the ^)pearaiio6 of the iraand I should
say that it might well have been inflicted with such a knile. .
.Cross Examination. The direction of the wound was oblique, noi per-
pepdicular nor horizontal. I made the examination about two o'clock on
Saturday. I was examined before the coroner's jury, called at the ^e. I
did not count the ribs, but should think the wound was between the fourtk
and fifUi ribs, counting downward from the upper one. The wound on the
child extended from the left side in front, entirely through his body, and
eame out on the left side behind, dividing several portions of the intestinea
I examined the body of John G. Van Nest immediately afUr I arrived at the
house. He was lying upon tlie floor near the kitchen door. I do not recol-
lect now how he was dressed in all respects, yet I think he had on linen, a
vest and pants, but no coat I did not examine his pockets tiien, so as Iq
know whether they contained any thing or had been rifled. There was a
hole in his clothing, indicating that the knife had passed through it^
When I made the post mortem examination on the body, I took from his
pocket a wallet which contained about nineteen doUars, I think, U^ther
with some silver coin. I Uxk from hb pocket a watch, also, and handed it,
with the wallet, to the coroner. I think the wallet also contmned several
small p^>ers. They did not appear to have been disturbed. I do not rs-
oollect of any other occurrence at the house of Van Nest, that it is impmiSBt
to mendon here.
BoBBRT Simpson was next called by the district attorney, and afler be-
ing sworn, testified : I am a turner and chairmaker, ajid reside in Auburn,
and have a shop near the Auburn and Owasco canal dam. A daj or two
before the murder of Van Nest, the prisoner came to my shop and wanted
me to grind a knife for him. He presented the knife to me. I replied that
I had not time to grind it for him, and handed it back to him. He hesitated
a momenty and then said he wished I would grind it. I told him I had not
time to do it fbr him, but would put the belt on the wheel so that he oouM
grind it himself I then set the grind-stone in motwn, and he gxxMind it him-
self. (The district attorney here exhibited a knife, the blade of which had
been brokeik) The knife produced is the same one that he ground at
my shop, as I noticed it there after it had been ground. After grinding he
rubbed it upon an oil stone, then laid it down and turned his back to me, put
his hand in his pocket, took out U&ree cents and laid them on the work^bench,
and went out I recognise the handle of die knife as one which I turned
oat for Geoiige W. Hyatt, a Uacksmith. The next morning, whilst I was
standing at my lathe, the prisoner came into my shop and spoke to me, but
I did not understand him. He then had a large hickory club in his hand.
I think this was on the morning of the murder, or the day before. When he
spoke to me I turned round towards him snd told him that I didn"t under-
stand him. He passed to the work-bench at the opposite side of the shop,
Uxk up a brace and bit, and held it up. I nodded assent that ho might use
WKLUUf UBCAN. 187
it He put iJie cl«b in die vise and went to boring in the end of it After
boring some minutes he tinrned to do something which I took to be to fit
something, which I could not sed, into it When he was using the bit his
Aide was towards me, bat when he seemed to be fitting something into the
end of the club, his back waa towards me, and I could not see what he was
fitting into it When done he took the club and went out Abont twentj
or thirtj minntes afterwards he came back and asked me if I had a larger
bit I wiant to a tool-chest and got him a larger one, with which be went to
boring soon after at the rise. After working there awhile he went out of
my shop, and I saw no more of it until after the murders, when it was brought
to me. On seeing it then, I recogniaed the knife.
Cross Examination. My slu^ is on the Owasco creek, above the riW
lage of Auburn, and, perhaps, sixty or one hundred rods from the dwelling
of Mary Ann Newark. I had seen the prisoner frequently pass back and
fi>rth, but cannot tell how long before ihe murders. I know him as I know
other colored pe<^le. I had nodced the peculiarity of his posture in respect
to the hanging down of his head. I noticed that at my shop. When h»
spoke to me, he turned up his eyes but did not raise hia head but little, if any.
I never saw him doing any kind <xf work whatever, only standing around
or pasong by. I never saw him chopping wood. I never saw him in any
•mnsement I saw him when he came into the shop, but he didn't then
speak to me. He asked another person for the man of the nhap. Had n
knifb in his hand which I saw when he came in. When he asked me to
grind it he turned the handle towards me. He raised his eyes and came
l^retty close to me and spoke low. He said, " will you grind my knife ?" I
took it, saw that it had been ground some, and told him I hadn't time. He
then said, " I wish you would grind it," He seemed to hear what I said to
him. I told him I had not time to grind it, but would put the belt on and
he might grind it himself. I put on the belt and he went to grinding it
Nothing more was said then. He was some time engaged in grinding, pro-
bably from one half to three quarters of an hour. When he spoke to me
first about it, he wanted it ground edging on both sides. After grinding he
used the oil stone, laid down three cents and went out without saying any
thing more. When he came in the next morning he advanced towards the
hfhe where I was at woric. I could hear a sound bat could not understand
him. I did not bow, shake hands with him, or cdl him l^ name. When
he spoke I turned and told him I didn't understand him. I noticed that he
held his head down. He went across the shop and took up a braca and bit,
held it up, I nodded assent and he went to using it I saw no knife that day.
He had the club, which he put into the vise, and I cannot say that he had
any thing, yet he seemed to have something that he was trying to fit into it^
from the motions which he made. He neither paid, nor offered to pay any
money that day. From thkt time, I did not see him ag^ until I saw him
in court John G. Van Nest lived abont three miles from my shop. I can«
188 9BMrBXkh4^9
not tell whether he walked fast or dow ; think hit gait was Ofrdinaiy. He
did not take off his cap. I observed him ckMety enough to recognize him,
and I have no doubt that the prisoner is the man.
Db. Samitkl Gillhobe was next called, and being sworn, testified : I
am a physician and surgeon by profession, and rende in Fleming. I assis-
ted Doctor Pitney in the post mortem examination about which he testified.
I saw the wound, and but one wound in the body of John G. Van Nest, and
that was on the left side, between the third and fourth ribs, I thi^k. It di-
vided the cartilages of the fourth rib. The wound proceeded inward,
pierced the pericardium, and entered the right yentricle or cavity of his heart
The depth of the wound was about four inches, and was inflicted with a
sharp cutting instrmnent The external wound corresponded in size with the
blade of the knife now presented by the district attorney. I am satisfied that
the wound described, caused the death of Van Nest, and that he must have
expired almost instantaneously. When I saw him, he was lying on his back
in the kitchen of his house. The locality of the external wound was two or
two and a half inches on the left of the navel. The direction of the wound
as it was pursued inward, went from the left to the right a little, wounding
the mesentery and the liver in the inferior part We found three or four
quarts of blood in the abdomen. It was about ten o'clock when I got there*
Cboss Ezamikatiok. The body of John G. Van Nest was lying from
five to seven feet from the steps. He had his pantaloons, vest, and, I shouM
think, his roundabout on. There was a wound in the vest and t&e shirt,
which was bloody, yet the effusion was slight The body was placed on a
table, where we made the examination. A part of his clothes were removed.
In the pockets we found a waUet, containing about nineteen dollars in bills,
with some small pieces of silver coin, a pen*knife and some keys ; also a sil-
ver watch. The prisoner was not there on Friday, and on Saturday I was
not there. I never saw the prisoner until he had been lodged in the jail.
Geobge W. Hyatt, called and sworn, testified : I am a blacksmith, and
manufactured the knife which is now presented me by the district attorney.
I sold it to the prisoner on Monday preceding the murders. The young
man who worked for me told me that the prisoner, who had c<Mne into the
shop, wanted a knife. I went to my desk where I kept blades ready made,
and showed him four or five knives. He selected one, and enquired the
price of it I told him the price was two and sixpence, or three shillings.
He asked me if I could afford it, or would let him have it, for one and six-
pence. I told him I couldn't afford it for that I, however, told him he
might have it for that price. There was very little said. He said he wanted
a handle put on. I put one on. I think I showed him this handle, and
asked if it would answer. He said it would. I then put it on. I think
something was said sbout a ferrule. I told him it wouldn't split without one.
He wanted I should grind it I then went to the grind-stone. He turned
the grind-stone and I held the knife. After grinding it I gave hun the
mwum nanuN. li^
knife, bat he groand it more f<Mr himself. He cddn't stale how be wanted it
gzound. I' ground it to an edge. It was not ground on the back when I
got through. The knife was made of a file. He went away and returned
in one or two hours. He first came at nine Or ten in the morning ; he came
before twelve the second time. He had a large jack-knife, with the blade
out, and wanted me to put the blade into it He asked me what I would
ehai^ him to put in the riyet I told him sixpence. He said something
about my doing it for three cents. I tokl him I would make the rivet, and
asked him if he couldn't put it in hhnself, and he said he could. . I made the
rivet ; I might have put it in ; he finished it I might have riveted it some
myself. He paid me a sixpence and I gave him three cents back. He then
went away. I noticed that he was hard of hearing. I was told that he was
in the first place, and I discovered it in talking with him. I saw him in the
street afterwards. I had to talk quite bud in order to make him hear. I
had to use considerable exertion of voice. I had to hold my head dose to
him. . I spoke louder than Mr. Sherwood docs now to naake him hear. I
don't recollect what kind of coat he had on ; don't recollect whether he had
whiskers on or not The first time, he was in the shop about half an hour;
about the same length of time the second time he came. I saw him in jail
three or four weeks after he was put in. I asked him if he knew me, but he
made no answer. I beckoned to him. He leaned forward and said he
couldn't hear ; he was deaf. When I asked if he knew me I spoke louder
than I did at the shop. When he leaned fi>rward he was three or four feet
from me. I spoke the second time about as loud as I could ; he made the
same reply. I have related all the conversation I recollect at the shop. He
gave me two shillings and I gave lum sixpence back.
Cross ExAMiNATioir. — ^I have lived in Auburn since November last I
saver saw Freeman until he came to my shop. Never heard of him. I
work in the back part of the shop. I was informed by David Hamden that
Freeman wanted a kn^e. I call the kmfe a butcher knife. Don't know as
I saw Freeman come in at the doer. Don't recollect of his speaking ta
Hamden. Freeman came up to me. He did not call me by name. I
showed the knives before he spoke to me. He carried his head rather down,
aa it is in court here. When I spd^e he inclined his ear to me to hear. He
seemed to work at the riveting as though he had some experience. I had
been told by Mr. Doud that he worked at the blacksmith's trade in prison.
X didn't notice how he did his worL Have thought of the ferrule since I
swore here before. Can't recollect particularly what was said about it Was
pretty close to him when I talked to him ; within a foot some of the time.
Think I saw him have more change than he paid me. Saw no bills. He
had nothing with him when he came. I think he went off with the knife in
his open hand. Doud said Freeman had been in the shop a number of times
to hire out The knife was a li^rge jack-knife, with one blade. I think he
put it in his pocket ^ould think it was rather dull. Can't say whether.
190 nn haal o#
he talked with Harnden. He took the nxpence from his pocket. I saw no
more money then. Am not certain where he pat the jack-knife. He made
no salutation when he went oat In the jail he was chained in the back part
of the cell, when I saw Um. He leaned forward a« if trjring to come to me.
He gave me no salutatioa. He said, I can't hear ; or, I am deaf. BGs head
was downcast, then. I thought his appearance was different in jail from
what it was before. There seemed to be no inclination, on his part, to no-
tiee any one. He had his eye in one direction. When he stepped back, he
didn't look at me. At one time, I think) he eame within four feet of me.
When I spoke loud at the shop, he heard me. In the jail, his hand was in
a sling. He held his head and eyes down, in jaiL He carried hia head tUbtxA
the same in the shop. I have no recollection of his looking up. It is my
impression he turned his eyes up, without raising his head. I have no doabt
Ais is the man thai bought the knife of me.
Joseph Morbis, caUed and sworn, testified : I reside on Senoinaiy
Avenue, in Auburn. I am a blacksmith. Have seen the prisoner. Saw
him first at my shop, about a week before the murder. He came in there on
Thursday, and asked me if I would make him a knife. I asked what kind
of a knife. He picked up a piece of iron and scribed out what he wanted.
I supposed he wanted a knifo to stick hogs, sharp on both edges. I asked
him if he wanted a knife to stick hogs ; he said that was not the kind. I
told him he had better whittle out a pattern of the knifo he wanted. I looked
for a bit of soft wood. I told him to go to the carpentei^s and get a piece.
He said he would go and whittle out a pattern. He went, and was gone
fifteen or twenty minutes, and returned with one. The stick produced is
the pattern he brought He asked what I should charge him to make such
a knife. I first asked him what kind of steel he wanted it made of. He
asked what I would charge to make it out of good cast steel? I told him
four shillings. He said I could afford to make it for two shillings. I told
him I could not He staid about an hour. He finally said he would give
four shillings, if I would grind it and put a handle to it I told him I wouldn't
do it He staid some time. Went off and left the pattern there. I sakl to
him, " What do you want to do with the knife ?^ He said nothing. I said,
'* You want to kill somebody, don't you V He said, " It is none of your
business, so long as you get your pay for it" That is about all the conver-
sation. The conversation was all had at the tame ^ne. He came back to
my shop the next Saturday. I had no conversation with him. I don't think
he talked to my boys then.
Cross Examination. — ^I have lived in Auburn sixteen or seventeen
years. Don't recollect ever seeing him before. My boys told me he nsed
to live with Mr. Cadwell ; but when that was said, it didn't call him to my
recoUecttoB. He had on a roundabout when I saw him. He kept his head
about as he does Bow-<-down. He cast hb eye up. He carried his head
about as he did in the streets. I saw him in the streets before, but didn't
wiiAiAJf nwmuLN. 191
know his name. I saw him a rfiort time before he came to my shop. He
carried his head down more than persons CMrdinarily do. I don't recollect as
be held his head close to me. One of my boys told me he was deaf, and I
must speak loud to him. I talked louder to him than ordinarily. I scribed
out a sticking knife. He said that was not the kind he wanted. I asked if
he wanted a knife to stick hogs. He replied, No. When he went away he
handed me the pattern. I laid it up on the forge. It was taken away the
day after the murder. I asked if he wanted it made of good cast steeL
He said, Yes. I said to Thomas, " I guess this negro is going to kill some*
body." There was no other conversation while he was in the shop. He
said he would give me four shiiUngs to make and grind the knife. I tdd
him it would be more trouble to grind it than to forge it He didn't call me
by name. I had no conversation with him the second time. I asked Smith
who the negro waa. He said he didn't know. My shop ia near Genesee
street The street on which my shop is runs up to the Theological Seminary.
I think likely I spoke to Smith about his fetching the pattern to me. I don't
recoUect the words. I have thou^t a good deal about seeing the negro about
there.
Joseph W. Qtjixct called and sworn, testified : I live on Genesee street
Am a barber. Am partially acquainted with Freeman. I saw him the same
week of the murder. He came to my shop and wanted his whiskers shaved
off. I told him I didn't shave colored people. He had a Webster coat on,
of a brownish oobr, and a cap. It was between eight and nine in the
evening.
Cross Examuvation. — ^I knew him in November last Saw him in the
street I asked one of my men who he was. I saw hun almost every day
passing by my shop. I have seen him sawing wood. I never talked witb
him except that time in the shop. He was in my shop about two weeks
before. I met him coming out as I went into the shc^. He didn't speak.
He had a stooping, downcast look. He carried his head down. That made
me observe him. He didn't appear to notice me when I told bam I couldn't
shave him, until I spoke quite loud. He stood in the middle of the floor and
asked me to shave him. When I told him the second time I couldn't shave
him, he turned and went out of the shop. I saw him in the jail and spoke
to him. He didn*t appear to hear me. I didn't go into his cell. He was
standing in the back part of it, and appeared then as he looks now— ^his head
bent forward and down, as usual. He didn't speak to me when I came up.
I asked him if he knew me. He made no reply. I spoke twice, and louder
the last time, but he said nothing. He looked up. Since then, I have not
seen him, only in court. He was not in my shop more than three minuted.
He had a little hair under his chin, and hair on his upper hp. I should
think he could have heard in the same tone of voice I spoke in at the shop^
Pbteb W. Williamson, called and sworn, testified : I resided in Flem-
ing at the time of the mnrden spoken of; a mile and a quarter, or half, fttmi
192 m nuh ov
Van Nesf s. I speut the eyening at Tan Nest's the night of the murder.
Yan Nest, his wife, three children, Mrs. Wjrckoff, Helen Hdmes, and Ysn
Arsdale, constitated the -family. Thej were not all at home when I fint
went there. I went there about five o'clock in the evening. Mrs. Van Nest
and Mrs. Wyckoff were not there ; they came in about six o'clock. I re-
mained until near half past nine. Mrs. Wyckoff and the children, and Miss
Hohnes, had retired before I left Mrs. Van Nest left the room a few mo-
ments before I did, and went out into the back kitchen^ We sat in the
sitting room. I went out the front door of the sitting room to the roid.
Van Nest and Van Arsdale were in the sitting room when I left. When I
had got about one hundred rods from the house, I heard the dog baik tcij
fierce two or three times ; then I heard some one halloo, or shriek. I then
went ten or fifteen rods further, and supposed I heard some fbnr or five yoices
shrieking. When I had got within about half a mile ci home and three
quarters of a mile firom Van Nest's, a few rods east of the church, I hesrd
some one coming behind me on a horse. As he passed me, his left leg brushed
my right arm. He then turned his head to the left and looked me in tlie
face. Then I looked him in the fiice, in return. I supposed him to be either
a negro or a man disguised as a negro. He had no saddle on the horse.
All that I discoyered he had to guide the horse with, was a halter. After
he passed me a few rods, he put the horse on a fast trot, when I diaooyered
whose horse it was. At the moment he passed me, a cloud obscured the
moon. The horse was Mrs. WyckoflT's. I saw him when he tamed the
comer at McFarland's. The horse went by the road. He came back, and
took the road to Anbum. I had to come about half a mile from McFarland's.
I saw him about half way from McFarland's to my father's. He went about
a rod past the turn of the road. I went home and told fother what I had
seen. I got my horse, and started back to Van Nest's. I run my horse
until I got within about fifty rods of the house, when I saw a light at the
front gate. Just before I got to the gate, a gentleman raised a light above
his head, and pointed a gun towards me. The gentleman was Montgomery
Tumier, who recognized me, or the horse, before I did lum, and wanted to
know how I heard the news so soon. I told him I had heard no news-
suspicion drove me there. I went into the house, and saw Van Nest lying
in the back kitchen. He was lying on his face, with his right arm over hii
head. His left hand, I took it, was in his pantaloons pocket — it seemed to
be there. His right foot was lying on the second step ; he waa dead. I went
into the sitting room. Tan Arsdale was sitting in a chair, wounded, and it
was with some considerable difficulty that he could breathe. I found Mrs.
Yan Nest on the bed in the bed room, in the north-west comer. She was
dead. The child was on the bed in the sitting room, and was living. I
started to alarm the neighbors. I waa gone about half an hour, and I went
home before I returned. I found Mr. Tumier, Mr. James Easton, his two
SOUS) Edmund and James, Adam Ocobock, and William Brooks there when
WILLL4M mnuir. 198
I came baek. I iraa gone to alann the neighbon about two faoon. Van
Kesf s body was not moved wbiie I was gone. I alarmed Mr. Waring, Mr.
Cox, and others. I met the horse between mj father's and John Fries*.
Harrison Masten had the hone ; Jesse Cox and Brooks were with hinu He .
was muddy on the left side. It most have been about two o'clock when I
met the horse. I looked at my watch after I heard the dog bark. It waa
precisely half past nine. I didn't notice the mud on the horse until Mastea
spoke of it I then saw he was muddy. The mud extended to his hip and
shoulder. I noticed he had a halter on. I saw no blood. I saw a place,
about twenty rods south of the four comers, where the horse had been down.
I should think he had fallen there. There was snow by the sides of the road,
but it was pretty much gone in the road. It was over a foot deep on the
sides of it When the prisoner passed me, I saw what I supposed to be a
club in his hand — a stick with the baik pealed off, or newly shaved. He
canned it in his left hand. I saw two feet of it below his hand. I didn't
notice it above his hand. The horse was a black horse, with a white stripe
in his face — was old, and possessed not much power of fleetness. The negro
had a Webster coat on when he passed me. I could not tell the color of it ;
not black, nor lighter than those dark sheep's gray. He had a cap on, or a
low crowned hat I supposed it to be a cap. Did not see Freeman when
he was brought back from SchroeppeL
Cross Examination. — Q. How did you know the place you speak of
was a place where the horse had fallen ?
A. From the looks of the marks in the snow and mud. Mr. Van KestV
horses were better and more valuable than the one' he took. Mis. Wyckoff
was a woman of considerable property. No search was made to ascertain if
money or property of her's had been taken. Mr. Tumier lives about a quar-
ter of a mile from there, inth Mrs. Brooks. Two of the other hoFBos were
in the stable. Did not go to Mrs. BTo6k^ that night
William H. Brooks, called and sworn, testified: I live about half a
mile sooth of the house of John G. Van Nest I was there on the evening
oi the murders, between nine and ten o'clock, and after Mrs. Wyckoff came
to our house. I was in bed when she came there. She had on a night gowii|
an M pair of stockings, but no shoes. I didn't see her knilb, yet I saw a
butcher knife at our house with her name on it I went immediately down
to Van Nest's house, but not before Helen Holmes reached our's. Easton,
Winslow, Ocobock and, afterwards, Tumier went down there. Julia, and
the ohe on the bed, George W., that was stabbed, were there. He was alive
when I left to come to Auburn for the doctor. As I was coming to Auburn^
I saw Mrs. Wyckoff's horse lying down a little south of the comers beyond
New Guinea. I got Doctor Pitney to go up, who went up before me. Haiv
risen Masten took the horse back. The horse was muddy and had got up ;
his shoulders and side were muddy. I saw Uood on the halter, but not on
the horse. Next day I saw blood on the manger where the horse was taken
13
104 ' TEE nOAL ov
firom. Two or three days aftenrard, I notioed that the horse wsb stabhed
jnst back of the fore shoulder. When I got back, the body of Mr. Yan Nest
had been moved.
. Cross Examination. — ^I am fourteen yean of age. I was asleep when
Mrs. Wyckoff came in, and they waked me np. Mrs. Wyckoff complained
of being stabbed. She had on a night dress. I went to Mr. Van Nest*s on
fix>t. Mr. Tomier, Easton, and Ocobock were in the road coming to Van
Kest's, when I went ont After coming to our house, Mrs. Wyckoff went
immediately to bed. I did hot notice the clock to see the time then. I
didn't see Mr. Van Nest's rifle there that night Forget how Miss Holmes
was dressed. Julia was in her night elothes, and Peter was asleep. Julia
is the oldest I did not remain there long before I came for the doctor.
Some one got the horse for me to ride. Mrs. Wyckoff said to us that ^y
' were all stabbed down at their house — that she was stabbed also.
Harkison Masten, called and sworn, testified : I came down to Au-
burn after the doctor, and fbund the horse near New Guinea. I took the
horse back. He was muddy on the left side. When I returned, I took the
horse back. He was muddy on the left side, and appeared to hare fallen st
the sluice-way. I saw no blood upon him, only on the halter. He was put
in the stable. I saw Freeman when he was bought back in the coTcred
carriage. The horse had fallen into the sluice-way, from the appearance of
Cross Examination. — ^I live a little over three quarters of a mile from
Van Nest's place. It was half past ten when I was called. When I got
there a number of persons were in the house. Van Nest was lying in the
kitchen, on his back. He had on a loose Hnen roundabout and a vest I
staid there about fifteen minutes. I did not see Tan Nest's rifle that night
I saw Freeman the Saturday when he was taken up there to the house. I
was within thirty feet of him. Didn't hear him speak. He rolled up the
white of his eyes at me and smiled. He knew me. I judged that he did
not hear. They were then bringing him to the jail. There were a great
many persons back of him, and some ahead of him. I heard no swearing or
hallocnng after him.
William B. Fatten, called and sworn, testified : I reside in Auburn.
I know the prisoner, and have known him during the last winter before the
murder. I saw him at the Seminary sawing wood, and saw him at the mai^
ket The night of the murder I came past Van Nest's house, a little after
nine o'clock. I met Freeman south of the house, rather more than halfway
to Brooks' house. I was in a cutter, but he was on foot He had something
under his coat, and on his ann, which I supposed was a gun. I saw it stick-
ing down by the side of his left leg. He was directly in front of me at first,
and then he sheared off to the left nde, leaving his left side to me. He had
on a Webster coat of a mixed color, as I took it He turned out to the side
of the road. He kepi his eye straight ahead. He had a cap on. The color
mxujM rainuN. 195
ef the gun, or whateTer it was, was of a dark color. It was a moon-liglit night
Hifl coat was buttoned up, and his gun or club was under it I didn*t notice
an/ thing like a blade. He carried hia hand by his loft side, around hb coat
Am I passed Van Nesf s house I noticed a light there, and I saw persons
moling by the window.
Cross Examination. — The day spoken of 1 had been to Venice, and
was returning home. There was a light at Brooks' house also, when I passed
it, but I saw no persons there. I met the prisoner just opposite the comer
of the woods, where the road is quite nurow. I couldn't distinctly say it
was a gun that he had, but I thought so then. I noticed it particularly be-
fore he came up to me, and I was a little startled at it I drove on a trot
after I got to the Sand Beach. I heard of the murder the next morning. I
have no recollection of Freeman when he was a boy^ I saw him at the market
in the winter. I never spoke to him. I knew his father, mother, uncle Sid^
ney, &c. Sidney is universally admitted to have been crazy for many years.
I saw Freeman at the Seminary sawing wood. There was no person in the
wood shed with him. I saw him in the market only once. I didn't enquire
his name. Don't know as I ever heard his name prior to the murders. I
don't remember any thing about his history or manners before he went to
prison. I went to Van Nest's house the day of the inquest His body was
then lying in the kitchen, near the west door. He was laid oiit as a corpse.
I have no doubt Freeman is the man I met that night as I was coming horn
Venice.
Nathaniel HEBSSt, called and sworn, testified : I knew Freeman last
winter. He made it his home. at John De Puy's. He boarded a while at
M^ry Ann Newark's. He had butcher knives to my knowledge befoi« the
mmrder. I saw him at New Guinea. . I lived then with n^y mother. He had
the knives at Mrs. Newark'9. He didn't tell me wbat he was g(nng to do
with them. He brought them out and gave me the new one which he bought
in town. I showed it to Mr. Worden, the man I worked for. That knife
is BOW at Waterloo. It was a staraight knife, turned up at the point He
also had a couple of old knives, about a week before the murder. I saw him
once at Gale's grocery. I didn't see him have any straight knife. The one
he gave me was done up in a piece of paper. He said, at Gale's grocery,
that he meant to kill John De Puy, because he wi^t around and told them
not'to let him have liquor. John De Fuy was at Gale's the night he said so.
I don't know whether Gale had reftised to let him have liquor that night or
not Freeman said he had found the folks that put him in prison, and he
meant to kill them, because they put him in prison. He said they were
Van Nests. He said Jolm De Puy turned him out doors when he woiked
at Fort Byron, because he would not give him his money. This was a week
before the murder.
Cross £x aiukation^~I am twenty-three years old. My mother's right
name is Miss Hersey. She goes by, the name <tf WiOard. Jack Willard,
196 «a fHiAx 09
ber htuband, is in prifon. I can't tell liow long she ku Uved her^ I saw
wood and do any thing I can get to do for a living. I was put in jail once,
for fighting. I never was in State Piiion except to Tiait it I knew Free-
man when he worked for Dr. Hamilton ; that was i^xmt seven yean aga
He was a lively, smart boy ; he laughed and played, and was good nataied.
I thought he coold undentand as much as any body. He heard well and
coold tell a story ri^t o£ He didn't talk a great deal unless some one
spoke to him, or he was playing, bat then he talked like other folks. I saw
him last fall ; he held his head down as he wi^ed along. He knew me, and
wanted to know how I did. He said he was glad to see me. EUs hearing
was pretty hard then ; I had to speak pretty loud to him. He also appeared
to be quite stupid. I asked him what ailed him. He said he was deaf ; that
they rapped him on the head at tbe prison. I saw him again in about three
weeks. He had the same i^pearance then. I saw the knives after I had
the talk at Gale's. He said he had found the folks who put him in prison.
He said he had found Van Nest^s folks; and I asked him who they were.
He laughed about it He said he was going to kill Mr. Van Nest's folksi
He said nothing about a man or woman, or a widoW) that I remember. This
was all that was said at that time. I think Esq. Bostwick asked me, on the
examination of this case, whether I had heard Freeman threaten Van Nest»
and I said I didn't hear him threaten him. That was about a week after the
murder. I believe I was under oath then, but am not sure.
Be-£xamination. — ^I told Mr. Stephen Titus, the same night, that Free*
man said he was going to kill John De Puy, and he said he was going to kill
Van Nest On the examination Esq. Bostwick said he wanted me to tell
what I knew about it and not injure myself. I then told him what I recol-
lected. I (fidn't think of this, and another thing I forgot all about He
ask^ me about his threatening to kiH^ and told me to tell all I knew about
his killing the folks, and he asked me if I knew any thing about his threat-
ening to kill Van Nest I told him I beUeved he didn't mention any thing
about it I didn't think of it then. I was not arrested, but John Gabriel,
my brother-in-law, was taken up, and I was examined as to Gabriel, but I
didn't know as I was examined as to Freeman. He said he meant to kill
John De Puy because he went round and told them not to let him have any
Uquor, and because he took his money away when he went to Port B3rron,
and turned him out of doors. He said he had found Yan Nest I asked
him who, and he said Mr. Van Nesf s folks, in reply. He said he meant to
kifl them because they put him into prison.
Thomas F. Munboe, called and sworUf testified : I am a police officer.
I was at Van Nest^s house the night of the murder. The body (^ John G.
Van Nest was lying in the back kitchen with one foot on the step. His
hand was under him, but not in his pocket I assisted in taking his coat off
from him. We laid two pillows on the floor and put the body on them. I
observed the hole cut in his breast I saw the prisoner in jail the Sunday
wiUiLuc mauN. 197
folkmiiig* I don't recoU^t the clothes which he hid on so as to deacrihe
them particularly. I think the knife in coort ia the knife which I saw there.
The point of the blade broken off is five inchea long hj measurement The
balance of the blade is three and a half inches bng.
Cross ExAMikxTiOK. — ^I arrived at the house about half past twrire
o'clock Friday morning. t)octor Pitney had not got there ; but Mr. Easton
and Mr. Winslow were there. I saw a gun hanging in the kitchen in the
passage. A man standing up where Van Nesf s head was, I think could
reach the gun. Mr. Van Nest had on gray pantaloons. His vest was but-
toned, but his roundabout was not Mrs. Van Neat waa in the north-west
bed room. A blanket had been laid over her^ I only saw her head and
feet She had shoes on. I saw the horse which Masten was taking back to
the bam, said to be Mrs. Wyckoff's, but did not examine him. I made some
effort to find the prisoner, and to get others to aid in the search for him. I
knew Freeman when a boy. In his youth he was quick and aedve, and not
mudi different from other black boys.
Danibl M. Turnieb, called and sworn, testified : I reside over a quax^
ter of a mile south of Van Nesfs. I got ^ere a little past ten o'clock. I
was at Mrs. Brooks' and let the widow Wyekoff in when she came there.
The lights were not extinguished. She had oo her night clothes, and was in
her stocking feet She had a butcher knife in her hand. When she came
I was in the wood shed. I first heard a n<nae at the gate, and then heard
her say, " this way, quick, for God's sake." I picked up my lamp and went
through the house, and told my wife there was some one out door in trouble.
She took the light from me and I went to the fitmt door. She was on the
stoop. I asked who she was; she told me and said they were all murdered
down there. I asked how many there were. She said she saw two and
thought there were half a dozen men there. She seemed to be very much
frightened, and siud she was wounded. I didn't see any wound myself, but she
remained there until Saturday morning, when she died. As she came in I
took the knife from her, and I went to WinsloVs to get assistance, and then
went down with Mr. Winslow, Edwaxd Easton, Adam Ocobock, and Wil-
liam Brooks, to Van Nest's house. We found Yan Arsdale sitting in a chair.
Van Nest was on the fioor in the back kitehen, dead. Mrs. Van Nest was
in the bed room, dead. The child had been stabbed but waa alive. I saw
WilUamson when he came there. I had a lantern and a gun which I took
down with me. I had the gun in my right hand, but don't know as I held
it up. As he came up I asked him how he heard of it so soon. He said
suspicion brought him there.
Cross Exj^mination. — ^Mrs. Wjtkcff had on a flannel night gown when
she came, and had socks on. I carried her into Mrs. Brooks' room and went
off. When I got to Van Nesf s, I found Ocobock, Brooks, and Easton there.
I saw a gun hanging up in the Idtohea, nearly over Mr. Van Nest's head.
Id6 noB TKuXi Of
I examined to see if he was alive. I pnt my haad tmder his side to see if
his heart beat Van Andale was in the sitting room on a chair..
Helen Holmes, called and sworn, testified : I lived at John G. Van
Nest's at the time of the murderB. Mr. Williamson was there that evening.
I retired before he 1^. I slept in the north-west bed ioom, Julia Van
Nest slept with me. Mrs. Wyckofi* had retired* She slept in the north front
room, and Peter slept with her. The bed was in the sonih-west comer.
Mr. Van Nest, Mrs. Van Nest, and Greorge slept in the sitting room ; Van
Arsdale up stairs. The first knowledge I had of the assassination was the
shriek of Mrs. Van Nest in the yard. I had not then been asleep. I then
heard the dog baric. I raised the window and asked what the matter was.
She came to the window and said she was stabbed, and they were all goiiig
to be killed. I then left the window, ran to the firont door, unlocked it and
let her in. She went directly into my bed room and reclined on the bed
I re^fastened the door, and staid in the bed room about a minute. I then
went into the north front room. Mrs. Wyckofi* got up and went out into
the halL Soon eStdv that I heard a noise, indicating scuffling there. It con-
tinued but a short time, and I went out soon after it subsided. I heard a
noise up stairs, also, before I went out The noise in the hall occurred be-
fore that up stairs. I don't know whether Mrs. Wyckofi* had a knife when
she went into the hail or not She had a butcher knife, and generally kept
it in a cup board in her nmm, and I saw it when I got up 1x> Mrs. Brooks'
house, after the murders.
When I went out I passed through the sitting room into the kitchen. I
saw Mr. Van Nest lying on his face upon the fioor, with one foot on the steps
leading to the kitchen. He was dead. Thero was no light in the sitting
room then, but there was in the kitchen, where Van Arsdale was. I found
the back kitchen door open and ftstened it, and then went back to the sit-
ting room, leaving the light in the kitchen. As I came into the sitting room
I saw a negro looking through the front window. I went to the hall door,
leading from the hall to the sitting room, which was open. Van Arsdale
then spoke to me and told me not to stand beforo the window. He was th'en
in the sitting room, near the kitehen door. The negro then went to the
window on tiie north side of the door. I remained whero I was. He re-
mained at the window but a short time looking in, when he stepped to the
edge of the stoop and looked down north. I then saw his face distinctly.
He then stepped up to the door and kicked it open; then went to the north
end of the house and looked into the north window. He looked into the
north window long enongh to look around the room. I saw his face t|ien,
but net as distinctly as when he was on the stoop. I could see, however,
that he was a negro.
I saw him again when he was brought to the house on Saturday, and I
have seen him in court since. The prisoner is the person. Afler looking
into the north window, he rotumed to the front side of the house and went
WILLIAM fRUMAN. 199
down to the gate. I obaenred in hit hand what I thought was a gun, bat
don't remember in which band he carried it. He went north until he got
near the bam yard gate, and I saw no more of him that night I then went
to Mrs. Brooks' house. I think Van Arsdale was standing up when I left
The child was living ; it groaned but didn't make much noise. I went to
Mrs. Brooks' quickly, and run part of the way. I got there before the men
came to Mr. Van Nest's. Mrs. Wyckoff was there and was wounded in the
abdomen, and one of her fingers was cut She was sitting up. I didn't ob-
serve that she was wounded any where else. I returned to Van Nest's
house again, betwen ten and eleven o'clock that night Mrs. Brooks' went
down with me.
About a week before this affair, I saw the same negro at Van Nest's house,
It was on Monday of the week previous. He came in through the bam
yard, and back door yard, into the back kitchen. He knocked at the sit-
ting room door. I let him in. That is t^e door where Van Nest lay dead.
He asked Van Nest if he wanted to hire a man to work; I believe he said,
« Do you want to hire a man ?" Mr. Van Nest replied that he did not ; that
he had a man engaged, and asked the prisoner if he lived in Auburn. The
prisoner said he was staying around there, and had no work. Mr. Van Nest
told him perhaps he could get work further up the lake. To this the pri-
soner made no reply. Nothing more was ^said. He remained there not
over five minutes. He was hard of hearing, and said he was deaf. When
Van Nest spoke to him, he held his head down and said he must speak louder
for he was deaf. He went out of the house the same way he came in, and
went north. Mrs. Wyckoff was a lady of wealth, and was in the habit of
loaning money. Mr. Van Nest was, also, in good circumstances. The two
youngest children were in the room when the prisoner came there for woric,
but Van Arsdale was not there. He came there to stay on Thursday night
Mrs. Van Nest was alive when I left the bed rocMn, but was dead when I
returned from Mn. Brooks' house. •
Cross Examination. — Mrs. WyckoiT was an aunt to my mother. I went
there to live about seven years i^, when my uncle, Peter Wyckoff, was alive.
I don't know the widow Godfrey. I saw her in court when she was here,
but never saw her before. I know of no relationship existing between the
Wyckoff or Van Nest families, and Mrs. Godfrey. I knew nothing about a
horse being stolen from Mrs. Godfrey, until after the murder. I know noth-
ing of Mrs. Wyckoff or Van Nest's making any complaint against the pri-
soner for stealing a horse. Van Nest was a justice of the peace. He was
supervisor of Fleming. I knew nothing of Van Nest or Wyckoff having
had a horse stolen in 1840 ; nothing of any of the family having been a wit-
ness against Freeman. Mrs. Wyckoff had considerable property, and kept
her money and papers in the north front room, in a desk. She had for^
dollars at that time, which was brought in the Saturday night before the
200 * THB XBUL Of
morder. Mr. Van Nest kept hu papen and monej in a desk in the back
room. The family had respectable clothing, and re^iectable fnmitare.
The prisoner, when he came to get work, had on a cap, and tbe same
Webster coat he had when arrested. He did not call any one by name;
nor did any one call him by name. He stepped towards the stove ; I banded
him a chair and he sat down. His head hung down, bat he tamed hb eyes
up. He sat near Van Nest. He asked Van Nest if he wanted to hire a
man. Van Nest immediately replied to him. He didn't hear, and told
Van Nest he must talk loader ; and leaned forward ; he asked no mors
questions. Van Nest told him he had hired a man ; that perhaps he might
get work farther up the lake. When he heard this he wen^off'. I had mo-
ney, and kept it up stairs. No money or clothing were mibsed; nothing
but the halter and horse.
I went to my room about half past nine o'clock, and before WSHamson
had left the house. I left Van Nest and Williamson in the ntting room.
He had on gray pantaloons, a Test, and a roundabout not buttoned. I heard
Mrs. Van Nest shriek when I had been to bed but a short time ; when I had
been in my room perhaps fire minutes. Mrs. Wyckoff had retired previ-
ously. I think it was not over fiye minutes from the time I heard Mrs. Van
Nest shriek, and the dog bark, until the negro went away. It all occurred
in a very short period of time. He saw no money when he was at the house
to get work. I knew the night of the murder that he was the same negro
who caoie there for work. I saw no knife in his hand, but I saw what I
dioaght was a gun. On Saturday Mowing the murder I saw him. The
officetB brought him to the houae. He had on the same dress he had when
he eame to get woric. He was there ten minutes on Saturday, while I was
there. I didn't hear hun speak. IBGs head was down, and he looked up as
he does now. He didn't smile. He was standing up a part of the time, with
his head down in the same way. I saw him in jail the second day of court;
he was standing up. I didn't go into the celL His head was down the stune
as now ; didn't speak.
BE-£xAMmATXOK.~Mr8. Wyckoff had no wound on her temple. I saw
nothing indicating that the prisoner was crazy. I heard no words when the
scnfBe took place in the halL Mrs. Wyckoff sud nothing.
CoBKBLius Van Absdale, called and sworn, testified : I was at Van
Nesf B the day of the murder. Williamson was there that evening, but he
left before I retired. I retired soon after he went away. After I had been
in bed four or five minutes I heard a woman shriek. I raised up in bed
and looked out of the window ; saw no one, and laid down again. The
shriek appeared to be out of doors. In about a minute after that, I heard
Mr. Yan Nest ask some one what he wanted. I think he sud, " What do you
want here in the house ?" I next heard something fall heavy on the floor.
I then got up and put on my pantaloons ; but while putting them, or my
, WIUAAX fUUAN. 201
•tockings, on, I heard the door open. Some one spoke, and aaked if there
was a man up there. ' I was then stooping over putting on my stockings.
I rose up and said there was. I then beheld a negro, with a butcher knife
in his hand, like the one here, coming up the stairs. As he came up, he
stabbed me in the breast, but the knife glanced off on the lefl side of the
breast bone. As he stabbed me I pushed him back, and ^e fell down stairs.
He had a candlestick in his left hand, which I wrested from him, and with
which I struck him. I then followed him down, and at the bottom of the
sturs I found a broom stick, which I seized, and with which I struck him
two or three times. He made a quick retreat as I followed him up. He
went out of the front door of the sitting room, and I closed the door. The
front hall door was open. As I looked out, I saw the negro about half waj
from the house to the gate. Mrs. Wyckoff, at this time, was on the last step
of the hall door steps. I said to her that she had better come in to the house,
but she went on towards the gate ; and at (mt near the gate, she came up to
the negro, and there they had a short scuffle. I saw her strike at him, but
saw nothing in her hand. He had hold of one of her aims with his hand,
and she appeared to be striking at his wrist They were there half a minute,
perhaps, and then she went south and he went north. I closed the door
when she went tiux^ugh the gate, but I think I didn't fasten it. I then went
to the door leading to the kitchen. Miss Holmes came in, and sud the ne-
gro was looking through the window. I told her to step one side, so that he
oouldi^'t see her. I sat down <» the floor, belund the stove. He was dien
looking in at the south front window. J saw in his hand what I then sup^
posed to be a gun. He held it in his left hand. Couldn't tell whether it was
a gun or a club, but took it to be a gun. He then kicked the door open,
and went to and looked in at the noith window. After he kicked die door
open, I got up, and started to go into the kitchen, when Helen said he had
gone north. I then saw Van Nest on tike floor, dead, as I supposed. I took
hold of Yon Nest and turned him partly on his side, but he rolled back on
his face. Helen then asked if she should go and alarm some of the neighbors.
I told her to do so. I renuuned in the sitting room most of the time wluSst
Helen was gone ; but was in the north room, bed room, kitchen, and up-
stairs, some of the time. When I went into the north-west bed room, Mrs.
Van Nest was alive, but she was q[>eechless. i%e died before I left the room.
I carried the child from the sitting room to the bed room, where its motlier
was. I didn't know then whether she was hurtor not Its mother breathed
twice after I took it in. I then took the child back to the sitting room and
gave it tp Julia, who canried it across the room once or twice and then put it
on a chair. I saw that its bowels protruded, and I put it on the bed. I then
sat down in the chair a few minutes — ^then went into the kitchen^— tiiencame
back, and went up stairs and put on my boots. My woond was bleeding
profusely.
From the time I went to bed until Helen started to gb to Bcoob*, was
202 tarn tbul oi
from ten to fifteen minates. Mn. Van Nest went into die back kitcheo
before I retired ; and when I retired, Mr. Van Kest was standing by tlie
stoye. The prisoner Ib the negro who stabbed me. I saw him agun on the
Saturday following the morders. I recognized him as the man. He wai
bxx>ught to the house to be identified. The bodies .were not then removed.
Cross Examination. — ^I was not related to Mr. or ^Irs. Van Nest I
had been absent from that neighborhood five or six years. Had known them
twenty years or more. I am a half brother of Van Arsdale who married a
sister of Mrs. Van Nest's. Don't know Mrs. Godfrey. Never heard of her
before the murder. There is no relationship between her and the Van Nest,
Wyckoff, or O'Hara families. Van Nest was generally at home, unless he
had business away. He was a domestic, sedate, and grave man. I had
never heard of Freeman before the day the murder was committed ; but
Van Nest had said to me, that a negro man was there on Monday of the we^
before, and wanted work ; but I don't recollect as he told me any thing he
said. He said the negro was deaf. He didn't call his name, or say he knew
him. Van Nest said he didn't know who the negi;o was. I don't know ai
there was any money in the house. I supposed there was a little, as Yaa
Nest was a num of property.
The night of the murder, I went to bed about twenty-five minutes past
nine. Mrs. Van Nest had gone out She might have been out about five
minutes, when I went up to bed. Van Nest bad on gray pantaloons, daik
vest, and a light roundabout He generally had his wallet in his pocket
Mrs. Wyckoff 's money was found in a small trunk in die closet, not locked.
About ^YQ minutes elapsed from the outcry before he kicked the door open.
He inflicted all the wounds in about five minutes. I heard no reply when
Mr. Van Nest asked, " what do you want ? " but in half a minute I heard a
fall. Mr. Van Nest had three horses, and Mrs. Wyckoff had one, which was
twenty or thirty years old, and worth little except for his shoes and Ude.
One of Van Nest's horses in the stable with Mrs. Wyckoff 's horse, sold for
ninety dollars. When the negro was brought to Van Nesf s house,, aAer the
murder, he was tied. He sat down. He didn't speak. He stood still— was
drained — ^his head down, and he rolled up his eyes, as he does now. My
bed was at the head of the stairs. T^lien he looked in at the window, I don't
know as the negro saw Miss Holmes or me. I think he did not He didnt
come into the room when he kicked the door.
Rb>£xahination.->I didn't think he saw Miss Holme» when I spoke to
her. I don't recognize Mrs. Godfrey, as I look at her now. I saw the blade
about two hours after I was stabbed. Some one bronght it to me, from the
hall door. Spoke to old Mr. Van Nest about coming down. Mr. Y. K.
said he picked up the blade. Saw the prisoner best part of an hour that
Saturday. Saw nothing to make me believe he was crazy.
Zephani AH WiNBLOw, Called and sworn, testified : I reside in Fleming,
a quarter of a mile from Van Nesf s, aoutfa. I was there the night of the
WILIXAK
murder, betveen nine and ten o'clock. I ww in bed, when somebody came
and rapped, and told me thai Van Nest^s family were murdered. I then got
up, and went down there as soon as I could. I saw Van Arsdale, who was
wounded and weak. He said Van Nest and family were murdered. John
G. Van Nest was lying flat on his face, with his left hand in lus pantaloons
pocket I took hold of him, and found that he was dead. His right hand
was partly under him. I found Mrs. Van Nest in the north bed room, dead.
I covered her with a quilt I came back to find the little boy. I went into
Van Arsdale's room, and found him. He was not dead. His bowels were
out, and bloody. He expired in half an hour.
Cross Exahikation^ — ^I never saw the prisoner before the murder, nor
until Saturday after the murder. I saw him there then, and when they .put
him into the carriage. The dead bodies were then in the house. They
were buried on the Sunday following, in the burying ground at Sand Beach
church. Mrs. WyckofT died on Saturday afternoon, and was buried with
them. The door of Van Nest's house was shut when I got down there that
night I didn't see any gun. Didn't examine his person to see his pockets,
or what were in them. I have lived in that neighborhood fourteen years.
I knew Peter Wyckoff and John G. Van Nest all that time. Never knew of
their having a horse stolen in 1840, nor of their being witnesses on a horse
trial ; nor of their being in any way connected with a horse triaL I don't
know Mrs. Grodfrey. Don't know what hired manor help Wyckoff had in
1840, except old Mr. BlackwelL Isaac Devoe was the name of hired man.
Blackwell was about sixty years old. Don't know how bug he has been in
this county. He is now at Weedsport
FsEDEaiCK Bennktt, called and sworn, testified : I reside two miles
south of Auburn. I recollect that a man named De Puy was there at Wyck-
oflTs farm, in 1838, and I recdlect a boy was living there with him, and that
the boy's name was William Freeman. At that time the boy's mother lived
with Dr. Clary, near my house.
Cross Examination. — When Freeman used to come to Dr. Clary's to
see his mother, I thought he was not a very active boy. Didn't notice
whether or not he was playful He was rather'young then. John G. Van
Nest was a sober, steady, grave man, and pretty much always at home.
James Amob, called and sworn, testified : I have some acquaintance with
prisoner. First saw him at my house last fall, at Schroeppel, in the county
of Oswego. He bame with four of De Pay's boys. Those De Puy boys reside
in Schroeppel, half a mile from where I live. I had a husking bee, and the
boys came down to the tavern, and thence to the bam, and the prisoner
came with them. He stayed there and husked com tiU we got through.
Tliey then went into the house— eat pie and cake, and then left The next
time I saw him was on the thirteenth day of last March, when I saw him at
SohioeppeL I saw him as I was driving up to the tavern. He came out
and a^Led me if I wanted to trade horses. He led the horse which he
wiuted to trade away. It was a gray horse, and had on a plaid blanket
with white lining, and surcingle. He had on a leather headstall, or halter,
Imt no bridle. I told him I didn't want to trade horses. He then aaked if
I wanted to buy a horse. I told him No. He then went around the deigk
to Coming, Wallis, and Bmndage, who were there, and offered the horse to
Edwin Coming for eighty dcJlars. Comiag looked at the horse, and asked
him if that was the lowest sum he would take. He finally told Coming he
would take fifty dollars for the horse. Coming then came to me and asked
if I knew him. I told him I had seen him, but couldn't call him by name.
Corning then said to him', " Where did yon get the horse ?" He said he had
a horse given to him, and he had traded round and got this one. Carmng
theA s^d, "I guess you stole the horse." The by-^tanders then aaid,**!
guess he did, too." The prisoner said he hadn't stolen him. Conung Aea
femarked, ^ Amos, you'd better stop him — he shouldn't go any further if I
Ered here." Others said the same. Corning then had hold of the haher,
smd the negro told him to let go. WaUia and Bmndage then took hdd of
it abo. Freeman had hold of the halter, and jerked one way — and the odi-
«rs jerkod the other way. The negro then kicked Wallis and Brundaga
After a while, they asked me (still holding the halter) to detun the man. I
walked up and told them to let go the halter, and I took hold myself, sad
asked him to go a step widi me down the road. He went with me a step or
two, when I told him I had suspicion that it wasn't his horse. He said it
was-^that he had a horse given him, and had traded round and got this one.
I then said to him, ** I see youT'e got your hand hurt ; how did yon do it?*
He said he got it hurt, but didn't tell me how. I did not discover that he
was hard of hearing. I had strong suspicions of his having stolen the hone,
and told him so. He said, '< If s my liorse, and you know me." I replied,
^ I know you by sight, but not by your name." He said his name was Bil
Freeman. He then told me he husked com in the bam last fall, for me. I
then remembered him. I asked him more about his hand — whether he
hadn't been in a fight, and hurt his hand. He said he hadn't I told him
that I didn't think he eame honestly by ih» horse. He said that he could
satisfy me that he did come honestly by it He said he could satisfy me bjr
the De Fuy'a I then got some boys to go down to De Puy*s, and fetch them
np. He tried to have me let go of the horse, and said he wished to go along.
I refused to let go. He got a little wrathy, and kicked me, and I had ooo-
stderable of a tusde with him. Finally I told him I should put the hone ia
the bam and feed him, and would feed him, too, if he wanted it He held
the horse by his left hand. His right band was ia his breeches podcet Hii
coat was shorter than this one ; it was a Webster coat, of a dark brown cokr.
When he kicked, I saw his hand. There was an old cotton handkerdiief
around it He made no use of his right hand. He wouldn't let me put the
borse in the bam, and was determined to go on. I then made up my nond
to take the horse from him. So I took hdd of his thumb and pried it bacL
I got l^e lud^rontof his luoid by foree, and handing it to Corning, told him
to put the hone in the barn and lock him in. He did so. I dien asked the
prisoner to go into the house. During the scuffle, he uAd me that if he had
It knife he would gut me. He decfined ^ng into the house. I took hold
of his colllur, and he kicked me ; but I dragged him along. He tripped me
mp once, and I fell on one knee.
When he came there, it lacked five minutes of two o'clock in the afternoon.
I thought that he was.verf strong. I didn't get him down. He got me down
on one knee. When De Puy came, I asked him if he knew the prisoner.
Hie said he did. I told him thai I had stopped him, and had taken a horse
from him, supposing that he hadn't come honestly by it, and asked De Puy
to go and see the hone. He went; and I showed 'him the horse, and asked
him if Freeman ever owned such a hone. He said he didn't know that he
owned such a horse — that he guessed he couldn't own such an one. He told
me that Freeman bad stopped there as he came along, and that they drore
him off, suapectiug he had stolen the horse. I then asked Wallis, Brundage
and Coming if they would keep him till I went and got a warrant for him.
I got a warrant from Esquire Burke, and came back. I arrested him. I
discovered no deafness in him then. After I had him under arrest, I asked
him if he wanted some supper. He said he did. I told Gregg, the landlord,
to get him some supper, and he did so. He went in aild sat down, and I
went too. We had sat there, may be, ten minutes, when Taylor came in.
Freeman was eating. I cut up his victnala font him, as his hand was badly
cut, and he could not well do it. I had no convenation wiih him at the tar
Ue, only to ask him what he would have to eat The wotfnd oh his wrist
was where the scar is now» Taylor came into the room, and stepped around
aad asked him if his name was Freeman. The prisoner made no reply*
Taylor called him a murderer, and used rough language to him. He called
him a damned murderer, and said that if he had a gun he would blow hag
brains out Taylor then told us of tiie murder of the Van Nest iluniiy.
Freeman said nothing, in reply. Taylor spoke pretfy loud ; as loud as I had
previously, and louder. He was quite excited, and laid off his ooat, and
throwed out some chains, with which he was goings to bind him. I told Tay-
lor that I had arrested him. He then waited till Freeman bad got through
eating, and then he bound him in every way he eould. He then took Free-
aan out of my custody.
Cbo88 Examination. When I first saw Freeman, It was about two
o'clock, p. M., of Friday. My hu^ng bee was in the latter part of Novem^
ber, 1845, in the evening, afier dark. I remember seeing Freeman there.
Should not have remenkbered him if he hadnt told me of it At the husk-
inig bee I had no conversation with him, but i» hand him something to eat
We had been husking an hour and a hdf when they came in. We began:
about dusk. He went away fixm the house, that night, between ten and
906 noKnu&Mr
eleTen o'clock. I noticed that l^ appeared rerj atillf said l^it litde, bat
hiiaked com. He wasn't free in conversation, and was a stranger to me.
He did his work, eat what was given himi and behaved perfectly well I
didn't nodce his hanging his head forward then, nor on that Friday whea
he wanted to sell the horse. I was giving my horses water when he csobb
up close to me. He didn't call me by name— didn't aak how I did-*didat
teil me who he was. The first thing he aaid, was, ^' Do you want to trade
horses ?" I didn't notice his head. He had an oil doth cap on. I said, Na
He then said, " Do yon want to buy one ?" I answered, Na He then west
to the other men. I can't be positive of what he said to Coming, except
tfiat he mentioned about buying a horse. He said he would take eighty
dollars for him, I think. Coming took hold of the halter, and looked at Um,
and asked if he would take leas. The negro answered, *^ 111 take fif^.*
They stood side by side^ Coming was on the left side of him, and close to
him. Coming then stepped tome, and asked if Iknew him. I replied, that
I couldn't call his name. Coming then aaked him how he came 1^ the
hone. The negro told him he had a horse given to him, and traded round
and got this one. Coming first said, *'I guess you stole die horse." The
negro replied, <' No, I didn't" Then Wallis took hold of the halter and told
him he believed he had stolen the horse. He told me that I knew him. He
sud, '< You know me." I then had hold of the halter with hioL He said,
<* I husked com with you in your bam last fall." I said, '* I see you*ve got
your hand hurt; how was it done ? I guess it was in a nigger fight" He
said, '^It is my horse ; I haven't stole him." I told him I should like to be
sa&fied about it He said, '' I can satisfy yon." I asked how. He said,
** By the De Puys, down here." Then I said I would put the horse in the
bam, and did so. I sent Gregg's boy to De Puy's, and Abram De Puy came
up. When I got back, it was five or riz o'clock, or about dusk. I read the
warrant to him. He didn't make much reply, I don't think. I am not a
constable ; but was deputised to serve that warrant I waited on him at
nipper, and eut up his meat I noticed he didn't use hb knife, and so lent
his victuals. I didn't notice any stocking look. He had been eating ten or
fifteen minutes when Taylor came in. He had more hair on his head then
than now. Taylor came diteedy on to us — took hold of his head, and said,
'< Ain't your name Freeman," and called hun " a damned murderer." Bill
muttered something which I could not understand. I was stmck with as-
tonishment when Taylor said he had murdered a whde family. He spoke
load and sharp, but the negro sat at the table and ate his supper. I looked
at him with astonishment He continued to put victuals into* his mouth and
to eat He seemed startled, yet raised his fork and contmued eating. Tay-
lor was much excited, and proposed to take Freeman away from the table
at once. I told him to let him alone^I had arrested him. Taylor after*
wards searched his clothes, his pocketa, and his boots; and made a thorough
WILLIAM mSEMAK. 207
^xaminatictt. He found one cent Nothing else but his clothes. Then
they bound him. . The prisoner said nothing. They staid there an hour, and
Taylor then took him away.
Rr-Examination. — He said something about another horse, but I can't
say what I think he acknowledged stealing the horse. I saw in him no
symptoms of insanity. I was with him about an hoar, before I got the war-
rant; and altogether I was with him four hours.
A1.0NZO Taylor, called and sworn, testified : I am a constable, and was
last March. I found Freeman at Gregg's tavern, eating supper, about five
o'clock in the afternoon of Friday succeeding the murders. I had not then
been to Yan Nested house. I arrested him by virtue of a scrip issued at the
Tocsin office. I called him a damn'd black scoundrel, and accused him of
murder. He denied it I asked him about the other horse. He said about
murder, " I don't know any thing about it" He said, " they've got the
horse." He didn't speak very bad. He said the other horse fell and he
left it After that, I couldn't get any thing more out of him. I coaxed him
to tell me aboat the murder, and why he killed the child. He said he didn't
know it was a child. Herrick and Parker took him into another room. I
was called in, and he gtumbled about their cuffiing him. He said, "I don't
like the treatment ; they are cuffing and beating me." Nobody succeeded
in getting any thing from him further. After I went into the room they
Came out I then put him into a sleigh and carried him to Phoenix. They
said they hadn't hurt him. He complained of being deaf, but Parker and
Herrick said they hadn't hurt him. He said nothing more. I brought the
horse along. It was Burrington's. Freeman said he got the horse east of
Auburn. He talked very little. We staid that night at Phoenix. Wil-
liams, a tobacco peddler, assisted me about keeping him over night I rode
on horseback, and he rode in a waggon. I had another negro with me to
pilot me. I brought this other negro back, and I left the horse with Bur-
rington.
Cross Examixation. — T live at Cato. I started for Sjnracuse at first
The slip from the Tocsin office induced me to go. There is a family of
Freemans living at Syracuse. I inquired if they knew Bill Freeman, and
they said they did, but were no connection of his. He was eating when I
found him. I told him that he was a black, infernal scoundrel. Bill rolled
up his eyes aiid laughed. This was while he was eating. He said he knew
nothing about the murder. I said, " yoti black rascal, you do." He smiled,
and I drew my cane to strike hinL They said, don't He said nothing
more to me. * He was in the room with Parker and Herrick a few minutes.
They were searching him part of the time. He was there in my presence
half an hour. We searched him in the kitchen ; pulled off his boots and
cap, and made a thorough searclv We found one cent upon him, and left
it with him.' I told him to stand up. He said not a word, only when they
called me in ; he comphdned that they were cuffing him and kicking him
XHBTBIALOf
anmnd. I said I guessed tibey hadn't hurt him much, but he saj^ ibey had.
Some of them said he can hear quick enough now. I took him to Phceniz,
>and while going we tried to get him to say something. He told us that no-
body was with him at the murder. I asked him how he could be so cruel as
to kill that little innocent child. He replied, '^ I didn't know it was a child."
He said of the horse, '* I left him when he fell with me." When I aaked him
about his arm that was cut, he had a chew of tobacco on the wound. He
chewed tobacco. He didn't ccnnplain of his wound. The cord of hia thumb
was cut The doctor put a cloth around iheVound. I staid over night at
Phoenix, and set up all night He laid still and quiet I supposed he was
asleep, for he said nodiing and made no complaint I went with hink up to
Van Nest's house. He said nothing there.
George Van Nest, called and sworn, testified : John G. Van Nest was
my son. I reside about one quarter of a mile this side of his house. I was
called to the house at the time of his death. I found the point of the knife
there. Miss De Groff hit the point with her toe. I heard it jingle on tiw
sill of the door, and I went and picked it up. The blade exhibited appears
to be it Miss De Groff was carrying die chair into the other room for Van
Arsdale. The blade was more bloody then than it is now. I saw no black
man that eyening, but my wife did. I don't know what clothes my son had
on that day. He had a double breasted vest, and the one in court is the
one, I think. There is a hole through it ; through both parts, where it was
buttoned. He W(Mre tlus vest about that time.
Cboss Examination.^— I was seventy-four years of age in April last, and
hare lived there thirty years. My son John was brought up there. My
wife is living. I knew of na relationslnp with Mrs. Godfrey; never heard
of her or her husband till after this affair happened. My son John G. was
my only son, and was all my dependence in my old age.
Mrs. Van Nest, called and sworn, testified : I am the wife of Geoige,
and mother of John G. Van Nest I remember well the night my son was
killed. I, that evening, saw a black man in the yard of our house, about
eight or nine o'clock. It was a moon-light night I saw nothing in his hand
nor did I notice his dress. He came by the large gate, and turned and went
away towards my son's. He then came back again and stood by the fence
a while. He then turned around and went towards my son's, as fast as he
could walk, and I saw nothing more of him that night I thought he had
a cap on, but I couldn't discern whether he was a black or a white man.
He put both hands on the fence. I feared he wished to do something that
wasn't right I afterwards found my son dead at his house. He was lying
in the door, with his face on his right ann. His left hand was in his pocket
This is the vest, and this a little piece of the muslin of the shirt he had on.
(Exhibiting them.) John was forty-one years old, and was married about
ten years ago. He lived at our house about three yean after marriage. I
never heard of Mrs. Godfrey before, nor of this negra My son was living
with me in 1840. He was very steady, graye, and reserved. He was never
away from home except on business. He never had any enemies in the
world. My son was justice of the peace, but held no office in the church.
I was in the house, up stairs, when the negro came there that night I
blowed the light out, intending to see what he would do. I was in Uie up-
per room, and the window looks towards John's. There is a large gate at
the wood-pile, two or three rods from the house, and the negro stood there.
I saw nothing in his hand. The lights were all out He stood there a very
short time. He had got half way into the yard to the door when I saw him.
He turned and walked awav middling fast I staid there till he came back.
He went away straight towards John's, and we didn't lose sight of him until he
returned. I saw him by the front door gate ; he put both hands on the fence
and looked north and south. I saw nothing in his hand. He staid there a
little while, and then went up towards my son's. I then retired to bed, and
had just forgot myself when I was called.
GsoROE BuBBiK^TON, Called and sworn, testified : I remember the time
of the murder. I lost a gray mare that night, and found her at Baldwins-
ville. I missed her on Friday morning. Her halter, blanket and surcingle
were taken with her. They were all delivered back again to me. The mare
was very fleet, and was worth eighty dollars. Freeman had looked at her
about a week befoi^, as he passed me in the street I resided about a mil^
and a half from Mrs. Godfrey, and west from her house. I know her by
sight She lives about four miles from Auburn, on the middle road. My
house is near the highway, and the ba^ stands partly in. the road.
George B. Pabker, called and sworn, testified : I reside at Baldwins-
viUe. On the thirteenth of March I was at PhGsnix, attending a law-suit
I saw Amos there ; his business there was for a warrant He made q>pU«
cation to the justice. Said he wanted to arrest a person, to him unknown,
on suspicion that he had stolen a horse. Thr^e quarters of an hour after, I-
heard of these deaths. I went to Gregg's immediately, and saw the pri^oi^er.
Had conversation with him there. Walter D. Herrick was there also. He
resides at Syracuse. No others were present, I think, until the latter part
of the time. I inquired of him iu reference to this murder, whether and
why he had committed it, whether he had accomplices, and what his olgect
was. I asked how his hand was cut It was not until repeated inquiries
had been nuuie that I got any answer. , Finally he answered that he ha4 a
knife and was whittling there. I asked where the knife was. He answered
that he believed he Icfl it in the yard there. I asked him where he staid
Uie night before, and asked him repeatedly. He said along the road there,
somewhere. I asked him what place he came through before he reached
here. He sai^ he came to Phceniz, I believe. Phocnis is on the direct road
from Syracuse to Gregg's. He said he came through Syracuse. I asked
what time he came through Syracuse. He said about five o'clock. He said
there was some lights at Syr^use. I asked what place he came throug^^be-
14
SIO TBM TBIAL 09
tore he came to Byracnse. He said be t>efieTed diej called it Kine Ifile
Creek. That is on the road £rom Auburn to SyracuBe. I then asked bim
wbat place befbre Nine M3e Creek. He said be beliered tbey called it
Elbridge. That is on the direct route, alsa Then I asked lum wbat
place before Elbridge. He hesitated some time, and I asked if it was Seii-
nett He said, *^1 shan't answer any more; if tbey can prove anj thing
against me let them prove if* I told bim I didn't care about bis making
any oonfeanons in this matter ; that there was proof enoagb against bim.
He took offence at me. I found that be aj^ieared to bear mucb easier some-
times iban others. It was difficult to make bin^ear at all at first, bat when
I got him on the trade be beard without effort He then refbsed to answer,
and wouldn't pay any attention to me. Herrick then commenced questioBr
ing bpn. He got over bis feeling, and then I commenced questioning bim.
I asked bim about the bone. I remarked in a laughing way, " That was a
bad horse that fell down witb you." He said, ^ He did." The mud was on
bb ckibes ; be looked at it and siud, " He did." I asked why be didnt take
a better one. He said be was in a burry, and smiled as be said it I asked
bim why be murdered the child. He said be didnt know that tbere was a
child there. That was all the answer be gave me. I asked wbelber he
knew Van Nest He said he didn*t know any thing about him. I pushed
very bard for tbe reasons he had agunst Van Nest He said, *<Idon'tknow
wbo you are taUdng about ; don't know any thing about bim." He also said,
^^I suppose you know Tve been in State Prison five years. I was put there
innocently. Fve been whipped, and knocked, and abused, and made des£
Tbere won't any body pay me fi)r it" And there be stopped.
I coiddnt get bun to adhnit he'd kiUed any body. I tried bim very tbn*-
oogbly ; yet be admitted be knew something of tbe transaction. I boxed bis
ears, and be called for the constable. My feelings got tbe better of my
' judgment, and I pulled bis ludr a little. He spoke to the constaUe, and
asked if be suffered persons under bis charge to be cufibd in that way.
Taylor said be guessed be wasn't hurt I got bim to confess nothing there,
nor did Herrick, in my bearing. I saw no signs of insanity. It didn*t oc-
cur to me Uiat be was insane. I Ibougbt be'd played a very strong game,
and seemed to rely upon silence for hu fortificadon.
Cboss Examination. — The concealment wbicb be practiced was of ge-
neral knowledge pertaining to the transaction. I asked bim whether be was
put up to it, or was paid, or hired, or employed to do it He said be knew
nothing ^bout Tan Nest The principal and only answer I could get out of
bim, for the cause of committing the crime, was, that be bad been put in
prison. When be commenced tbis narration be went throngb it of bis own
accord. He didn't say bow be bad been abused, nor tiiat be bad appliedfiir
payment to eny body; but said, ''tbere wouldn't any body pay me." It^s
mber my impresnon that be said be was put in prison for stealing a horse.
I asked wbetlier Van Kest bad any ttdng to do with putting bim tbere. He
WXUiUlI nUBBlAV. 2U
Hud, "I don't know vaf tiuog abont Van Nfst" Ircpeaftadly told lum that
it could be proved, bat I wanted he should tell me of his acoomplieea* I
iaked if Hie De Fays were lus aeoon^icea. He said he didn't knov any
tting about it I nentioned no other name. Whenhe deeHned anaweiing^
I boxed his ears, and then he took ofience. I took lum by the hair and
beard and gave his head a litde shake. When I aaked where tha knife waa»
he said, *^1 beHere it's oyer in the yard there." Theae answera were given
in quite a low and monotonoos tone. I was excited hi^^y against him. I
attributed it to his ikying possum, and was wnraght up pretty hif^ aiid lie
abruptly declined answering. It didn't oecor to me that he was lasanA
AuousTtra PiTTmoKB, called and awam^ teatified : I am ahexiff of Caf*
nga county. I saw the prisoner the day he was brought into jaily and^ mm
present at conrersations between him and Sthan A. Warden^ ^l^^rden
asked the prisoner what he killed tk)se people for. He said, *^th^ swore
me into prison." Warden tokl him he waa mistaken duit it was another
fhmily. He said in reply, ** waa it ?"
Dr. Leakdbb B. Bigelow, oafled and sworn, tealifled: I am a phy**
dan and surgeon, I have been in |n«eliee over twenty yean. I know tiba
prisoner and have had oocasiou to tisit him seveial timea in jail to aaoerUan
the state of his nnnd. I began about the fint of June, and continued my yiaiti
nntil week before laet Have ptxt many inqnities to him i^Kmt this eiime*
I have inquired how he prepared and what he nsed in kflfiag this family.
He said wiHh a knife. I aaked where he prooived his knift. Hiareplywaa,
** I got it of a blacksmith right down there by die Sxehange." He had pr^
TLOusly said he had a knife in a club, which was about four feet long. I
ttkedwhere befitted the knife to tbe dub. He said, <' AtthepUwe whmel
boarded." leaked where he gotdieehib. He said, *^ I fixed that op
by the big dam at a shop.** I asked what he did whh the knivee. He aaMl
he bought two knives and they didn't suit hhn. He said **1 gave one to
Sam or Oem Hersey." I then asked what he did widi the odier kaivea.
He said ho sharpened them, fixed them and laid them away. I don't reeel-
lect his language exacdy. I think at this stage I asked what next He
said he carried the stone to Hiram. I aaked what atone* He said a what*
stone which he had. I then tt^ed what he did wHh the kmrea. He said
he took them up where he boarded and put one under the head of his bed|
and the other under the bed. I asked him in convenadon abont going to
Van Nesf s at the time of the murder. He said he went up staiia and got
hiflthings, carried them down and hid tbem in or under the wood. linqid-
red what he did tlien. He said he went back into the hooae. I asked what
he (Hd in the house. He said, ^Nothing, but stood round there andthooght
about It ; didn't know what to do, but finally thought I'd go, any how." I than
inquired what he did then. He said he went out and got his things and
stuied ofi* up the road. In this eonrersadon I next aaked how he carried
the knife which he kiHedwith. Heputhis haadtohs breast, leftside,
212 «n null or
«id6ud,<<Inhei«.'' I next inqoirad who he killed fint Hendd Van Nest
I asked what Van Neetaaid. He said ^nothing^ at ant,butoontiBued, ''He
* aaked me what Iwaated." I should think he related no further conyenadoa
that took place then. In one conyersrtion I aaked wheie» on his person, he ,
stabbed Van Nest He looked up, then cast down his eyes and showed me,
to the left of the hreast bone. I aaked how many he killed. He said fiye.
He said about taking the horse, when I asked why he took the horse,
^ Well, my wrist was cut and I thooght I oould go quicker." I aaked where
he left the club when he went to Van Nest's. He said '' Out by the gate."
He said he rode the first horse down near New Guinea. I questioned him
until he got into his story Uiat the horse fell tiiere* I aaked why he didn't
get on again and go on ; his answer was '' he wan't good for nothing." I
a8ke(|^ he did anytlang to the horse; he said yes, he stabbed him. lasked
him why he stabbedhim ; he said he fell on him and hurt him. I aaked him
'i f where he went then. He said^ '' I came down into the village and went np
the side walk to the middle road toward Syracuse." I asked if he got an-
other horse. He said Yes. I asked where. He said '' on the middle
road." I asked how fiur from the Tillage. He said amile or mile and a half
I asked where he went then. He said, '' Well, down back there by Fhosnix."
leaked him if he went to Syracuae. He said, *'I did." I asked what was
^ time he passed through Syracuse. He said, ^ About daylight" I aaked
what he did with the club with the knife in it He said '' I threw it away
little this side of Syracuse " I asked him what he went down to Fhanix for.
He said, *' Well* my hand was cut, and I thought I'd gp down back there till
Pd oured it up."
€eo88 £xahznatio2^^-^I haye been a surgeon to the State Fiison about
aeyea years. I recollect of Freeman's calling twice at the Hoq>itaI. Thefizst
time he came waa I think in January, 1844 or '45, and complained of ear-
ache and was prescribed for ; he came again in June or July and complained
of costaveness, I gave him a cathartic. I haye indistinct recollection that he
was dea£ I don't recollect how I answered on the preliminary trial as to
his deaftiess. I think I answered as now ; I may have answered that he was
deaf, and now I say I don't know to what degree he was deaf. These con-
yersalions aboye took place since the court commenced, and they were had
with reference to his sanity, at the suggestion of the District Attorney.
Liike Freeman waa present at one examination. I asked William bow old
he was; don't know that Luke was then present He said twenty one the first
of last September. Fm not positiye as to what time. I asked how long he'd
been in jaU ; he said about three months. Luke pointed to a scar on his
wrist and said he got it in Weedsport At first Bill said, ^< No, it was another,"
and showed his right arm where was a scar ; as to the other cut, he said ^' I
got that up to the Lake where I was." I aaked him what were the names
of the days of the week ; he answered, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and hesitated ; then said Sunday. I asked him
WIUiZAlC TtaSMMAS. 213
whefiher one day waa better than another. He said, ** I don't know as one's
any better tban another." I asked if we ought to go to meeting. I think
he said, " Well, I s'pose we ought to go to meeting." I asked when. He said,
'' The Sabbath." I asked him how many days in a week. He said nx ; and
after hesitation, <* six days and the seventh." I asked Imn how many wedas
in a month ; his answer was four. I asked how many hours in a day ; he said
twelye. I asked him how many in a night; said twelve. I asked how many
in both ; he said twenty four. I asked how many shillings in a dollar; he
said eight I asked how many cents there were in a dollar; he said one
hundred. I asked him how many days there were in a year ; he said, ^ I
don't know exactly." I asked how many months there were in a year ; he
said twelve. I asked when he came out of prison ; he sdd, ^ Twentieth of last
September." I asked how long he was in prison ; he said five yem. I
asked would it be right for me to kill Luke now ; he said " I don't know how
you could kill him." I asked if it would be right if I should. He replied,
<* I don't know." I asked if he would like to see me do it; he said, *' I should
not think any thing about it" I asked if he was lonesome ; he said, No.
I asked him how many he killed ; he said five. I asked whether they were
men, women or children ; he said, ^ Two men, two women and one child." I
asked wbether he expected to be hui^ hr it He said, '' I don't think any
thing of it"
I said, ** Are you afraid you shall be hung ?" He said, " No, sir." I asked
what made him kill that family. He answered, ** Well, to see if I couldn't
get revenge, or get some pay fin* being in State Prison about a horse ; and I
didn't do it" I examined his pulse and found it seventy-^even at the com-
mencement, and lit this stage it was eighty-one, as he was standing. I aaked,
'< Why did you not kill the widow Godfrey first ?" He said, "1 got it in
my head that I would go up that way first, and then go round there." I
a^ed, if on that night he went to widow Godfrey's. He said, << I did." Then
I asked why he didn't go into the house. He said, ** Because my hand was
cut, and I couldnt think to go in and handle my hand." I asked how he
went into widow Godfrey's yard. He sdd, <* I rode right into the yard."
Then I asked, "Whose horse did you have?" He said, "I don't know
whose." I asked, "How did you get the hone V He said, " It was to a
bam ; my hand was cut, and I didn't know what to do ; and I went into a
bam, took a horse, and tiiought I would ride him." I asked, " Did you have
another horse?" He said. Yes. I asked where he got it He said, "Up
there where I was." I said, " When you killed the folks ?" He said, Tes.
I aaked where he got the second horse. He said, " I got him ont on the
middle road, towards Syracuse." I asked, " Are you sorry you killed that
Htde child?" He said, " I don't think much about it" I then repeated,
" Are you not sorry you killed the little child ?" He said, " I don't know
but it was hard— it was little — I rather it was bigger." My next question
was, "Do you not know it is not right to kill folks?" He replied,"! s'pose
214 fn nuL «t
it aint rigbt to kill folks." I i^ed, <« Wlio wiS keeper of the pruoa when
yoa vas there ?" He taid, ^ Captain Cook was keeper when I went there."
I next asked lum whedier there waa any other keeper. Hia answer was,
**Mr. Doubleday was keeper." I next asked him whether there was any
other. He said, " There was another one^'' Then I asked what his name
was. He said, <' I don't know what his name was ; the same thatis over there
now.'' I next asked, ** What was the keeper's name in the shop where 70a
worked ?" He said, '* Captain Ifills." His poise was then at eiglity-eix.
TViesday eyening, 24th of June, I examined him again, and this examin-
adon was alone. He sal on hia tub, and held the candle. It was daring the
preliminary triaL He had been in court that afternoon. I asked William
where he had been. He said in the ooort house. I aaked what he went
therefor. He nid, *< I don't know,-" or, « Well, I can't tell what I did go
there for." I asked if he went alone. He said, '^ Two went up first time,
and one the last tame." He'd been in tince. He said, ** I think twas sheriff
went with me." I asked who he saw there. He said to tliis purport, '< Isaw
a good many there." I asked him if he knew any particular ones Ibere. I
thinkhesaid,"* I knew Mr. Wood, who used to be jailer." laskedhowhe
knew him. He^obsepred tibat Wood came round and talked with him. Then
I asked wbether Wood talked with him in the court house. He said, » No;
he came round and talked to me in my cell, here." Then I asked if he was
in jafl when Wood was jailer. He said, "Tes ; I was ia about a hone." I
asked him how long ago. He said, '' five years ago the twentieth of last
September. I mean, I went to prison fite years ago, finom here." Then I
asked if he saw any body else, that he knew, in the court house. He said,
<* I saw Mr. Doubleday^" I ad»d what they were doing in the court house.
He said, *<I didn't know exactly what; they was talking*,, that is all I could
see." I aaked what he' killed the Van Nest family witib. He said, a knife.
I asked where he got it He said he got it of a blacksmith, right by the £x-
ohange. I asked how he fixed it to kill them. He said, '*I had one in the
first place ;" then paused, and said, "I had two in the first place, and gave
6ne to Sam Heraey ; I didnt like 'em." I asked what he did with the other
knife. He said he fitted it to a stick. I asked him what tiien. He said,**!
diarpened it up to suit me and laid 'em aside, and let 'em lay there." I
then asked what then. He said, *' I took the stone back, and gave it to Hi-
ram." I asked what stone. He said, ^ A whet stone I had of him." I asked
what then. He said, ^ I stood round and thought about it, and didn't know
whether 'twas best to go or not I thought I would go, any way, and I started."
Then I asked what then. He said, " I went to the house — ^up stairs--got my
things — ^hid them under the wood, and went back into the house." Then I
aaked, '< What did you do then ?" He said, " Nothing. I stood round there
until I went up to the lake." I asked him who he killed first He said,
*^ Van Eppe, I think they called him." Then I asked who next He replied*
**A woman; don't know who ahe was. I aaw her pass by the window."
Then I uked wbo ne^ He siud^ "A Utile cluld Uj on the bed; I hjHed
him next." Then I asked whp next He Mi^ "A man up fitairs ; but I
didn't kill him, for I aaw him aflerwarda."
I saw nothing to satisfy me that the prisoner was insane ; not enough to
satisfy me. I find him a man that I consider of low, degraded intellect, and
of very limited knowledge. I suppose he was put into prison at fourteen or
fifteen years of age, and had litde chance there. At one examination, he
stated that he went to meeting some. From my examination I have made
of Fryman, I am satisfied that he is deaf in one ear, and partially so in the
other, and can hear but few words that are addressed to him. •
The counsel for the people here rested.
M&. Wbiqht then opened the case to tlie juiy, on the part of the pri*
soner, in substance tis follows;
Mat it pleasb the Coust--<
Gentlemen of the Jury : We have now arriyed at that stage of this much
pzxytracted and exciting trial, when it becppies the duty of tiiose haying
charge of the defence, to explain to the court and juiy the nature and
grounds of that defence. And first, gentlemen, I may be permitted to spea)|p
in relation to the reasons of our appearing here as counsel in making a de-^
fence in this case.
I very well know, gentlemen, that we have been censored, aiid in no
measured terms, by those who wish to be considered as good citizens, and
worthy, and honest, and law-abiding men, for appearing at all in defending
the prisoner at the bar. But not so haye we learned our duty.
To us, gentlemen, the prisoner was a stranger until after his incarceration
in yonder jaLL His defence has not been sou^t for by any of us* My re-
spected, learned, and most distinguished friend, who leads in this defence,
engaged therein after frequent and urgent application by those who, as we
think, honestly and firmly belieyed that when the fatal blows were giyen by
the prisoner at the bar, he was bereft of that reason, the possession of which
alone could render him amenable to this tribunal for bis acts. And as re-
gards myself, you well know, that the onerous and unpleasant, task was im-
posed upon me by the court, whose directions, in that respect, I was scarcely
at liberty to decline. But I must, in justice to myself^ say, gentlemen, that
howeyer much I may and do respect the authority of this court, yet, what-
ever might haye been the consequences to myself, I never would have con-
pented to act as counsel for the prisoner in this case, had not my own mind
been firmly, aye, beyond any reasonable doubt, convinced that the prisoner
ia not now, and was not at the time of the deaths of his victims, in any pro-
per sense of the word, sane, or accduntable, and that he, therefore, was not,
and could not be guilty of murder. Although we appear here as counsel for
the accused, and as such are bound to do all in our power to prevent an un«
just or an illegal conviction, yet, gentlemen, we, too, are the fellow citizens of
those who were so unexpectedly cut off from amongst us, and we cannot,
216 TBM VWJML OV
nor need we deny, that we do feel our responBibilhy as dtizens, whilst acting
here in the capacity of counsel ; and for myself, I can most solemnly assert,
that my duty as counsel in this case, is not incompatible with my duty as a
citizen, for I do most eonscientSously belieye, gentlemen, that the conviction
of this man, (if man he can yet be called,) by reason of public clamor, or
public excitement, and contrary to the evidence which has been, and which
shall be given in the cause, would be a much greater calamity to our com-
mon country than the death of those who have Men by his insane hand.
And ilus, gentlemen, brings me to the defence interposed here. I need
scarcely say to you, gentlemen, that that defence is insanity. And why have
we interposed that defence ? It is none of our work. It has not been got
up by the ingenuity of counsel, for the purpose of saving the guilty'from the
effects of his crime. That defence was suggested by others, before any one
of us was in any wise connected with the case.
Men, eminent in this branch of medical jurisprudence, men who were
called to visit the jail in which the accused was confined, without any refer-
ence to him or his offence, saw him there, and became satisfied that there
was at least reason to doubt his sanity. Further examination convinced them
that there was no doubt in the case, and hence, it became a duty which the
citizens of this county owed to public justice, that that question should be
examined ; and I need hardly say to you now, that the further examination
tended but to confirm the previous impressions, until that which was but
oonjectore, became convictaon.
You have been told by the learned gentleman who opened this case on
the part of the prosecution, that he, as also the learned and distinguished
public functionaiy who leads in this prosecution, saw at once, npon their
first interview with the prisoner, that there was no insanity in the case.
We do not say either of those distinguished gentlemen have, in the least,
misstated his impression ; but we do say that others, quite as well qualified
to judge upon that subject, and quite as likely to be impartial in their judg-
ments, and correct in their conclurions, came to a very different conclusion,
in which we fully coincided. And hence, gentlemen, we did interpose the
plea of iosani^; a plea which, although it may now and hereafter be, as it
heretofi>re has been, ridiculed as the device of counsel on behalf of those
who have no other defence, yet it is one, which, of all others, should, when
honesdy interposed, be treated with deference and respect, and examined
with caution and without prejudice ; a plea which, if false, is the most dif^
ficnlt to sustain, and, if true, should be the last to be disregarded.
But, gentlemen of the jury, this is no new plea ; it is, and for centuries
past has been, well known to the conunon law, and it is now also incorporar
ted into and forms a part of the statute law of this State, which declares that
**No act done by a person in a state of insanity, can be punished as an of*
fence ; and no insane person can be tried, sentenced to any punishment, or
WILLUM nUDEMAN. 217
panished for any crime or offence, wlule be continues in that state." (2 B.
8., 697, Sec. 2.)
Hence, yon will see, gentlemen, that it is not the plea jtself which our
opponents can make the subject of their ridicule, or, justly, of complaint
But, say they, it has already been tried and disproYed. IKsproTcd, indeed !
and how, and when, and where ? Was it when the accused was brou^t into
court to hear the offence with which he was charged read to him, by the
district attorney ? There were some who were convinced that he either did
not hear, or that he could not understand the nature of ^bose charges. Thai
he heard, was evident; at least we will not presume that the prosecution
would put a sane man upon trial for his life, without first, in some way, ccmi*
municating to him fbll knowledge of the charge which he must meet ; and if
he did hear, he must certainly be either more or less than human, to have
shown such stolid indifference. But let that pass, gentlemen. But, say the
learned counsel opposed, that question has been passed upon and decided
by the previous jury. That we deny ; we deny that that jury, by their ver-
dict, have passed upon the issue submitted to them. Look ibr one moment,
gentlemen, at the verdict they have rendered. I will read it to you ; they
say, <* We find the prisoner at the bar sufficientiy sane in mind and memoiy to
distinguish between right and wrong." And is that sanity ? I will venture to
assert, tiiat there is no court claiming to act according to any civilized notions,
that will so hold. At any rate, we do know that the courts of this State do not
so hold. Hie lowest standard which is ever required in questions of this
kind, is, that the accused shall be able to distinguish right from wrong in
regard to the particular transaction in question. We tell you, gentiemen,
that the finding of that juiy is no verdict ; and we shall treat it accordingly.
[The counsel here referred to the motion which had been made to postpone
this trial, and of the trouble and difficulty of obtaining the jury, &c., of the
challenges to the jurors, and the result; and deprecated any unkind feelings
which might have arisen in the minds of any of the jurors thereby ; and ex^
pressed the hope that the accused should, at least, receive at their hands a
patient hearing, and an impartial trial. He then proceeded.]
The learned district attorney has told us, that this is the most important
trial that has occupied the courts of tiiis country for the last half century.
Indeed ! Why so? There is no property at stake. The result cannot re-
suscitate or reanimate the forms of the slaughtered victims. Why, then, b
this trial so very important? It certainly cannot be because the lifo of an
« unlearned, ignoruit, stupid, and degraded negro" depends upon it ; the
life of one who is by them conceded to be of very low intellect, indeed —
scarcely above the brutes that perish. It cannot be because a plea is inter-
posed by counsel in a case where learned gentiemen, who are not adepts
upon the snbject of insanity, can so easily and at a glance detect its non-
existence*
But, gentiemen, I will not deny that this eanse is important, and as
S18 vm nuL o?
raeh we hare treated it, and as each ire dudl otyntuue to treat it» de^ite of
lamentatioiiB here or elsewhere ; despite of ridicule of counsel, the contuneljr
of some, and the threats and denvuieialiona of others of our fellow citieeBs.
It is important The public hss MTeved themselves to become e^^cited upon
this sulgect; there is a demon thirst for blood, aaunchristiaii thirst fi>r re>
Tenge ; and it is import^t to ascertain whether, under all these disadvantage
we can obtain for this once a man, this now but a clod, a £ur and impartial
Hial, by and before a jurj of our country. It is this, and this omly, that
renders this cause important
' The learned district attorney has suffered himsei(f to declaim to you upon
the consequences of an acquittaL He has told yon that the effiect of aa
acquittal by you, would b^ to discharge tha accused; to releaae him firaia
impnsonment; to turn him loose upon soqiety to kill and slay your fellow
oiliaens. What) a^OMman, aod so daogerous? But^ gentlemen, in tbii
Hbtd learned gentleman has suffered hu| imaginatioi^ to outriMi the law and
the facts of the. case. Does he forget, that althongh acquitted npoa the
cboi^ for which he is now upon trial, yet there wxmld remain some threeor
ibur other indiotaaents f<;Kr murder against hipv? For I need not say to yoo,
at this stage of the trial, that he is now up<m trial £ok the murder of John G.
Van Nest, only. How* ihen^ is he to escape fnxn. confinement, were he In
be acquitted by you ? I tell you, gentlemen, it cannot be. Whether 000!*
Tieted or acquitted, he cannot, and, I will add, he should not, be allowed to
eseape from the restraint of Uie law. I concede, ni^, I aver, tha|; he is, and
he long has been, wholly unfit to roam at Urge. . He woul4 be, as he hsf
been, a dangerous person, if at laige. And he would be soior the sole reaioB
that his judgment aufd xeason have been, and are, dethroned ; becanse ha
now is, and long has been, suffering from a diseased brain, and is and hsi
been in a state of insanity. But I do not say this to influence yoi) ia regaid
to the Tcrdict whicih you shall render ; that most depend upoii the evideaos
as it shall operate upon your understandings. If you sbaU be convinced that
he ia guilfy of the death of John G. Van Nest, of which he stands charged,
and that he was at the time sane, then, gentlemen, X trust yoo will ao saj,
unhesitatingly, whatever m^y be the consequences. And, on the other famd,
should you be convinced that at Hie tame of the death of that lamented feU
low <sitizen, tiie accused was insane, then, gentlemen, I tnjst, and will no|
doubt, that you will most cheerfully so say by your verdict, let the conse-
quences of that verdict be what they may.
The district attorney has also suffered himself to speak of the frequency
of the interposition of the plea of insanity, of the difficulty of biingiag of-
Candera to justice. Gentlemen, I will ask the learned District Attorney, J
will ask you, if the case was ever heard of, where such plea was interposed
vucoesslully, unless true in fact He baa also, by way of ridicule I suppose,
auffered himself to speak of somnambulism in connection with this subject,
and would ftin carry the impressioii, at leasti that fbe one was as eady
wiuuvnunAff. 219
feigiied as the otlier. Bii^sixch declamation ifnoUungnew; ithasbeenused
before, and doubdeas will be so oaed i^un. In speakbg of the trial of
Lottia Leeouffe, who wai tried at Faria in 1823, Doct Bay, in his Medical
Jnrispnidence, (Sec. 64.) aaya, ** Againat all this amy of eTidenoe, the adiro-
cate general had nothing to offer but the idle deekraation <«aually resorted
la on aneh oooaaions. The atten^f^t of the prisoner'a counsel to establish the
eiistenee of imbecilily and mania, he reprobated in the seTerest terms, aa
dangerous to society, sabventTe of social order, destmctive of morality and
religion, and affording a direct encooragement to crime."
Had the learned aothor attended this trial, he could not more truly hare
diBflcribed the efforts of our learned and diBtlnginshed adversaries.
Bat, gentlemen, had no one testified upon the subject, medunka any one
upon reflection might be lempCed to doubt the sanity of tiie accused. Why
did he commit these five-lbld nmrders? What waa the motiye ? He had
no ill will against any of them ; they had never offended him ; his objeet
was not plunder ; he took nothing ; he did not attempt to take anything.
No motive whatever, not only no adequate motive, if snch term can be ^)plied
in any snch case, but nO motive whatever has been, or, as I think, can be
aaaigned for the deed; and shall we, can we for a moment beHeve that a
aan« man can ihus kill and slay hilfeUow man? I cannot so believe. But I
do not therefore aay that ffoUf sitting aa jurors, to try the prisoner upon the
evidence, can safely come to this conclusion ; jroti must have affirmative evi*
dence upon the question of this man's insanity. And this brings me to the
qoestion, '* What is insanity a» now understood, and as that term is used in
the Bevked Statutes ?" Doct Bay^ in his wt>rkbef<m <»ted, tdls us that '4t
should be diakiactly understood that it is, first* a disease of the brain ; and
secondly, diat in its various grades and fonns, it observes the same laws aa
dbeaaes of other organs.^ (Sec. 98.) He further tells us that <* Mania arises
from a morbid affection of the brain." (Sec. 93«)
And Doct Brigham, principal of the State Lunatic AsTlnm, at Utica,
tiian whom there is not a more pure minded man, or one better qualified
fipom education, habit, and oppoilNinity to judlge of this matter, has told us»
iriien testifying undfir the solemn sanctions of the oath of a witneas, in
this cause, diat Insanity ia a disease of the brain ; that " there never can
bo insanity wkhout disease of the brain." He says, " We si^ the mind ia
diseased, and we have all heard it so, and here in court, but it is not strietly
correct ; no more than to say in disease of the lunga, that the breathing ia
diseased. The mind itself is, we believe, immaterial and uomortal, and in«
capable of disease or change. If the mind can become diseased, or changed,
it may die, like other organs of the body. But, it being connected with the
bnin, by whidk it operates in this lifife, when the brain becomes diseasedi
the mind becomes disordered in actaoh ; just as when the stomach is diseaaed
the digestion is disordered ; or when the lungs are diseaaed the breaUnng is
diaoK^ered. But the brain ia snch a delicate. orgen, it cannot bear muek
226 THBtBULOV
disease. Sometimes in instoity we find bat litde ttsce of diseaae, so tnS&Bg
as not materially to disturb the health. Hence we find thto most p^epo8te^
ons ideas and notions kept up for yearsi and but little disease of the brain.
The brain, being the organ of the mind, when that becomes diseased the
mind becomes cBsordered.*'
Thus yovL will perceive gentlemen, this is no mjsterious matter, no spedil
visitation, but that to which all flesh inay he heir to ; scttnething that most be
proven by the testimony of witnesses, and be judged of as any other matter
of fact
It is not necessary, to constitute a man insane — nor indeed is it usual— 4hat
he shall lose any of his faculties, but that some one or more of them shsfl
become deranged, disordered, not lost or destroyed; and so says Mr. Guy,
in his work upon this subject He says, <' The insane differ fitxn the sane,
not in having lost any of tiieir faculties, bat in exercising tliem differently."
(Guy, 828.)
But, says the district attorney, this man^i ftusulties are aU sound. That,
gendemen, is the question between us; the question that yon,' and not he,
must decide. He says this man had premeditation ; he prepared his weapons
before hand, and then concealed them until he wanted them for use. And
what does that prove, gentlemen, upon tliis subject Guy teUs us, that *' the
maniac, if naturally of a reserved disposition, or when impefied by a strong
motive, has the power to conoeid his delusion." (Guy, 895.) He further
says, " The acts of the madmati often evince the same finrethought as the
sane.** (^uy Site.) *^ He is often conscious of his staite, and knows the legal
relations in which it places him.*' (Ouy, S2t.) I believe, gentiemen, that is
more than is pretended here, in regard to the accused. I tlunk we have
not as yet heard from any witness, that Freeman has ever said, or done, or
admitted any thing, whereby it could even be suspected that he understood,
or that he now understands, the legal relation in tvrhich the act oommitfeed by
him has placed him.
But, say the learned gentiemen who i^pear for the prosecution, he hss
memory, and veiy retentive too. We do not deny that he has memory,
and retentive, too, in regard to some things. But was there ever an insane
person who had not ? Nothing short of utter and total imbecility can des*
troy that organ ; it may be very much diseased, and, in regard to some things
or perhaps it would be more correct to say, in regard to some class or classes
of things, it may be entirely gone, when as to other things or classes of
things, it may be unimpaired. We have many instances of the kind in the
books. Hear what Doct Ray si^s, upon this subject ; ^ Generally speaking "
he says, " after the acute stages have passed off, a maniac has no difficulty in
remembering his friends and acquaintances, the places he has been accu^
tomed to frequent, names, dates and events, and the occurrences of his life.**
(Ray's Med. Jur. Sec. 291.) And has Freeman shown more than this?
Doct Ray, farther says, <« The ordinary relations of things are, witiMwme
wOffdAM warns. 821
ezcepdoiiB, as easBy and clearly perceived as ever, and his diflcrunination of
character aeems to be marked by his usual shrewdness. His replies to ques-
tions, though they may sometimes indicate delusion or extravagant notions,
generally have some relation to the subject, and show that it has occupied
his attention." (Id.) And now, gentlemen, apply that doctrine to this case.
All the information we have firom Freeman, has been procured by inteiro-
gatiAg him ; and you will remark, that his answers are uniformly very short
He never converses, not even for a single sentence. It is true he generally
answers questions that are asked, if within his comprehension, which is con-
ceded to be quite limited, but his answers are uniformly of the shortest, and
moat generally in monosyllables ; and do not his answers, when asked why
he killed these people, most clearly indicate his delusion ? — ** wanted my pay."
And was that the " pay'* a sane man would want, and from one who never
owed him — with whom he had never dealt ? Was there not delusion here ?
But I must leave this for another, in whose hands it will meet much better
justice.
But, says the learned counsel for the prosecution, when we ask what is in«
sanity, " The law has settled that," Indeed ! and how has it been settled ?
Why, says the district attorney, '^ any person who knows enough to distin-
guish right &om wrong is sane." But there are many cases, and all of the
late cases upon the subject decided in this State, and also in Massachusetts,
which show that such is not the law. A person must at least have sufficient rea-
son, mind and memory to distinguish right from wrong in relation to the par-
ticular act chaiged against hiuL Hear whatJ)oct Ray says upon this subject
" That the insane mind is not entirely deprived of this power of moral dis-
cernment, but on many sul^jects is perfectly rational, and dispkys the exer-
cise of a sound mind, is one of those facts now so well established, that to
question it, would only betray the height of ignora^ce and presumption.
The first result, therefore, to which the doctrine leads, is, that no man can
ever successfully plead insanity in defence of crime, because it can be said
of no one,, who would have occasion for such a defence, that he was unable
in any case to distinguish right from wrong." (Ray's Med. Jur. Sec. 1 7.)
[The counsel here read Sect's. 17 and 18, of Ray's work, and proceeded.]
Thus, gentlemen, you will perceive, the doctrine contended for by the pros-
ecution, and which, by the by, was the doctrine which caused and which
received the verdict of the former jury in this case, stands plainly, and pal-
pably, and flatly contradicted by the authorities of our courts, as also by the
authority of the medical writers on this subject
Much has been said, gentlemen, in regard to this defence. It has been
characterized as a dangerous doctrine, liable to great abuse ; and much, in-
deed, has been sidd upon the subject that can have but little reference to
the case before you ; for, as I have already shown you, gentlemen, there can
be no danger in this case to society, or to individuals, should the defence
prove, as we think it should, and as we hope it may, successful. But the
222 TB^tilALOf
justice of such a defence, vlien true, in faet, luu been abty, eloquendj and
truly stated, hj the author from whose work 1 have abeady so fiberaHf qfUh
ted ; and I must here beg four indulgence while I read again from his aUe
work.
[The counsel then read Sections 66, 67 and 69 of Baj's Med. Jur.]
The learned counsel for the prosecution msist, that upon us fies the onn^
as the lawyers call it, of this issue — ^that is, that we must prove the insanitjr ;
that inasmuch as men are generally sane, and we claim the exception, we
must show, affirmatively, that ^^ch is the case. Well, gentlemen, however
hard, and, allow me to add, somewhat absurd, it may appear, to require a
crazy man to prove his insanity, yet I suppose such is indeed the law of tin
land, and we must conform to it Then, gentlemen, how shatt we prove tfas
issue ? What kind of evidence shall we present to yon, to convince your minds
that this man was insane at the time the offeilce is alleged to have been cooh
mitted ? We shall first show you the accused as he was in his infancy, and
in his boyhood ; that he was an active, bright, spri^tly lad, in no wise ad-
dicted to quarreling or other evil practices. In ftct, if our infoimation he
correct, we shall show you that he was, when young, good natured and kind
in his disposition, and that he so remained until after his incarceration in the
penitentiary for a crime which he then and now insisti he never committed.
That while confined in the prison, he was abused, ill treated and flogged;
that he became morose, soured in temper, and desperate, and was so altered
upon returning to the world, that his fiiends scarcely knew him ; even Ids
mother could scarcely believe ft posdble that this morose, surly and sour
young man could be her bright and cheerful boy, from whom she parted hot
a few years befbre. Tlds change alone, gentlemen, yon wffl find, from die
medical books which we shall produce before yon, and ttom the testimony of
the medical gentlemen whom we shall examine upon this subject, to be one
of the most unfailing symptoms of insanity ; so much so as to be considered
a test in all such cases.
[The counsel then spoke of the ignorance of the accused ; of his want of
opportunities for improvement ; of his isolated position amongsttis, by reason
of the wicked and unchristian prejudice against him and all others of Us
kind, by reason of their color ; of the wrongs he had sufibned, the hardships
he had endured, and the cruelties which had been inflicted upon him; and
was amazed that we should now hold up our hands in holy horror at tiie
resuh ci our own treatment of this " unlearned, ignorant, stnpid and de-
graded negro.*^
Yes, genUemen, those epithets, as used by the learned district attorney, are
all applicable, and yet there are men, even in our profession, who dare be-
lieve that <* God made oi one blood all the nations of the earth;" and that
notwithstandmg all his ignorance, and stupidly, and degradation, he has
been a brother man, made in the image of his Maker, and might have so
oontmued but for the bmtal treatment received by him amongst this Chria-
wnxtiM ncmuN. 99B
tian commiisity. That notwithstandiiig aH iliis, lie is jet entitled, and so
ftr as the efforts of his coaiidd can secure it, he shall hare a hearing aa can*
did and as patient, a trial as fair and impartia], as coold be accorded to him
irere he the son of an ex-president
Bat, gentlemen, there is another species of testimony, which is allowed by
the laws of the land, and of which we intend to avail ourselves in this case,
I allndo to the testimony of medical witnesses ; of tiiose who hate been ac^
customed to the society and treatment of the insane. And we hope yott
will cast aftde all pr^dice, if any yon now hare, agidnst these gentlemen,
or the evidence which they have already given, or shall hereafler give.
Yon have been cantioned by the learned counsel opposed, against iJie
evidence of these witnesses. Yon have been told that tibere is great dif^BT-
ence between "testamony" and "evidence;" that "testimony is but the
declaration of witneases, and becomes evidence only when it carries convic*
timi.'' That may be a very coinfortable doctrine for a juror who is desirous
of rendering a certain kind of ver<Kct; for if this view be correct, I wiU
guarantee conviction will not fbUoWj unless the declaration of the witnesses
shaQ correspond with the wishes of the juror. I trust, gentlemen, nay, I will
not doubt, that yon will at once reject a doctrine so absurd and so dangerous.
Again, the learned counsel who here represents the county, has warned you
most earnestly, and with much solemnity, against placing rriiance upon the
0|Mnion of witnesses. And in this connexion he most dnnecessarily, and, aa
we think, rather rudely, arraigned before you the most estimable and worthy,
and not more esdmable and worthy than learned, principal of our Lunatic
Asyham^ and also against the j^resident of Ae State Mecfical Society. Gen-
tlemen, I know not your feelings or views upon Mb subject, but to me there
appeared something So grating to the feelings, and so repugnant to the good
taste, and so foreign to the courtesy that should in all eases govern conns^
whte speaking of fhoee who are, by the process of the court, and at great
pexsonal sacrifice, corapdled to attend as witnesses upon this trial, in behalf
of one who can in no event, nor by any possibility, remunerate them, even
with the small pittance of his thanks, that I know it wiU be unnecessary to
do more than merely allude to the circumstance, to cause even the learned
counsel to regret that in the hurry and excitement of his opening speech, he
should have sneeringly compared the opinions of these and other eminent
gentlemen, whose testimony has already been heard in this defence, to the
belief in necromancy, divination. Sec.
The learned gentleman told you to start with no mysterious notions in
regard to this matter of insanity ; that it was not men of letters, those who
were enunmed with theories, who should give the law in such cases. Why,
gentlemen, what would the learned counsel have in this case ? Our poor
senseless client is so ignorant, it would almost appear, ttom the learned coon-
■^'s estimate of him, impossible that he ever could have changed for the
worse, and witiiout some such change irguea the counsel, he cannot be b-
834 . TSB TMlAi» Of
sane. On the other hand, our witnesses are ao learned, or so ciaimned with
theories, (to use the language of the learned gentleman^) that they are un-
safe judges in relation to the question of his sanity. No matter that they
have devoted the energies of a well disciplined and cultivated mind to the
diseases of this of all other the most peculiar and sensitive of the human oigans ;
no matter that they have for many years devoted their time and attention,
their sleepless nights and their watchful days, to the care and attention of
these, the most unfortunate of the human race ; no matter that with plulan-
throphy unbounded, they have devoted themselves solely to the study and
alleviatbn of ** the mind diseased." No matter for all that — ^yet because their
learning, their experience, and may I not add, gentlemen, their wisdom, does
not happen to coincide with the opinion of the learned counsel, in regard to
the condition of the mind of this particular subject — ^this ^' unlearned, igno-
rant, stupid and degraded negro" — ^they must be the sul^eets of his ridicule,
and that science, the most difficult in the range of human studies, is con^psz^
ed with the exploded errors of a barbarous age. But, gentlemen, I wss gisd
to hear the learned counsel, in the warmth of his. address to you, refer to the
scene between Festus and the great Apostle to the Gentiles. Nothing more
apposite to the present occasion, could have been selected from that inspired
volmne than this most mtoiorable scene. " Festus said with a Umd voices
(I wonder gentlemen if he had ever been district attorney,) Paul, thou srt
beside thyself, much learning doth make thee mad ;" and so says the lesn*
ed district attorney, to the mildest and gentlest of spirits, whose leamug is
doubtless as much beyond the comprehension of the learned counsel, in
this case, as was that of Paul's beyond the cooiq>rehension €i the most noble
Festus, in regard to the matters about which Paul was then pleading. And
well might Doct. Brigham answer his accuser in the same language as wsi
used by the great Apostle on that occasion, and with strict tn;ith : '^I sm
not mad, most noble Festus, (most learned district attorney,) but speak forth
the words of truth and soberness." But, gentlemen, I must bring this part
of the subject to a dose. It is, you are aware, the sheet anchor a[ our hopes
in this case, and I must therefore be pardoned for the time I have spent
upon it \ and I know that I could not express my own feelings and opinions,
half so well as they have already been expressed by the author from whom
I have already and so liberally quoted. I will therefore close this branch
of the subject, with reading an extract from his invaluable work. [Theooon-
sel then read to the jury, Sects. 29 and 30, of Ray's, Med. Jur.]
And now, gentlemen, in conclusion, I must beg, nay entreat of yon, in tiie
name of that justice which you are called upon to administer, to cast aside
any prejudice which you may have imbibed against the prisoner, his coun-
sel or his defence ; to give to hb witnesses a fair and in^>artial examinaticm ;
to his defence a fair and impartial scrutiny, and to his counsel a fair and im-
partial hearing. And as you hope to have meted out to you^ so do you mete
out to this wretched imbecile the same measure of justice. And should yon
wiujAX nnoiAK.
oobflcientkmsly come to the conclusion that he now n, and at ^e time of the
perpetration of the deaflis of his Tictima, was of sane ndnd, whatever majbe
the consequences to him, or to others, so dedare bj joor verdict. And, on
the other hand, geAtkmen, should we succeed in bringing to your minds that
conviction which now acts upon ours, (and which enables us, as you must al-
ready have seen, to labor aeabusly, and, aa we trust, in allfaithftdneas ; not-
withstanding we are surrounded with the multitude in which we can scarce
recognize a smiling face, or an a{)proving look towards us ; notwithstanding
our professional proqiects may be, and perhaps must be seriously affected by
our zeal in defence of this ** unlearned, ignorant, stupid and degraded negro ;")
that he now is and for months^ nay for years before the fatal transaction re*
feired to, was an insane man, and wholly irresponnblo to this or any other
court for his acts, I will not, I dare not doubt that you will for one moment
hesitate so to declare by your verdict, whatever the consequences may be to
yourselves, or to him.
Wasbbn T. Wobden was then called as a witness on the part of the
pnsoner, and being sworn, testified : I have resided in this village for twenty
years, and am a counsellor at law by profession, and for many years have
been in practice. Having heard much of this prisoner, I was induced to
visit the jail where he was confined, for the purpose of satisfying myself
whether he had mind enough to be held legally responsible fbr his ik;ts. Se-
veral persons, among whom was Dr. Briggs, had represented to me that he
was a singular personage, and by his invitation I went to the Jail, in April
last, to see him myself. We were accompanied by Doctor Fosgate and an-
other gentleman, who professed to be a phrenolpgist, and who appeared anx-
ious to examine th^ prisoner. Whilst there, at the jail, Dr. Fosgato dressed
the prisoner's wounded arm, and ordered a fire to be made near his cell, as
it W88 then cold. His manners first arrested my attention, as I discovered
tfiat he appeared very different from other people, whilst his arm was being
dressed. He appeared to be indifferent and insensible to pain. He exhi-
biled no feeling whatever, when his wound was dressed. It did not seem to
hurt him any, although the wound waa severe, and appeared to be one that
must have caused pain to any other person than the prisoner. His conduct
was so strange that I had a curiosity to converse with him, if possible, with
a view to ascertain what he knew about the crimes he was charged with.
Afler Doctor Fosgate had concluded his duties there, as a physician, he left
the cell, and I remained to make an examination in respect to his mental
condition. I began by inquiring ^at took place at the house of Van Nest.
I tried to get him to tell me about the affair, but I could not ; and I was
obliged to put him questions to which his answers, when he gave any, were
generally Yes, or No. With but very few exceptions all his answers were
in monosylables, simply Yes, or No ; and these not very plainly spoken. I
asked him if he went in Hit the front door, and he answered Yes ; and at
another time I asked him if he went in at the back door, and he gave me
16
the ume ftnswer. To both qnettioiis he olid Yes ; aikd I dieTefore c^rncki-
dad that he had no rery comet idea about it I aiked where his hand wm
hurt — ^whether it was hurt in Ihe hall ; he answered Tes. I then asked if it
was out at the gate, andtothat he said Yes. I asked where he stabbed Mrs.
Wyckoff-^swhether in the hall ; he answered Yes* I then asked whether it wss
mt at the gate, and to that he said Yes. I asked if he saw Van Nest when
ha went to the fh>nt door. He i^l8weTed Yes. I asked what Van Nestssid
to him, but the prisoner gare no answer. I changed tiie qnestbn and asked
him if he went into the hoose. He hesitated, and then answered Yes. I
then pressed him to tell what Van Nest said to him. After a while he re-
plied that Van Nest said, ""If yon eat my li^er, Fll eat 7001*.'*
I was ur|^g him to tell what Van Nest said, and once he gave the words :
^ If jon're going to eat mj litter, Fll eat yonrs," as near as I conld unde^
stand him. Both answers seemed to be to the same import I dunk I ssked
him when he killed Mrs. Van Nest ; whether it was before he went into the
hoose,and heanswered Yes. When hetold me what Yan Nestsaid to him,
I asked himin, the same connection, whether he stabbed him then. He aft>
swered Yes. I tried to aseertain from him how he got oat of the hoose.
I don't reooUeet precisely the question I put to him, but I recoUect that 1
asked him at one time whedier he went out of the ftont deor, and he an^
swered Yes; and at another, he gave the same answer when I a^ed him if
> ha went oat of the baek door.
In my conversadon I repeatedly tried to get him to ooatiifeii^ along; to
tell the stofy hinvelf, by asking him to go on. Apparently he conld not go
OD with any connected accovnt of the affair. He several times repeated
what Van Nest said about eating his liver, in neariy the same terms, but he
did not continue the eonversation, or the relation of his story. I asked him
why he left there before he had kiHed them aU. He said he hurt his hand.
I asked him again, when he said, << My hand was hurt" Sometimes he said|
'a couldn't kill any mare." I asked him whiy he killed them, or what he
killed them for. Heanswered by asking me <^ what they sent him to Stats
Prison for, when he was iunooent," or " wasn't guHty." He seemed a^tip
ted when he said this,r trembled, and acted as if he was about to cry. He
shook very considerably, and the mosdes of hb fhee were some distorted,
but he did not cry, however. I told him that he had stolen a horse, and that
was the reason why he was imprisoned. He denied it, and said he didnt
steal it I was at the jafl a long time, and put to him many other questions
to which I tried to get answers, bat Med. It was evidently difficult for him
to hear and understand. I asked him if he knew what he was in jail for.
He said he didn't I asked if he knew what they were going to do with him.
He said Na I told him that he wonld be hong for killing those people, and
naked him if he was not aware of it Once he answered No ; but did not
aeem to understand much about it He appeared stupid, and when talked
toabotttthe slaughter of the Yasi Nest finnOy, he didn't show any feeling;
wiLizAir Muaiir. 237
nor cBd he show anjr when I spoke aboat what he probably would hare to
suffer for that deed — ^none ▼hatever.
His appearance and manners were Tery* singular indeed. He lan^ied
frequently whilst we were there ; laughed when we went into the cell, and
laughed when we laughed ; but it was not loud, It was only a smile. It waa
an unmeaning, unnatural smile, yet it was frequent in his cell It gave to
hb countenance a singular expression, and was the same that I saw on his
filee during the preliminary trial From what I saw I formed an opinion
then that he knew nothing, and expressed it I do not believe him sane. I
don't believe he understands what is going on around him. He does not i^
pear to be capable of distinguishing right from wrong, and, in my judgmenti
he would laugh upon the gallows as readily and freely as he did in his ceU.
He would probably know as inu(;h as a dumb beast that was taken to the
slaughter house, as to what was to be done with him. If that state of mihd
and knowledge constitutct^ insanity, then he is insane.
I do not believe his appearance was a feigned one, nor do I believe that
he pretended insanity to deceive me. I was there with hiin a c<Hisiderabl4
time ; watched him closely during ^at time, and I am confident that I Was
not deceived. I was in court when he was arraigned. He then sud, to the
qujestions put to him by the district attorney, ^ No,** and *' I don't know," and
leaned forward. Other indictments beside the one in this cause were read to
him, or the substance of them was stated, at the same time, and the same
questions put to the prisoner, to which he gave about the same amrweri He
appeared stupid then, and did not appear to understsind What was wanted
df him. I do not believe he has intellect, consciousness, oT moral fedihg
enough to distinguish right from wrong. He might, perhaps, be taught a
particular thing, yet he could not reason upon it ataS. T^thmypresent views
concerning his mental condition, I do not believe him a responsible being.
Crobs Examikatiok."— My opinion, respecting the mental condition of
the prisoner, is firm and fixed ; yet I think it would yield to evidence that
went to prove his condition otherwise than as I have described it I am
aware of the verdict of the jury on the preliminary issue in this case, but
it has not changed my o|nnion or caused it to waver. The jury had the ben-
efit of my testimony on that trial They found him capable of distinguishing
right from wrong, but my opinion was and now is, variant firom their verdiet
I first saw the prisoner in April; can't tell whether eariy or late in the
month, and from the appearance of his wounded wrist, as well as from ru-
mor, I judged that it was soon after the murdei^ ^Bh wrist was quite sore
when I saw it At the time I went to the jul, my immediate object was to
comply with the invitation of Dr. Briggs. I had iheretofbre declined to go,
and until then I had never been. I abo had another object, which was to
satisfy myself whether the negro was really irresponrfble. Upon arriving
there, I thought his appearance indicated that he was irresponsible. It was
THB niAX* Of
not nich as can be easOj described further tban it has been, yet it was
striking and nnnsuaL I don't know as I had thought him insane before I
went there. I had the impression before, that he was stupid and wanting
sense, but had no personal knowledge whatever about him. After I had
observed him awhile, I came to the conclusion that he was insane, or that
he knew nothing ; which medical men denominate a species of insanity, in
cases where knowledge once existed
Q. How do you know that the prisoner could not relate the occurrence
at Van NestTs house ?
A. I jn^d, from his manner, that he tried and did not, and I concluded
that he could not
Q. How do jou know Umt he tried ?
A. Because I think he was not capable of deceiving me.
Q. What particular indicatbn did he give that he was trying ?
A. I can hardly mention any one indication in particular. Hb whole ap-
pearance and manner at times were such as are usually manifested when a
momentary effort is made.
Q. Suppose him to have been unwilling and not unable ?
A. If unwilling, I don't think he would have tried.
Q. Did he know you ?
A. I cannot say further than that when I asked him if he knew me he
said No.
Q. BidheknowDr. Brij^?
A. He appeared to, and I think he said he did.
Q. When you first asked him what took place at Van Nest's, what did
he say ?
A. To my first question, I think he made no answer.
Q. To what question did he first respond ?
A. He answered Yes, when I asked him if he went in at the front door.
Q. Did you infer that he was insane from that ?
A. I did not
Q. Did yen infer insanity from his second answer ?
A. I did not infer insanity, yet I noticed the inconsistency of the two
answers?
Q. Did you infer insanity from the third answer ?
A. I did not form any opinion fi*om any one answer that he gave, but
from all his answers, tog<ither with his stupidity and insensibility, I did.
Q. How do you know that he did not feel pain ?
A. Because he indicated none,
Q. Are not some men more insensible to pain than others ? <
A. There is a difference, I preiume, yet most men would manifest some
sensation when such a wound was dressed.
Q. How do you know that he had no fear of being hung ?
WILLUM TBUMAir. 229
A. I derived my knowledge from what I saw. I came to the conclusion
that he had not knowledge sufficient to appreciate or comprehend any thiing
that was said about his being hung.
Q. Do you not think he has some knowledge about a gallows ?
A. Perhaps he has some if he ever saw one, but not much if any more
than a brute.
Q. Did you regard his want of manifestation of pun as very curious ?
A. I did, somewhat so. It was extraordinary to me.
Q. Did you ever see two persons who were precisely alike ?
A. I never did see two that were, in all respects, precisely alike.
Q. Do you not know that some will endure pfun with composure, when
others cannot ?
A. I do, and there is a great difference in people in that respect
Q. Have you ever heard of people being burned at the stake ?
A. History furnishes many instances of the kind.
Q. Was John Rogers executed in that way ?
A. He was, if the accounts of his deitth be tme.
Q. Was he a sane man ?
A. I suppose he was.
Q. Do you believe that Conmiodore Lawrence was insane ?
A. He was sane, no doubt
Q. Do you believe Major Ringgold w4s insane ?
A. I have no reason for believing that he was.
Q. Can you say' whether brave men are less sensible to piun than
cowards ?
A. I cannot say, yet they may be, for any thing I know to the contrary.
Q- Do not men become indifferent of small wounds, who expose their
lives in deeds of daring ?
A. It is vexy likely that such men care less about them than some other
men.
Q. May not Freeman be more insensible to pain than other men, and
yet be sane ?
A. I think he felt no sensation at all.
Q. What suggested the questions which you put to him in the cell ?
A. The object I was trying to attain. I put such questions as occurred
to me at the time.
Q. Did his laugh satisfy you that he was insane ?
A. Not alone, nor did that strike me then, as it has since.
Q. Did the phrenologist examine his bumps in your presence ?
A. I did not go in with him.
Q. Was it remarkable that the prisoner laughed in his cell ?
A. I thought it rdther more so that he should laugh than that I should.
Q. If his answers and his langlung did not lead you to befieve him in-
sane, can you tell what did ?
380 penxuA^p?
A. His whole appeannce and bebiiTior.
Qp Did he appear the same as irheu he was arraigned ?
A. Very much the same.
Q. What was there in his appearance and behavior at the time of his ar-
raignment that made you think him insane ?
A. Why, his position, the expresnon of his face, his inability to under-
stand much that was said to him— all was strange, and altogether he did not
act like a sane man.
Q. Did not you understand him 7
A. I think nobody could hare understood much, npr do I belieye be could
make any body understand better than he did me.
Q. Did you not understand him when in his cell ?
A. I did not fully, yet I finally made out some of his answers, as I have
testified.
Q. If a month after you saw him in the cell he made others understand
him, what would you think of that ?
A. I should think he was a different being from what he was when I saw
him.
Q. Was not his arraignment like other arraignments ?
A. It was not
Q. Wherein was it unlike others ?
A. When he was asked whether he demanded a trial, he answered Xo ;
and when he was asked if he had counsel, he said, " I don't know," and the
court directed the clerk to enter a plea for him- I had never seen such an
arraignment befi)re, and —
Q. Would a guilty s^ne man, who knew that his offence oould be proved,
want a trial ?
A. Some would ; and I think any sane man would act and would answer
differently.
Q. If a sane man did not know that he had counsel, would he not say as
the prisoner did ?
A. A sane man would be likely to know whether he had counsel en-
pbyed or not
Q. If he were in doubt whether he had or had not retained counsel, would
he not express that doubt, if he said any thing ?
A. He might express it, but not in the manner the prisoner did-
Q. Did his manner in court at the time of his arrugnment indicate in-
sanity?
A. It indicated that he had not changed for the better since I had seen
himin jaiL
Q. If a sane poor man were arraigned in court for a orime) and had not,
and could not pay counsel, would he not say so ?
A. He would be likely to speak the trutL
Q. Do you believe the prisoner was able to pay cotmsel?
wiuiux f unuN. 881
A. Bynomeftpf.
Q. Thondidlienot9pe«k thetraHi?
A. So far «8 the quettion ia ccmoemed, I hare no doubt tibai he did.
Q* YoQjay he indined forward ; do not deaf people uiuidljr do so ?
A* They sometimes do*
Q. He is deaf, is he not?
A. I have no doubt he is ; ver/ deafl
Q. If he did not answer at ell would you rather infer that he didn't bear
pr yru sullen, than that he could not an8w;er ?
A. I cannot say ; it would depend upon other circumstances.
Q. Would you infer that he was bewildered ?
A. If } inferred that he could answer some questioas, and that he had an*
swi^red as £ur as he oould» and indicated embarrassment, I might, under some
oupcumstanc^, infer that he wi^ bewildenML But I don't think he oonld nn*
4eirstand much if he did hear.
Q. If he has been oonrated by a eourt once, and by a court sentenoedto
the State Prison, do you not think be knows what a court is ?
A. I think he may know that this is a court, bnt I don't believe lie knonrs
what the effect of a court isi
Q. Snjy>ose him to have attended Wyatfs trial, last Februaiy,thieedafi,
would not that alter your opinion ?
A. It would not as to his capacity now for knowing the ohaiactec or pow-
eif of this court* If he were here I don't ihii^ he heard.
Q. SupfKMo he leaned forward and i^^peared to be listening ?
A. I don't think he heard f^om where they say he stood, unless his hea»'
ing was better then than it is now,
Joseph L. Biohardsos, (a member of the courts) was neat eaUed, and
being sworn, testified : Jp September, 1840, 1 was first Judge of this county«
and presided at the term at which one William Freeman wai omvicted of
Healing a hone^ I cannot positively state that the prisoner is the man who
was then tried and convicted, but have not much doubt that he is. By re-
ference to my minutes of that trial, I find that Martha Godfrey was the pra-
secatrix, and was a witness upon the trial. Marcus Doty and a colored
ami wei« also witnesses. It was proved on that trial that William Freeman
was concerned in the offence, and he was convicted, and sentenced to con*
finement in the State Prison for five years.
Mr. Seward here proposed to read the minutes of Judge B. to the juxj.
Objected to and objection sustained.
J)b. Blakchard Fo80atb, called and sworn, testified ; I am a physidsM
and surgeon, and reside in the village of Auburn. I conunenoed praotfoe
eleven years aga On Mmday, the sixteei^h day of March last, I was called
to visit the prisoner, who was then in jail, and to dress his am. It had been
leverely w<randed in the joint oi the wrist, witksoitie sharp instrument, wfaidi
282 THB TELO. OV
I presume was a knife. The tendons were cut off down to the radial artery.
The artery itself was not wounded. [For also read not, in fourth line of page
49.] The wound was a bod one, and needed care. It had received one
dressing then, but the bandages were displaced, and his arm and hand were
considerably swollen. The adhesive straps were in their places, but had be-
come very tight from swelling. I removed them and dressed the wound.
In three days I called again and dressed it, and liien there was considerable
swelling. Afler the dressing it continued to get better.
Whilst there, several circumstances attracted my attention. At my first
visit he appeared veiy morose and perfectly incBfferent I concluded that
as there were persons continually coming to the grating and calling him
names, that that was the reason of his moroseness. People standing there,
so much darkened the grate that it was with difficulty I could see to dress
his hand. On my next visit I observed that his demeanor had changed.
He had an idiotic smile on his face, without any perceptible cause. He
seemed to manifest no sense of pain. He seemed to have no^^onvenational
powers, and answered only in monosyllabtes.
I asked him if he had enough to eat. He said Yes. I asked what tiiey
gave him. He said poric. I asked what else. He said potatoes. I asked
what else. He said bread. He had heavy irons on his feet I inquired
whether his feet were hurt He said No. I asked whether there was pain
in his arm from the wound. He said No. I asked how many blankets he
had to sleep on. He said twa I inquired if his hand was better. I re-
member no reply, but he never complainied. He never asked whether it
was better ; whether it would get well, or whether he would ever recover
the use of his hand ; nor did he even speak to me unless spoken to. Dr.
Hurd asked him what he killed those folks for ; whether he went for money.
He replied, ^ They put me in State Prison." Dr. Hurd repeated the ques-
tion. I heard no reply.
I look upon him 9s a person who is sinking into idiocy. I think he does
not comprehend the idea of right and wrong— that he has no moral sense
of accountability. As to his capacity to dlstiniguish between the consequen-
ces of killing a man or a beast, I should think it was immaterial to him ; and
that he was incapable of distinguishing between the moral consequences d
the two acts. I think him incapable of comprehending his situation and ac-
countability. My reasons for this opinion are, his insensibility to pain, for
he must have suffered a very great degree of pain, judging from others in
similar circumstances ; his never inquiring relative to the prospect of his
hand recovering, seeing he had to live by work ; his irresistible propennty
to hiugh, under the circumstances in which he is placed, his laugh amoonting
only to a smile ; his indifference to remorse at fear ; and his indifference to
sympathy. I recollect telling him one day, if he wanted any thing, and
would let me know, I would get it for him ; or if he was sick, and would tell
WILLIAM f RBXMAir.
tlie jailer to flend for me, I would come up; and altihoagli I spoke as kindly
as I should to one of my own cluMpen, he made no manifestation of gratitude,
nor did he say any thing hi reply.
Cross £xaxinatiok.— I have practised ten or eleven years. For about
ibur years I had regular practice ; the remainder of the time I practiced of-
fidflHy. When I was practicing without going oat, by giving opinions as to
patientB or diseases, I was in the drug busine^ I gave opinions on any case
brought before me. I was licensed to practice, and took my degree eleven
years ago. Four or five years ago I became a member of the Medical So-
ciety in this county. My degree gave me authraity to practice medicine.
I don't recolleet whether tiiere was any thing else, of note, on which I
founded my opinion^ without it is the similarity of his manner — ^the carriage
(£ his head, motions and actions— to other insane persons whom I know. He
holds has head in a dejected position, merely raising his eyes when he replies
to questions. I do not recoUect any thing eLie from which I drew the in-
ference that he was insane. I presume he now holds his head in the natural
position of persons in his condition of mind. I think a sane man, afler mur-
dering four people, would sometimes hold his head up. Whether he wotdd be
talkative or silent, would depend upon his disposition and habits, and the natu-
ral character of his mind. Asnearas lean reec^eet, Ihave given all the con-
versation that I swore to on the former trial I think he said his hand was
better. He tried to move it, at my direction. I asked how deep it was cut.
He gave me to understand that the joint moved. I cannot say how he indi-
cated It— whether by talking, or diowihg me his hand. ^
I swore before that I asked if he slept warm, and he said Yes. I at one
tame asked if he had enough to eat I do not know whether he had pork, or
bread, or potatoes. I infer insanity from every thing together ; not from
those aauwers alone. All the answen I knew of, were correct, with the ex-
emption relative to pam. I did not infer that he was a brute. I takd him to
be a human being, with sone intellect, and that in a measure deranged. I
consider idiocy a species of insanity. I know Dr. Brigham. When I know
he is correct, I think he is good authority. When my own knowledge does not
oontradict his opinion, I think his authority as to insanity is of the very high-
est order. I understand idiocy to be partial demehtia, or entire dementia,
or fatuity. If Dr. Brigham thought differently, I should think the difference
consisted mainly in a different classification of diseases.
If the law shoold say that idiocy was not insaifity, then I should think that
the law could not impose any rules or regulations upon the human constitu-
tion, as it is given by the Almighty, and would not make any difference with
the fact I think the fact of his indifference to pain, taken with every thing
else, is evidence of derangement A sane person, suffering as he must have
done, would not have endured it without complaint If it should be proved
that he complained of pain, and requested a doctor, it would not change my
mind. I said I didn't think he knew the difference between killing a man
9M XBVfUil^Of
or beast He noald know a fluia hoax a beaaty bj Die exienial fofm, and
hj name. So far as any moral principle is concenied, I don't think he knovi
the difference between a man and a beast The mer» at«te«ient thatke
knows that they hai^ people for killing men, and not for kiUiBg It beast, weald
pot change my mind. I do not sappose be thinib they hangpeople fi>r kilt
^ig beasts. I think that ft sane man wonldn^t smile, iiUuttod aa the prisoner
was. I believe he said No^ whan asked if he was cr»ffy% By his indifiereaoe
to remorse, I mean, ho m«kes no signs of sonow at his doings* I think he
does not care for i^y thing he has done. He waa only aoryy tiiat the ohiU
wasn't bigger. ' He does not care for killing this family ; and thai cireum-
•tance goes with the others to make me think be is insane. But rejectmg
this reason, I haye knowledge enough of him to haye this opinion. If he had
been sane whei^ I asked what I should do for him, I shoi^ think he woold
express gratitude, by look or word, or in some oAer way. If a dog wen
wounded, and in a sound state of mind* I think he would manifest sensibili^
to pain. The last timi^ I dressed the wound I 4id npt^link it would rei|uin
eny more atteniaon.
Mabtha GoBFftVT was ne^t oriljed a^d sworn as awk&ess for the piii-
Oner. She testified as follows: I reside in Seajsett, and hi^re seen i|ie
prisoner. He came to my hoose last Maich, at twoo^okx^ F. M., and be>
$H« the murder of tilie Van Nest lamily. He came in and set down, nL
wanted to know if this was the place where a woman had a horse stolen five
yeersaga I told him it was* He then said he had been to prison for steal-
ing it; but that he did not steal it I told him that was something! (fid not
kiu»w any thing about; that he had been tried and ibnnd gnilty of it, spd
sent to prison. He seemed deaf, and complained of being soi hard of hear-
ing that he could not hear. He wanted me to get ^ry dose ip him and
speak very bud. One of my neighbors just then came in, end I told him
to talk to Freeman, for I could not It was Joseph Johnson thait came ia.
He esked Freeman what he wanted. He did notmske mnchof an answer, bet
said he did not know« and salt awhile. Mr. Johnson asked whether he wanted
the horse, or what he did want He did not make any answer, but sst
there quite awhile. I then asked hun if he wanted my lUng to eat Qs
said he didn't know. I howeyer gaye him some cake to eat Johnson tpckt
to him agsun, asking him if he wanted the hone. He sat awhile, looked
around, smiled, and said he didn't want the hone nosr. He said he had
been to prison for stealing the horse, but didn't steal it ; and wanted asettie-
aent He said he had been to prison fiye years.
I had a horse stolen five years ago, and was a witness against Freemaa
<)Q the trial for stealing it I did not then know John G. Van Neat, nor
any of his family, nor any of the persons in his house where the mnrder was
ooipmitted. I neyer heard that any of them were concerned in die trial ia
any way. They were in no way related to me or my lamily. I never heard
of them until aftes the murders were oomaitted. Be reounned at my hooai
about an hour. The wibDeasea agitinst Fraenisn on the trial for utealimg 1117
hozse, were Marcos T. Dotjr, and a ne^pro, named Jack Furman, I belieTO.
The trial waa in ibis court bouse.
M7 husband's name was John Godfrey, junior, and he was In no way re*
lated to the W/ckofifs, Van Nests or Van Arsdales. The next morning
after the murder there were hors^ tracks in my yard*
Cboss Examination. — There was company at my house the night of
the murder, so that I did not retire that night ^ntil after ten o'dock* After
we retired there were no lights burning at my house to my knowledge. A
brother of mine, and a young man who boarded with me andjrent to sohoolf
wore there. The next morning after the mnrder of the Van Nest familyi
we saw horse tracks wheve some one had been. There was snow on the
ground in my yard where the traeks weie. Hie afternoon ^hetn the pris-
oner came to my house, was during the trial of flenry Wyatt, for the mum
der of James Gordon. I did not think of his being crazy then. When
Fr^epian was tried heee in order to see whether he |Was insane or not, I
was here at court as «iritae«s and nw him. I see him now in court He
looks different from some colotred men. Now he smiles and looks silly*
When he was at my house, I was afiraid of him.
[Here the counsel read the minutes of his Ibnner connction.]
John Ds Put was next called, and beingswovn, testified: IwasbrougM
up in Owasoo ; moved to Auburn fourteen years ago. My wife is a sistei
of the prisoner. Her maiden name was Caroline iFreeman. Some yeaia
ago I worked for Peter Wyckoff, and lived in a little house west of his own,
but on his fiurm. From there I moved to Auburn, and have Uvqd here eves
since. The prisoner has lived with me some. When I went up to the LakQ
be lived with me, and also after I came to Aubnni; but I don*t now reqd-
lect how long. £[e was then an active, anavt boy. He was as lively as appiy
other yoo oould find. He was playful, taidcati^e, and a good boy to wodc.
3et him to work any where, and he would do it He was sociab]e»and un-
derstood himself, and had some learning. He e^uM read in the spelling
book, pretfy well He oould read it off in reading, smooth and decent I
bave heard him read a good many times. Up to the time he went to the
State Prison he made my house his home, and I saw him a great deaL I
knew of his attending balls and parties.
Whilst he was in prison, I saw hon five different times. His inother re-
quested me to go. His mother told me that she had heard that somebody
had struck him on his he«d, and that it iraa gmng to kill him* He had been
in a year before I first saw him. I didn't 9petk to him. He was carrying
aon^ti^ng on his back like a knapsack, and walking back and forth in the
yard. He would walk a littie way and turn round. I perceived an altera-
tion in him. He didn't appear as he did before he went to prison. Be ap-
peared stupid. Took no notice of any thing. I don't know whether he
knew me or n^ I wiv near to him; don't thinkhe knew me; took no no-
naiTEXAx.of
tice of me. I saw him after thaf in prison ; when he was at work and when
he wasn't doing any thing. I thought he didn't appear to be in his right
mind. I thought there was something the matter with him. I don't think
he was in his right mind ; and told my wife so.
I saw him the day he came out Knowing that his time was out, I went
over there to fetch him home with me. I waited in the prison hall till he
was dressed to come out When he did come, he passed me as if he didn't
know me. He said nothing ; I went up to him, touched him and asked if
he knew me, and he kind o' laughed. I fetched him out with me. He got
some money — ^four half dollars, I think — which was given him by the officer
in the clerk's room. When he came along as far as Applegate's carriage
ahop where I was at work, he sat down on a pile of boards, whilst I was
helping raise a building.' He sat there, and acted very stupid and dull, and
said nothing. They asked ^e ^ what dam'd fool that was, who was sitting
there." I knew and I remembered it He staid there a good while, sitting
down. He didn't know the value of hb money. He thought his half dol-
lars were quarters. He wanted a cap to wear, and we went to a hattei^s
shop to get one. I picked out one, for which they asked four shillings. Bill
threw down two halves for it I took up one of them and handed back to
him and told him to go with me. After he came out he told me that he
hadn't paid for his cap ; that they would make some fuss. I told him he had,
and that it was all straight there. He took the jneces to be two shillings
each. After he got home, I talked with him and asked how they had used
him in prison. He said they gave him enough to eat, and sleep on; and
told about a fuss he had there. He said a keeper named Hoskins kicked
lum and knocked him around, and that he thought he trouldn't stand it;
that he warded off the blows and weighed out Hoskins one. He sud he
rtruck Hoskins with his left hand and faced him around, and then he came
the butcher^s chop on ham ; that he dropped his left hand over his face, and
struck him with the right That's what he called the butchers chop. He
said Hoskins foil and hallooed murder ; that prisoners took him off.
After this, the prisoner told me about Captain Tylet*, a keeper in the
prison. He said Tyler used to strike him and kick him generally when he
passed him ; that he made up his mind that he might just as well be dead as
alive, because they were constantly knocking and pounding him, in the
prison. He said he had a difficulty with Tyler, and that Tyler struck him,
or something; and that he struck back. He said that Tyler called the
prisoners, who came and clinched him, and that Tyler then took a piece of
a board and struck him across Ihe ears ; and that was the reason that he
eouldn't hear; for it knocked the hearing off, so that it never came back to
him again. I asked him if they did any thing for his deafness. He said
they did ; that they put salt in his ear ; but that it didn't do any good ; for
his hearing was gone ; wi^ aU knocked off.
He told me about another afiair of his in the prison, when he said they
f^
WILLIAM VBmUH. 287
threatened to put him back there again when his time was oat He said he
broke a knife in the prison, for which they made thai threat Bill then asked
me if they conld put him back there for that He said it was an old knife,
and that he broke it while eating.
I know Jack Forman, and knew him when BiU went to prison. I belieTe
his right name is John Willard. I heard about the horse being stolen in the
time of it They said Jack stole the horse, but the prisoner was taken up
for it I know he was at my house all that night that the horse was said to '
be stolen. [The last sentence was objected to and excluded.] Jack is now
in the State Prison. Bill frequently inquired for Jack after he came out of
prison. I told him he was in there, a conTiot He said he had not seen him.
He said he had been there five years for nothing and wanted his pay for it
He said seyeral times that it was wrong for them to send him (the prisoner)
to the State Prison ; that they sent him for nothing, when' he wasn't guilty.
He wanted to see Jack, about sending him to prison, and said he wanted pay
for his time there. He said he wanted pay {torn the folks. I told him the
folks were gone away. He asked if there were any Esquires here, and said
he wanted a warrant, for he must have his pay. He said he must go down
and get a warrant, for they must pay him ; that he couldn't make any gain
so. I told him who the magistrates were. I named Bostwick and Paine.
He went down to get a warrant, but came back and said he couldn't get one ;
that they told him to come again. He went again, and when he came back
he said he'd got it all fixed, and wanted me to go down and see that he got
his pay right Then i^ain he told me he couldn't do nothing with 'em —
couldn't get noting. He said they would cheat him all the time, and he
Qooldn't live so. Once he went away somewhere two or three days and came
back. In Norember I went to Skaneateles, and Bill went away to work*
He soon came there to see me. He'd been at work and boarded with Adam
Gray. He said to me that he'd been sawing wood for a Mr. Conklin, a har-
ness maker, for which he was to give him three shillings, but wouldn't give
him but two ; that he throwed the two shillings at him, and came to see me
to see whether he should whip him, or what I told him not to do it ; that
they'd^t him in jidl if he did. He sud he couldn't take him up ; that there
wasn't any law for him ; they wouldn't let him have a warrant, and they
cheated him all the time. I went to see Conklin. After that I told him to
take the two and I would give him another. He said he couldn't live so ;
he couldn't make any gain so. He said, likewise, that there was another
man that wouldn't pay him. His name was Murfey. I went to see Mur-
fey, but he said he had paid him all be agreed to. I gave him the balance,,
because he thought he was wronged. He was around here after that, and
got his arm cut once. He said he fell on his axe. He lived at Mary Ann
Newark's before the murder, until his arm was healed up. His mind last,
winter was very unsteady. Half of the time he didn't know what he had
doi^e. He didn't seem to know where he'd been, and yet he'd run back and
2S8 VHi niiAi. or
through the village. It was laid diey*d giren lum liquor. He acted unlike
any bodj in their right mind ; irone than before he'd drank, but he acted
bad enough any time. When he went any where he run pretty fast He
would Btart up and then turn and run right back. Sometimes he ran up a
ways and then right back, without any reason for it On such occasions he
nerer said any thing unless spoken to. He nerer commenced any conyex^
aation with any body. He'd sometimes kind o' smile. He ta&ed to himself
tmd tried to sing.
Sometimes he would get up nights. I hare seen him up nights a nnmher
of times. He*s got up two or three times in a ni^t ; would stay up perhaps
fifteen minutes, and sing a part of the time, and daiice, and be around in the
room below. He was tdking one night and said, " By G — d, Til see ym
out" He was alone in the room. Sometimes he wouldn't dress himself
He didn't see any thing when he had it in his hand sometimes. He would
try to read and aAed me to hear if he read it right; but he c6uldn't read
right He'd call it one way when it was another way in the book. When
be was up nights I would sometimes speak to him, and ask what he got np
for. He'd say, ** didn't know." At such times he'd get up and be around a
spell and go back to bed again. He acted so very strange that we talked
about it at the hoose. He ^as insane before he came out, I think, and he
has been insane, in my opinion, rince he came out of prison. Afler he came
oat he wouldn't talk as he used to. He wouldn't commence, and only talked
when he was spoken to. »
I know Sidney Freeman, the prisoner's uncle, and I knew his aunt, Jane
Brown. They were both crazy, and Sidney is crazy now. He got crazy in
prison. Right away after coming out of prison he would get up nights, and
I could see through the stove pipe hole. He had not been drinking then.
I took care that he should not get any liquor. In February I heard they'd
been giving him liquor, but I never saw him drink. I told them at Galeli
grocery not to let lum have it, for he did not know what to do with himself.
When he was arrested, I sidd he ought to be arrested. I was told by Her-
sey that he threatened my life, but B91 never made threats to me.
He often spoke about his pay, and said there wasn't any law for him, and
he couldn't get any warrant I know his mother, SaHy Freeman ; she lives
in town. I have said that my wife is her daughter. She wanted me to go
and see Bill when he was in prison. I did not tell her, but I told my wifb
when I came back that I thought he was crazy. When his time was about
out, his mother wanted me to go and get lum home, and so I went I knew
John G. Van Nest, and so did the prisoner. I knew of no difficulty having
taken place between him and the prisoner.
Cboss Exahikation.— Freeman lived with me when I lived up there
near Van Nesf s house. I don't recollect of ever putting Freeman in a well
and keeping him there all day. I don't recollect of saying that he was a
good enough boy if he would let liquor alone. I have said I was glad he was
wiiiiZiJimttiur. 289
attested' because anj man oaglit to be arrested wbo'^bad done sncb a thing
as he had. I was told that Uiejr had catched him, and I said I was glad of it.
I have not said that he pretended to be crazy bnt was sane, as I remember.
I never said any such thing in substance. I have said he was a great deal
better when he let liquor alone. I didn't say he was perfectly sane when he
let liquor alone.
Q. Have you said you were ^ad be was arrested because you were afndd
ofyonrKfe?
A. Not in diem words.
Q. IMd you tell Yandorheyden that you were afraid of your life ?
A. I may have told Mm my wife was afraid.
Q. Bid you say that you was afraid to have him at your house, and drove
Hmaway?
A. I might have said something like tiiat
Q. Were you at a dance with Uie prisoner the night before the murder?
A. I was at Herse/s that night pretty early, and the prisoner was there.
Q. When did you leave ?
A. Along about eleven of twelve o'clock^
Q. Had the prisoner any knives then ?
A. I heard he had in his boaom.
<2. How late did he stay ?
A. He was there when I came away. H^ Was standing out door with
Heney.
Q. Did you say to Asa Spencer that he was no more cHzj than you were ?
A. I don't recoUect of saying so.
Q. Did you not in substance say that?
A. I have said he was ugly, but I did not say so then.
Q- What did ydu say?
A. I can't recollect now.
Q. Wh^ can't you recollect what you sidd to him ?
A. I can't recollect when Fm bothered.
Q. Did you say to Thomas Munroe, during the present trial, that he never
W«0 craxy, but was dam'd ugly ?
A. I don't recoUect of saying that
Q. Should you recoUect if you <Ud say so ?
"A. I ought to recoUect if I did.
Q. Did you not swear on the last trial that you had not said so ?
A. I guess I did— believe I testified so.
Q. Did you not say, shortly after Freeman was arrested, and befbre he
was brought to Auburn, that you were glad he was arrested, and that you
were afraid of your life ?
A. I might have tmd something to that effect, but not in thenTwotdi.
Q. What words did you use ?
240 . «BKTEUI.Of ,
A. I said I was glad he was arrested, but I didn*t use the words about
being afraid of my life ?
Q. Well, what did you say?
A. I don't remember what I did say.
Q. Didn't yon swear on the former trial that you were afraid of your life ?
A. I don't know but I did.
Q. Did you ever see the prisoner drink s|MritQ ?
A. I have seen him when he was going to drink, but I took it ftcm. him.
Q. Did you not say, in front of the law office of Mr. Hall, that he had
threatened your life ?
A. I don't know but I did, and I don't know as I did ; I wouldn't swear
that I did, or did not
Q. Have you not seen Freeman drink what you belieyed to be spirits?
A. I've seen him drink beer; whether there are i^irits in that or not I
can't say.
Q. Have you not seen him drink spirits ; answer that ?
A. Well, Fye seen him drink that that I thought was spirits a number of
times before he went to prison^ bot I don't know what he drank and cannot
telL
Q. Have you seen him drink what you believe to be spirits since he came
out of prison ?
A* I don't know but Tve seen him drink what might be spirits.
Q. Have you not seen him a dozen times ?
A. No ; I have Wot.
Q. Have you not several times ?
A. I may have seen him two or three times ; how many I cannot say. *
Q. Have you not seen him intoxicated ?
A. I saw him once when I thought he had been drinking, after I caaie
back from Skaneateles.
Q. Where was he?
A. Down in the vilbge here ; he and Jim Bbick had been sawing wood
that day.
Q. Did you swear that you had never seen him drink any thing that
looked like spirits ?
A. Water looks like gin, and like whiskey.
Q. I desire you to answer the question ?
A. I don't know whether I did or not
Q. Did you swear that you never saw him but once when you thought
he'd been drinking ?
A. I believe I did ; think I did.
Q. Did you not stop some one from giving him liquor one day ?
A. I stopped him twice ; can't say whether in one day or not
Q Did you not say that it was at Gale's ?
WILLIAM FBSnCAN. 241
A. I saw him at Gale's and shook my head at 'em to prerent *em from
giving it to him.
Q. What did Hersey say to you about threats ?
A. He said Freeman told him he was going to kill Van Nest and me too.
Q. What time of day was this running that you speak of?
A. It was in the forenoon ; never saw him run so in the night.
Q* Had he not been drinking then ?
A. I don't know as he had.
Q. Did you turn him out of your house ?
A. I didn't.
Q. Have you not said so ?
A. I don't know but I have said he was turned out. I may have said so
for the reason that my wife was afraid of him.
O. Were you not afraid of him ?
A. I never was.
Q. Did you not say you was ?
A. I did not at that time.
Q. How long was Freeman engaged in telling you about his aflTair in the
prison with Hoskins ? '
A. It took an hour.
Q. Did he speak of it himself?
A. No; ladcedhim.
Q. Why did you ask him ?
A. Because I had heard of a fight between 'em.
Q. How long did it take to tell of the fight with Tyler?
• A. It didn't take so long.
Q. Did he begin to teU about that?
A. No ; I had heard that he was struck by Tyler in the prison, and
knocked so he wouldn't live, and I asked him.
Q. How long did it take for him to tell about that afiair?
A. I can't teU.
Q. Well, about how long?
A. I should think near half an hour.
Q. You say that when you saw him in prison, you thought he was not in
his right mind. How did you know that, if you didn't speak to him ?
A. Well, I thought. so from his actions and the way he lopked.
Q. Was his dancing in the day or night time ?
A. I don't think I've seen him dance in the day time since he came out.
Q. Have you told the prisoner what you would swear to ?
A. I never have.
Q. Have you not talked with the prisoner's counsel about it ?
A- I don't know that I have, only to* Mr. Seward. He asked me what I
knew of the prisoner, and I told him.
16
242 THS TRIAL Of
Q. What did you tell him?
A. I don't remember now what I did tell him.
Q- How many times have you talked with him ?
A. A couple of times, I guess.
Q. What did they say to you ?
A. They asked me questions.
Q. Did they write down what yon told them ?
A. I don't know ; I suppose he or Mr. Morgan did.
Q. Have you ever told Freeman that Van Nest swore against him on his
trial for stealing the horse.
A. I never did.
Q. Did you ascertain that the prisoner did (hrow the quarter of a dollar
^ackto Ck>nklin?
A. Conklin told me he did — ^that's all I know.
Re-£xaminatiok^ — Q. How did you happen to see the counsel for the
prisoner?
A. Mr. Seward sent for me to come and tell him what I knew about
Freeman. •
Q. Have you talked with the prisoner since he was in jail ?
A. I have a little — I hallooed through the grates a few words.
Q. What did you say?
A. I asked how they used him, and he said pretty welL
Q. Why did you aak that ?
A. I reckoned he didn't know good usage from bad.
Q. What else did you say ?
A. I asked if he had enough to eat.
Q. WTiatdidhesay?
A. I don't know. I couldn't understand.
Q. Have you ever been into the jail at any other time ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did Freeman ever say any thing to you about Van Nest's folks ?
A. He never did.
Q. Did Freeman say any thing there at Hersey's ?
A. Not as I heard
Q- Did yon speak to him ?
A. I asked him if he was going to dance, and he smiled and shook hti
head.
Q. Was Freeman angry at you ?
A. Not to my knowledge, until Hersey told me so.
Q. Did Freeman dance that night ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did he dance before he went to prison ?
A. Yes, he could sing songs and dance ; but now he won't sing but part
of a verse, and*then be off on to another.
WILLUM f BXEMAH. 243
John B. Hopkins, called and sworn, testified : I hayc some knowledge
of this prisoner. It commenced, however, after the Fleming murders. The
excitement occasioned by the afiair was yery great, and when he was ar-
rested and lodged in the jail, I felt some interest in his case. I had under-
stood that he was a man of very weak intellect, and was anxious to ascertain
how that was from personal inspection. A week or ten days afler the mur-
ders, I went to his cell and conversed with him. I became satisfied that his
mind was very weak indeed. I endeavored to ascertain what his powers of
mind were. Asked him if he knew me. He said he did not. He did not
appear to recollect that he had ever seen me. I tried to bring Mr. Hotch-
kiss to his recollection. I asked the prisoner if he ever went to Sabbath
schooL He sidd he had, after making several efforts to get him roused up
so as to seem to know what I was saying. I asked him if he was in Mr.
Hotchkiss' class, and pointed to Mr. U. at the same time. He either said
** no," or ** I don't know." I asked what he learned at Sabbath schooL He
said, *^ The good." I asked if he learned about God. He said Yes. I asked
if he also learned about Jesus Christ He said Yes. I asked if he learned
about heaven. He said Yes. I then endeavored to ascertain what his ideas
were about them — whether he knew. who God is ; but could get no satisfac-
tory answer from him. He seemed puzzled. He mumbled something which
I could not understand, and shook his head. He did that to a great many
of the questions I put to him. What I could gather from him I must, there-
fore, give in general terms to the court and jury, if at alL I got an answer
from him to my question about God, but I have difficulty in giving his words.
The efiect of it was, that God is above, I asked if God was a superior or
sc^reme being, to which I could get no definite answer. About heaven, and
his idea of it, I pat a variety of questions, and the effect of his answers was
that he knew nothing about it The sum and substance was, that heaven
was above. I asked him if he knew any thing about Jesus Christ He said
he came to the Sunday-school once. I asked what he did. He answered,
"Don't know." I asked if he took a class. He said, "Don't know." I
asked if he preached or talked. He said, " Don't know." I then turned his
attention to the idea of pay. I asked if he had got his pay for the time he
was in prison. That roused him up, and he looked comparatively intelligent
His whole countenance brightened. He said No. I asked who ought to
pay him. He sud, " All of 'em." I asked whether I ought to pay him. He
looked up at me with a flash of intelligence in his face — ^kx>ked intently
conveying an answer by the look, and said nothing. I asked if this man,
(pointing to Hotchkiss,) ought to pay him. He looked at him as at me, and
said, " Do whaf s right," or " Well, do what's right" We then spoke to him
about his trial, and enquired of him whether he was to be tried for his offen«>
ces. He became stupid and dull again, and we couldn't get any thing out
of him. He made no answer that I know of. He seemed exceedingly stu-
pid and dull upon that subject He satisfied us that he knew nothing about
244 THX TIUL 0?
the triaL He was asked if be praved. He answered Yes. After that I
turned away finom him, and did not keep the ron of his answers. Hey
asked him if his wrist had got welL He made no reply. I looked at his
wrist, and took his hand, and asked whocnt it He said, ** A woman." • We
tried his capacity to read. I saw a testament there ; took it np and asked
if he could read. He said Yes. I gave him the book and asked bim to read.
He took it, and mumbled oyer incoherent sounds, but a small part of which
could I understand. In the sounds I recognized the words ''God,* '^ Father,**
'* Jesus Christ," ^ Mercy," and others that I cannot now remember, lliese
words were unconnected. His attention was directed to a place in the hock,
and I looked over him. He pointed with his finger, as if reading, and mnm-
bled over the same. There was no such matter there as be seemed to be
reading. I watched him sharply to discover any simulation, but I couldnt
!niere was no deception. If there had been, I should hare detected it As
to his mind and intellect, I think bim a little abore the bmte. On some
subjects he has a little knowledge of right and wrong. With reference to
some things, I don't think it unsound — as to others, I think it sound as (kr
as it goes ; and as to some, he is evidently deranged. I have no question of
it, by comparison with others whom I know to be deranged. He is insane
on the subject of pay. That idea is the controlling influence of his mind.
On no other subject is he awakened at alL
Cross Examikation. — ^I cannot tell how long the prisoner bas been in
this state. My opinion is that he has been so since he came out of prison?
and that when he came out he was insane. I don't claim to be infallible,
but I have the utmost confidence in this opinion. Some of my inquiries
were at the first visit and some at the second. At the second viat I became
satisfied. I had heard that this was the state of his mind, and I found it to
be so. My opinion was established by the examination.
Q- Have you not been very active in behalf of the prisoner ?
A. I cannot say that I have. I have talked about him some, and made
inquiries ci others.
Q. Have yon not taken especial pains to make these inquiries ?
A. Not especial pains. I have made inquiries, however.
Q. Did you not make them with a view to bis defence ?
A. I did not I made them in order to satisfy myself.
Q. Did you tell those of wh(»n you inquired that he was insane ?
A. From what I bad heard and seen, I concluded that be was insane on
the subject of his pay, ever since he came out of prison.
Q. You have no dbubt of that ?
A. I feel perfectly satisfied of it, and my subsequent investigation has not
caused me to doubt it a particle.
Q. You have no doubts now, I suppose ?
A. I have not a doubt of it
WILLUH FREEMAN. 245
Q Were you called as a juror in this case ?
A. I was. *
Q^ When called as a juror, did you swear on that stand that you had
formed no opinion as to his sanity or insanity at the time he committed the
offence ?
A. I cannot answer without detailing the circumstances.
Q. !Do you remember that you were challenged on the ground that you
had fonned and expressed an opinion ?
A. I remember that I was challenged.
Q. Do you remember swearing that you had an impression, but no opinion ?
A. I was asked if as a juror, I should regard that impression, and I said
No. I was then asked if Churchill should come and swear contrary to my
own knowledge, whether I would believe my own senses or his testimony.
Then I was asked if as a juror, what I would do.
Q. Well, what further did you say ?
A. I don't choose to be criminated; even apparently, and can give no
other answer.
Q. Bid you swear that you had formed no opinion as to whether he was
sane or not, when he committed the oflQence ?
A. My answer is, I cannot tell — ^I am unable to tell.
Q. Cannot tell what?
A. I say that with regard to my examination as a juror, I answered dif-
ferently from what I answered in another capacity. I do not now recollect
what Questions, precisely, were put to me.
Q* Does not your inability arise from disinclination ?
* A. My answer is, I don't recollect
Q. What is your occupation ?
A. My daily occupation is various. I am engaged in manufacturing ; but
sometimes attend court
Q. What did you first say to the prisoner at the first interview, from
which you discovered insanity?
A. I don't know that I can say.
Q. What was the question put by you to the prisoner about his wrist ?
A. I asked him how he hurt it, and he said a woman cut it
Q. I asked if he knew her?
A. He said he did not
Q, What next?
A. I asked if he had ever seen me, or if he knew me.
Q. What did he say?
A. He said he did not
Q- Did you not expect to testify on this trial ?
A. I did not
Q- Did it not occur to you, that you probably would be called as a witness ?
246 THE TRIAL OF
A. I am not able to state except with some degree of probability, from
the fact that this trial was near.
Q. Did not Grov. Seward speak to jou about this case ?
A. He did ; or We had several conversations about it
Q. Did that not lead you to expect that you would be called ?
A. It perhaps did, when taken in connexion with the approach of the
trial
Q* Did you tell him what you would testify to ?
A. I did not I only conversed with him about the prisoner, and the
peculiarities of the case.
Q. Several times, have you not ?
A. Yes, several I am unable to say how many ; but have conversed
with him frequently.
Q, Have you ever studied Theology ?
A. I have turned my attention to it somewhat
Q. Did you expect that the prisoner was familiar with that subject ?
A. I talked with him about the Supreme Bemg ; as "I wanted to learn
whether he was accountable and responsible for his crime, in the eye of
abstract justice and right
Q* In law, also, I suppose ?
A. I am not sufficiently acquainted with law, to tell whether it was any
part of my plan to see whether he was legally accountable.
Q, How do you test accountability ?
A. I supposed that the extent of his knowledge was the measure of hb
accountability, legally as well as morally.
Q- Suppose him profoundly ignorant of all those subjects ; would you
consider him accountable ?
A. If he wanted all knowledge, I should consider him wholly irrespon-
sible.
Q* Did you think Theology was the proper subject upon which to test his
knowledge ?
A. I conceived that the test I put was as fair as any I could put
Q. What did he say about Jesus Christ ?
A. He said that Jesus Christ came to Sabbath school.
Q* How was his memory ?
A- It was very sluggish and inactive.
Q. Did you consider that Jiis failing to remember you was evidence of
insanity?
A. I did not
Q. You say he brightened up on the subject of pay ; is that a rare thing ?
A. It is very rare to find people who will brighten up on the subject of
pay, in the manner and to the degree that he did.
Q. Did his brightening satbfy you that he was insane ?
A. I think he was deranged on the subject of his pay.
WILLIAM F&KEHAN. 247
Q. How did it satisfy you ?
A. Hb manner on other subjects, contrasted with his manner when this
subject was spoken of, convinced me that there was something extraordinary
on his mind ; that he was under the delusion that he was entitled to pay.
Q. Do you know that this is common with convicts ?
A. Very many of the prisoners say they are entitled to pay, but do not
think that they are legally entitled to it.
Q. How do you know that ? .
A. From their talking about it Toluntarily, and in the manner that
some do.
>Q. Didn't Freeman talk about it voluntarily.
A. No ; I' inquired about it
Q. Would the volunteering prove that there was no delusion ?
A. No ; not that alone. Freeman indicated a mania on that subject, in
his whole appearance and manner.
Rev. John M. Austin, sworn, testified : I reside in Auburn, and am
clergyman of the Universalist church in this village. Afler the prisoner was
arrested for the murder of the Van Nest family, I visited him several times
at the jail ; sometimes alone, and sometimes in company with others. I
found him to be a man of very feeble intellect, and quite stupid. I en-
deavored to examine him with a view to ascert^n what degree of knowledge
he possessed, and what his mental condition was. The first *time I called,
was the twenty-axth day of March ; but I had several interviews, and it
would be impossible for me to distinguish the subjects of conversation at
each interview. The principal object of my first inquiry, was to find
whether there was any connexion between that murder and the Wyatt
trial. Our questions were first in regard to the murder. I inquired of him
whether he knew Henry Wyatt, in the State Prison. He answered No.
I asked if he knew that Wyatt killed a man there. He answered that he
knew, or heard, a man was killed. I asked if he knew who killed him. He
said Na I asked if he was in the court house during his trial ? He an-
swered No. I asked if he knew that Wyatt had a trial. He answered
No. I asked if he knew what defence was set up on that trial He an-
swered No. I asked if he knew the result of that trial He said No.
I asked if the result of that trial had any influence on his mind in commit-
ting this murder. The answer was No. I asked if he probably would
have killed these people if Wyatt had had no trial, or had the result been
different. He answered Yes.
I then put questions to find his motives in killing that family. His an-
swers were broken and incoherent, but they invariably had reference to his
being in prison innocently. I asked if the persons he killed, had any thing
to do with putting him in prison. He answered No. I asked why he
killed that particular family. I got no direct answer ; except something
about being put into prison wrongfully. I asked if he thought it right to
248 THB TRIAL OF
kill people who had no hand in putting him into prison. To thisi his answer
was in effect, " Shall do something to get my pay." At that, or some other
time, I heard some one ask how much pay he asked ; and his answer was,
** Don't know." I asked why he entered that particular house. He said,
*^ I went along out, and thought I might begin there." I asked what ques-
tion Van Nest put to him when he went in. He said, '* He asked me what
I wanted." I asked what he said in reply. He said, ** I came in to warn
my hands." I asked if Van Nest said more to him before he stabbed bioL
He swd, " He said, if you eat my liver, Til eat yours."
I then asked about his religious advantages. I asked whether he had ever
been at church. He said, " Yes, some." I asked if h^ had ever been at a
Sabbath school. He said Tes. I asked where. He said, " To First
church." I asked how he became deaf. To this, I recollect he gave the
longest reply that he gave, and the strongest I can't give his words, but
they were something like this : " It felt as though stones dropp'd down my
ears ;" or this, " As though the stones of my ears dropp'd down." I could
not get the whole of it — it was so incoherent; and I was pained to hear him
talking ; and that I could not in any way gather his meaning about his
deafness.
Duribg the most of my subsequent visits, the conversa^on: was chiefly on
religious subjects. I tried to convince him that his acta were wicked, and I
asked him if he did not think he ought to ask forgiveness of the Saviour for
the act ; but I could get from him no answer that indicated that he compre-
hended me. I saw he was unmoved by any of those questions, and I aban-
doned the attempt to impress him with the nature of his guilt While
talking to him, I asked him if he ever prayed. He said Yes. I asked
when. He said, " When I was a boy." T asked if he had ever prayed
since he came out of prison. He said No. I asked if he had prayed
since he committed this act He said No. I then said that he should
pray fervently, and asked him to promise me that he would. He answered,
*' I win." I asked if he would like to have me pray with him. He said,
Yes ; and I did pray with him in his cell. I inquired of him if he would
like to have a testament He said Yes ; and said that he could read. I
soon afler that, carried a testament to him. At some interview, he said
something about " my work ;" but I could not gather what it was. Here
I think it due to myself, and the position I occupy, to say that when I first
visited this prisoner I had no reference to any trial, or to any testimony that
may be given here. Nor was that visit made with the purpose or expeetar
tion of testifying. I was intent upon trying to do him good, and did not
note his language, as particularly as I might have done, perhaps.
His countenance has, from the first interview, presented a vacant appear*
ance. He sometimes smiled when there was no occasion for it That smile
is the same I have seen upon his countenance here in court, and which oth-
ers have noticed. As to his reading I found that he was unable to do sa
wnuAM ntmiAN. 249
When I diBcovered this I was astonished, aa he had before then told me that
he had read in the testament, which I had presented to him. I found that
when directed to read, he opened the book, fixed his eyes intently, bent his
head over and pointed with his finger, as would a child three or four years
old. At one time he opened to a chapter commencing with, '^ In those
days came John the Baptist.'* He pointed with hb finger, and said, " Christ,
or God, Moses, good, come, man/' These words were uttered afler a strong
apparent effort
I saw him try to count, and the effort to do so was peculiar. He would
spread his fingers apart and count, in a peculiar tone of voice, up to twenty-
five ; once he got to twenty-seven, and then said, " twenty-eight," and then,
" eighty," and then wandered about There was on his part an eagerness
to read and count
I put to him other qnestiona about killing the family. I cannot give
his language in reply, yet he referred to his being imprisoned in the State
Prison wrongfully. I asked if he thought it right to kill the Van Nest far
mily, and his answer was about the same — ^it referred to his imprisonment
When I asked why he killed the child I could get no reply which I could un*
derstand. I don't think he was able to assign any reason. I asked why he
went that night His reply was, "I don't know; the time had come." I
asked why he did not enter another house, or why he entered that His re-
ply was, " I went idong out, and thought I might begin there." I asked what
Mr. Van Nest said to him when he went in. He said, *' He asked me what
I wanted." I asked what else Van Nest said. He replied that Van Nest
traid, " If you eat my liver. 111 eat your liver." I asked about his deafness,
and how he became so. In a very incoherent manner he replied something
about stones dropping into his ean. He said, " the stones dropped down my
ears," or " the stones of my ears dropped down." I put questions to find his
motive for killing that family. His answers were very broken and incohe-
rent, but invariably referred to his being in prison innocently. I asked if
the persons killed had any thing to do with putting him in prison. He; an-
swered No. I asked if he knew their names. He sud No. I asked why be
killed that particular family. He gave no answer, except something about
being put in prison wrongfully. I asked if he thought it right to kill people
who had no hand in putting him in prison. His reply was incoherent, but
I gathered eomething like ihis, << shall do something to get my pay." I asked
how much pay he thought he ought to have. His answer was, *' Don't know."
I asked if it was right to kill those innocent persons for what had been done
by others. He said, ** They put me in prison." I asked who did— -the Van
Nest family ? He answered No. Then I asked again why he killed them ;
whether he thought it right to kill that innocent child. I understood from
his gestures in reply, that he was in a labyrinth from which he was incapa-
ble of extricating himself. I asked again how he happened to go that par-
ticular night His reply was, *< The time had come." J asked again why he
250 THS TRIAL OF
entered tliat particular house. lib reply was, ** I went along out, and tboogU
I might begin there." I asked if he ever called on Mrs. Godfrey. He said,
" I went to Mrs. Godfrey to get pay, and she wouldn't pay me." I asked
again about it He continued, ^* I went to the 'Squire's, and they wouldn't
do nothing about it" I put him yarious other questions which I cannot now
recall ; some of them were about his afiray in the State Prison. He said
something about the keeper. It appeared that he, had had some difficulty
with a man by the name of Tyler. I asked why he intended to kill the
keeper. He sud, *<I was called up to be flogged." I asked what he had
been doing. He said, « Because I wouldn't woi^." I asked why he wouldn't
work, and to that he made an answer that made an impression on my mind;
it was, " Because I went to prison innocent, and thought I oughtn't towoik."
I don't say those were his words, but those words conrey the idea. I cannot
undertake to be exact as to his words, but gire them as near as my recollec-
tion enables me to do so.
He stated in answer to my questions, that Mr. Tyler struck or kicked him
first, and that he kicked or struck back ; that conyicts were called to asnst;
that he attempted to run, and as he was running past a bench where there
was a knife, he picked that up to defend himself with ; that then the con-
yicts laid hold of him ; and that in the affray Tyler struck him with a board.
The remark that, " I thought I oughtn't to work," led me to believe that du-
ring his imprisonment he dwelt much upon the fact that he was wrongfully
imprisoned, and, therefore, ought not to work. His assertion that Van Nest
said, "if you eat my liver, I'll eat yours," led me to believe he was insane ;
for no such remark could have been used by Van Nest under such circum-
stances. Another ground of my belief was his confused story about losing
his hearing; his attempt to describe it, which he was utterly incapable of
doing. He said, in reply to some questions, ** if they'll let me go this time,
III try to do better," or something to that effect, which showed an entire
want of rational appreciation of the nature and enormity of his deeds, and an
entire ignorance of the consequences of his act I do not believe any man
of his age, ]x>ssessing a sound mind, could suppose that he could be allowed
to escape all punishment, simply by promising to do better. He attempted
to read and count, and appeared to suppose he could read and count cor-
rectly, when he could not I asked him whether he could read, to which he
answered Yes. I handed him a testament This I did several times, and
he evidently could not read. At subsequent visits I asked him if he had
read his testament He answered Yes. He could not count more than
about twenty regularly. He seemed to know some of his letters, but could
not combine them. His inability to do what he supposed he could, was an-
other ground for believing his nund to be impaired. He evidently did sup-
pose that he read and counted correctly, and I think no man of his age,
brought up here, could suj^pose he did read and count correctly, when he
did not A newspaper was handed to him to read. He looked at it and
WILLIAM f BEEHAN. 251
Stated some of the letters correctly. His attention was turned to a word.
He did not call it correctly, and couldn't combine letters.
He did not dissemble. I should suppose him the shrewdest man in the
world if he did dissemble. I haye not the slightest doubt that there was no
attempt to dissemble. He was very deaf. He did not dissemble deafness.
When I read to him from the testament, he would Yoluntarily place his ear
very near to me. He is very deaf, beyond doubt
Prerious to the commencement of this trial, I called on Governor Seward,
at his office, and conversed with him about this prisoner and his deplorable
condition. I requested Mr. Curtas and Doctor Bobinson to go with me
and see the prisoner. I may have spoken to others. I have felt some so-
licitude on account of this man ; but have not done any thing concerning
him but what I conceived to be my duty. I don't know as I've done as
much as I ought to have done for the prisoner. I inquired of the prisoner
whether he had counsel. He didn't give any answer, immediately. He
didn't comprehend the question at first. It being repeated, he finally said
Ka I asked if he would like to have Grov. Seward defend him. He was
agitated and hesitating. At length he answered Yes. I told Governor
Seward of this subsequently at his office. Before the conclusion of my last
interview, I became satisfied that his mind was in a singular condition ; and '
the result of all my interviews h&s led me to believe his mind is in a shat-
tered or unwund state. I can give no technical name to the difficulty. I
believe he knows right from wrong in regard to common transactions with
which he has been familiar ; the same as a little child five or six years old
does. But on topics involving the right or wrong of seeking redress for
injuries received, on the principle of retaliation, I consider him incapable
of discriminating between right and wrong. I have formed an opinion that
he is especially inci^Mble of discriminating as to the right or wrong of
making the innocent accountable for the offences of others. He could not
assign any consistent motive for his indiscriminate slaughter of men, women
and children. There was indeed no motive tiiat would actuate a sound mind.
Cross Examination. — Q. Have you not been very active in the de-
fence of this prisoner ?
A. I have not been very active ; not so much so, perhaps, as I Should
have been.
Q. You have taken a deep interest in his case, have you not?
A. Since I became aware of his condition, I have.
Q. Did you conceive it to be your duty to employ counsel for the prisoner ?
A. I need not answer that, as Grov. Seward had previously stated to me
that he would endeavor to defend him. I employed no counsel.
Q. Why did yon feel such a deep interest for one who had slain a whole
family without provocation ?
A. If he had been sane and in prison, it would have been my duty to
have visited him, although guilty.
252 THE TBIAL OF
Q. Did you yiflit him in your clerical capacity ?
A. For the most part, perhaps, I may say I did
Q. Have you not done more in this case than came within the scope of
clerical duty ?
A. I am not aware of having acted in any way derogatory to my den*
cal duties.
Q. Have you not written about this case and published your letters in
newspapers ?
A. I have.
Q. Have you written for religious papers ?
A. For one, I have.
Q. What one?
A. The £vangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate.
Q. Did your articles contain matter in opposition to capital punishment?
A. Very likely.
Q. Are you opposed to capital punishment ?
A. I am, and think it very wrong, and that it is a relic of barbarism.
Q. Have not your views in respect to capital punishment had some in-
fluence on your mind in respect to the prisoner ?
A. It may have incoreased my interest in his behalf, perhaps.
Q. Are yon not opposed to his being hung ?
A. I should think it wrong. I cannot think it right to take the life of
another, and hence I am opposed to hanging any one.
Q. Would yon not punish crime ?
A. Certainly, but not in that way.
Q. Did you not say in your communication that the execution of the
prisoner would be very wrong ?
A. In that article I may have advanced views in opposition to capital
punishment; but I have no recollection of saying that this case furnished
any argument
Q. Did you not say, in eflect, that this case furnished no argument for
capital punishment ?
A. I do not. recollect saying so. I think I did not
Q. Have you not also written for the Auburn Advertiser, a political pa-
per?
A. I did, soon afAr the murder.
Q- Did you not, in an article published in that paper, denounce this com-
munity in respect to (his prisoner ?
A. I did not denounce any one, but qpoke of the n^ect of the colored
population.
Q. Did you not charge this community with the crimes of this man ?
A. I did not charge them ; I said they were, to a certain extent, respon-
sible for the crimes committed in thetf midst, and I think they are, in some
degree.
WILLIAM FRSBMAN. 258
Q. Is this murder the legitimate consequence of the neglect of the colored
people in this place ?
A. It is my opinion that neglect is one of the causes that led to it
Q. Then you believe it the le^timate cause ?
A. So far as it is a cause I consider it legitimate ; but by legitimate I do
not mean an unavoidable, or a rightful cause.
Q. If the cause lies in the neglect of the community', the crime followed
necessarily, did it not ?
A. I think not
Q. Suppose the cause were sufficient ?
A. Their neglect is no justification for the crime, ibr it cannot make the
action right
Q. What signature did you append to your article published in the Ad-
vertiser ?
A. Justice.
Q. In that article did you not state expressly that this neglect was the
legitimate cause of this crime ?
A. I might have inquired whether or no it was not
Q. Did you write anotiier article for that paper?
A. I did.
Q. Did you write any other ?
A. I did not
Q. Were you acting in a clerical capacity in perfbrming that act ?
A. It is not unusual for clergymen to write articles of that character for
newspapers. If they should meddle with political topics I should think it
unusual and improper.
Q. Do you lend as much aid in all capital cases as you have in this ?
A. I do not know that any other has occupied quite so much of my atten-
tion.
Q. Did you ever before go to a jail and ask {prisoners if they wanted
counsel ?
A. I recollect of no other case where I ever asked that question.
Q. How did yon come to ask Uie prisoner that question ?
A. Gov. Seward suggested that I should ask him if he wanted counsel
Q. Did you request Ira Curtis to go to the jail with you ?
A. I did.
Q. How is Mr. Curtis related to you?
A. As a member and trustee of my church.
Q. Did you tell Curtis that he would be called to testify ?
A. Whether I, told him that or not, I am not able to say.
Q. When did you first see the prisoner try to read ?
A. Not until afler the first of June, but I had read to him from the testa-
ment before.
Q. Were you at the jail with John R. Hopkins ?
254 XHS TKIAL Of
A. I was not
Q. What is ^Ir. Curtis' scholarship ? " ;
A. I have very little knowledge of it
Q. Why was he called to see the prisoner ?
A. I know of no reason why he was called upon, except for the reason
that he was an old inhabitant of the village, and is a man whose statement
can be believed.
Q. Had you heard him read before yon went there with Mr. Curtis ?
A. I had not.
Q. Who gave him the book ?
A. I don't recollect ; I think I pointed ^out the place to him, telling Mr.
Curtis to turn to some part with which we were familiar.
Q. Did you see Doctors Willard and Clary there at the same time ?
A. I think they were there ; yet it may be that I mistake the interview
when they were there. They were there once.
Q. Did you go there with Mr. Curds ?
A. I did not; I had agreed to meet him at Doctor Bobinson's office, but
found him at the jail when I arrived there ; afterwards other persons came
in.
Q. Did you say to Curtis then that the prisoner thought he could read,
but could not ?
A. I recollect of making some such remark to him.
Q. When was this?
A. It was the morning that the plea of insanity was put in ; the first of
June, I t|imV.
Q. Have you questioned him in respect to the fnndamental principles of
religion?
A. I have not My endeavors have been to soften him, and to make him
aware of the wickedness of his offence. I had supposed he knew the funda-
mental truths of religion.
Q. Did you go there with Doctor Bobinson ?
A. I did once, I think.
Q. What did he go for?
A. I suppose with a view to his testimony.
Q. When did he go?
A. Well, during this court
Q- Did you ask him to read then ?
A. I think I did.
Q. When you went the first time, was there any person with yon ?
A. Yes ; Ethan A. Warden went with me. He knew Freeman, and 1
went with him for that reason.
Q. How many times have you mentioned this case ?
A. I have talked about it one hundred times.
Q. At all times alike?
WILLIAM msmAN. 255
A. Substaatiallf so, ta my views have not been changed.
Q- Did you notice at any of yoar interviews any excitement on the sub-
ject of his pay ?
A. I cannot say that I have noticed any particular excitement on the
subject of his pay. Pay was the chief topic.
Q. Which subject did he talk about most readily ?
A. His pay and his wrongful imprisonment
Q. What other subject did he converse about with the most facility ?
A. He would answer more freely about the murder than on the subject
of religion.
Q. What was it that the prisoner told you about the liver ?
A. He said that Van Nest sud, or that he thought he said, *^ If you eat
my liver, 1*11 eat your liver."
Q. Who first told you that he said 80?
A. I never heard it before from any one.
Q. Do you not know that it was an Indian ceremony ?
A^ I do not.
Q. Why cannot you as well conceive that Van Nest said so, and that the
prisoner told what was false ?
A. I cannot ; and the reason b that Freeman is more likely to be mistaken
than that Van Nest made the remark. Again, a deaf mafi may euily mis-
understand.
Q- Suppose the expresaon to have been a common one ?
A. That would make no essential difference.
Q- If it wore a common expression of the prisoner, would his remark, in
yonr judgment, be evidence of insanity ?
A. It would lessen the force of the impression.
Q. Might the prisoner not have lied to you ?
A. I don't think it impossible.
Q. Suppose he had a motive for lying to yon, would you think it strange
that he did ?
A. Perhaps not as much so.
Q. Do not sane men have modvea ?
A. Yes.
Q. Do not insane men. ?
A. I suppose they do, bnt I think sane men act from motives, that they
can explain ; whereas, insane men act from motives which they cannot
explain.
Q. Is lying any evidence of insanity ?
A. I should not consider lying any evidence going to prove sanity or in-
sanity ; but I have no idea that he did lie. His evident candor and frankness
convinced me that he was not lying.
Q- Do you think he lied when he persisted ihat Burrington's horse was
his own?
2S6 THK TBUL or
A. I do not think it was that kind of lying for which he is responsible,
and yet I suppose the horse belonged to Burrington.
Q. You speak of a story about a fracas with Tyler. Do you think he
related that affair correctly.
A. I cannot say.
Q. J£ Tyler should swear to a different state of fiicts, would you believe
him or the prisoner ?
A. I should believe Tyler correct and the prisoner mistaken.
Q. Do you consider the prisoner an outlaw ?
A. Not at all, sir.
Q. If it should appear he was justly condemned for horse stealing, al-
though he pretended \ innocence, and should slaughter people, would you
think him insane ?
A. That might or might not be a circumstance tending to show it, depend-
ing upon circumstances.
Q. Do you suppose a man insane for acting without a motiyey merely
because you cannot discover it?
A. No ; for the actuating motive ibay not appear ; yet the actuating mo-
tive, if discovered, ought to be adequate to a man of sound mind.
Q. Have yon ever known of a motive adequate to the crime of murder?
A. I have never known it adequate in a moral point of view. I have
known it sufficient to induce retaliation.
Q. Well, in any sense, could Freeman have had an adequate motive ?
A. I think not ; and that is one of my reasons for tjiinlring him insane.
I think his indiscriminate massacre a further reason. ^
Q. Have you ever heard of the Wyoming massacre ?
A. I have read of it
Q. And that at Cherry Valley ?
A. I have.
Q. If one of those Indians was arrested, and it were proved that he had
killed, would you think him insane ?
A. I am unable to say — amorally so, perhaps.
Q. Are pirates insane, who live by plunder ?
A. Not if they have a motive ; they may be depraved, but not insane.
Q. You have spoken about the subject of his pay. Now, if he told the
truth and was wrongfully imprisoned, was it not natural for him to suppose
that community owed him ?
A. I think not
Q. Do you believe all in prison innocent, who say they are not guilty V
A. By no means ; yet I tiiink there are innocent persoQS there.
Q. If an innocent man were imprisoned for an alleged offence, and he
should retaliate by killing when he came out, would that be evidence of
insanity?
A. That an innocent man should kill, I should consider a strong mark of
insanity.
wtuiAM f&muH. 267
Qf. What do joa think the prifloner fled for, after committing the mur-
ders.
A. I think from fear.
Q. Did 70a erer know a man who thought that the law of the land was
to hang people for doing right ?
A. I nerer did.
Q. Have you erer heard of men who expected to be pardoned on account
of repentance?
A. Yes ; but I should not call them insane.
Q. Hare you not seen men who could neither read nor count more than
twenty-five ?
A. I may have seen such men. Yet I am quite confident that a sane man
twenty-three years old, who cannot read, but thinks he can— who cannot
count more than twenty-sey^n or eighty but thinks he can, cannot be found
in this county.
Q. Do insane people commit crimes ?
A. I believe they do.
Q. Do they often deny the offence afterwards ?
A. I beUere they do, or often do.
Q. Did you ask him why he denied stealing the horse ?
A. I did not I
(^ Which subject that you examined him upon throws the moit light
npon the question of his insanity ?
A. I cannot say. I don't think any one, taken by itself^ throws much
light upon the state of hb mind ; but all taken together,.! think do.
Q. If all the light we had about it was that he prepaned the knife, hid it,
killed the family, denied it, ran away, was arrested and put on trial, would
you think him insane ?
A« I do not think it would decide the case..
Q. Suppose that Doctor Wlllard had given him the numbers one, two,
three and five, and asked him what they amounted to, and he had said nine,
would that in your judgment be evidence either of sanity or insanity ?
A. I don't think it would detennine the question*
Lyman Faxne, called and sworn, testified : I have been a magistrate
neariy twelve years. On the Saturday or Monday before the murder, the
prisoner called at my office, opened the door, advanced four or five feet,
stood a few moments with his head down» and looked up and said he wanted
a warrant He advanced nearer to me, and I asked him what he wanted.
He said, ^* Sir, I want a warrant" I asked what for. He then came nearer
to me and spoke very loud, and said, ** Sir, I want a warrant" He then
said, ^ I'm very deaf, and can't hear very well." I then asked, in a loud
voice, what he wanted a warrant for. He replied that he wanted a warrant
for a man who put him to State Prison. I think then thati asked hisname.
Hetoldme. I asked how h>ng he had been out of prison. Hesaidhecame
17
S68 mmiLOf
out last September. I Mud to Un tiwn, tiiai ifbe had been to the State
Prison, he had been tried for some offence. He said he had, for stealing a
horse, but he didn't steal it I asked who he wanted the warrant for. He
told me somename ; I tiiink it was D0I7. I then said, ^ Then yoa want a
warrant for peijurj — for swearing false." I had to talk rery load. I then
told him that in order to get a warrant he must get at the facts. He then
appeared to be in a passion ; said he had beeti abased, and would have sat-
isfaction. I then told him I would not give him a warrant without further
information. He stood a little while longer and then Airew down two shil-
lugs, and demanded one. He said, <^ I demand a wammt,'* and was in a
passion. I then said he had better take his monej and put it in his pocket;
that Ishould not take it, nor give him a warrant withoat farther informalkn.
I told him, further, that he had better go away and find a place and go to
work. I adyised him to do so, or that he would get into prison again. He
said, '^Pm so deaf I can't get work; people won't employ me. IVe beea
tiying, and can't get work." I then said to him that if he couldn't get wotk
he had better go to the overseer of the poor and apply for asnstance. He
remained some time, and then took his cap and lefl, and as he went ool he
shut the door very hard. I inferred that he was rery deaf, ignorant and
malignant This was in the forenoon. In the afternoon he called again.
He came in and stood with his head down, as before. I beckoned him to
eeine near me. I asked him whether he wanted a warrant for a man and a
woman. I asked this because he had used the word "they." Then he
named Mr. Doty and Mrs. GodfVey. I refused him a warrant; told him he
had been there before on the same errand, and that he had better go away
He waited a few minutes and finally went away. I saw no more ci hin
«ntil he was arrested lor the murder of the Van Nest fanuly.
Cross Examination. — He said he wanted the warrant for the man who
^pat him in, or sent him to the State Prison. He said he did not steal the
Ikum he was tried for. He said he would have a warrant The legal fee
€or a warrant is chargeaMe to the county, and is two shillingB. At that
time I came to no concludon that he was craxy.
David Winkeb was next called, and being sworn, testified : I live in
Fort Byron, but used to live here. I have known the prisoner rixteen years,
and knew his father and mother. I knew Jane Brown. She has a sister
who is orasy, and lives at Adam Gray's. I know Sidney Freeman, the nnefe
<tf prisoner. He has been craay a good many yean. William's mother ii
called an Indian woman, but she is part French and African. I knew the
prisoner weU. When this boy was twelve or thirteen years old, he was a
pretty sprightly lad, sensible, and very lively. I saw no difference between
Urn and any other boy of sense, at that time. I saw him in prison when
he'd been there a year. I saw lum about a week after he came out Bb
WM at hia ande Lite's. He then appeared to be a foolish man. I hanOy
knew him. I Asked Luke if that was Sally's son. He told me he wa& I
wiUiUxminuH. 890
•aid he wu iwy orach altered. Luke aaid he had joii oome ovt of priioii.
He had altered very much in his boka and hehayior. He was sitting down
in a chair, sniveUing, snickering and laughing, and having a kind of simple
look. I spc^e to him, but he didn't speak to me. I was told to speak louder^
£or he couldn't nniierstand. I saw him during Wyatt's trial, at Laura WH-
lard's. I stayed there three nights, and slept with William in the same bed.
At night he got up and talked to himseUl I couldn't uiderBtand what he
said. He appeared to be foolish. I gave him a dollar to get a quarter of a
pound of tea and two pounds of sugar at a store> and a beef steak at the
market He went to the market and got it all in beefsteak. When I asked
what he did thai for, he said nothing, but laughed at me. He got a dollar's
worth of beef steak. He got up nights two or three times, and I felt cold,
and told Lanra I wouldn't sleep with him any more, and I went and slept in
the other room. He kept onjiis trowsers always, and slept in 'em. He sung
when he got up nights, but there was no meaning in what he sung. This
was three or four weeks before the murder. He was sober as I was. There
was no liquor there for him to drink. He was called a flober man, as for as
I know.
Cboss Examination. — ^I came ftom Port Byron here last Saturday eye-
ning. I was subpomaed by Groremor Seward's clexk to come here. I am
forty<-6eTen years old. I cannot read. My master didn't giro me no learning.
I can't count one hundred without missing some. I drink spirits when I
want it ; when I don't, I don't When I slept with the prisoner he was not
at work there, but was boarding there. ' I was doing the same. I came on
a visit to see the fdks. I saw him some during the days. He sat down by
the stove pretty much all day, only when he went to eat He went of er-
rands for Mrs. Willard a good many times in a day. Sometimes he'd be
gone one hour — sometimes two. One night he cttne home pretty late. I
can't tell whether he had been drinking. I never drank with him* When
I sent afler the steak by him, he ate some of it with us. Bk mother has a
daughter who is fodisL
Ira Cubtis, called and being sworn, teatified : I reside in Aubom. Am
fifty-two years of age, and by occupation a merchant I have known the
prisoner seven or eight years, but not very distinctly untol the fo»t of June
last He worked for me in the spring of 1840 a short time, perhaps a week ;
he wodced in the kitdien yard. His disposition was not good ; he was stub-
born and stnpid. He was of no use to me. If I sent him sway five rods he
would be just as likely to bring me the wrong thing as the right one. He
was a dnU, uttrose, stubborn boy, and if he had any capacity, I eouki not
discover it My recollection is rather indistinct about him, yet I can re-
member him enough to know that he was a sinpilar boy. Since his arrest
I have conversed about him a good deal. with people in my store. Someone
told me that I would probably be called as a witness. I had kept clear ci
all the eacciteBient About the first of Jwe I was reqnested- tofo and mt
m ffuo. or
liim, and I went He was in a tremor and seemed to be agitated. I went
np to his ceil door and talked tbrongh the grates. I could not make lum
hear withoat great difficnlty. After some attempts to talk with him, Mr.
Anstin^ our clergpnan, came in. The kejs were handed him, and he
opened the door and we went into the cell together. I asked him if he knew
me. He said he did, and called Qie hy name. A testament which was tying
near b^, was handed to him, and he was asked if he could read. He said
Yes. He was requested to read, and he commenced, or pretended to com-
mence and read, but he didn't read what was there. He looked at the book
and repeated, ** O, Lord — Jesus Christ — ^mercy — ^Moses," and other sack
words indiscriminately, and mixed up. Some of the pretended words I did
not understand, and doubt whether thej are to be found in any language.
None of the words repeated were in the place. His attempt was no reading
at all. I took the book and told him that he didn't read right. He said,
** Yes I do." I told him that he couldn't read. He said, " Yes I can." I
looked at the place and found that it was the chapter beginning with, <*In
those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness," &c. I then
pointed to the opposite page, and he did no better than before. I said, ** You
don't read right" He said, *« Yes I do."
Finding that he could not read in the testament, I took from my hat a pa-
per, a bank note detector, upon which was' the word, " admirable." I asked
him to count the number of letters in that word. He tried, but jumbled it
up. I pointed to the word and asked him what it was. He looked np with
a siUy expression and said, ^ woman." I pointed to the word Thompson, for
it was Thompson's Detector, and said, <' What is that, Bill?" He said,
** Cook." I pointed to a capital letter A which he called A, and he called
the letters along to £ correctly. I asked Mr. Austin the meaning of Bill's
actions. Mr. A. replied, that he thought he could read, but couldn't
Mr. Austin iried to get him to count, or told me to ask him. He com-
menced at one and then counted along up to twenty, hesitating some, and
stopping to think. He hesitated, and then went along from time to time
until he got to twenty-scTen or twenty-eight, and then jumped to eighty. I
told him once to say " twenty-one," but he seemed to have difficulty in say-
ing twenty-one. He neyergot higher than twenty-eight regularly. He
oould not combine nor multiply numbe^. I asked him how many two tames
four was. He said, <* £ighty." I asked him how many two times three was.
He said, " Sixty" or «« Sixty-four." I asked him about killing the Van Nest
family, and whether he knew Van Nest I forget his answer to that I
asked him how he came to be up there. He said, " I went up south a piece,"
or ^ Fd been up the lake a piece," or something like that I asked how far.
He said, « I stopped at the house beyond there." I asked what fbr. He
said, "To get a drink of water." • I asked what he went into Van Nest's
house for. He said, "Don't know." I asked if he went in to murder or
killtheiD. His anawer was, "Don'tknow." I asked if it was for money.
WILLUX FEUULN. 261
He laid, <* No ; didn't know ia ibey had anj." I asked loinething about the
child ; if he killed the child. He said, "^ Thej said I killed one, but, Mr.
Curtis, I didn't, I certainly didn't," or very near that I asked what he killed
them for. Be said, ** You know I had my work to do." I told him that was
nonsense, and repeated the question loud and distmct He answered,
** Well, I don't know ; can't telL" I asked if he had any thing against those
people, or against Mr. Van Nest He said No ; and then to the same ques-
tion he said, ** I don't know." I asked why he thought it was time to begin
at the other place. He said he didn't go in to kill them; "thought it
wasn't time yet" He said, " they wouldn't pay him," that he had been im-
prisoned, and " they must pay me." I asked whether that had any thing to
do with killing these folks. He said, " I don't know." He'd been in prison
and they would'nt pay him. He never said any thing without being ques-
tioned, except about the child. He spoke yery low, so one could hardly un-
derstand him.
I have seen him since; saw him to-day. He was asked to-day if he knew
what was going on. I don't remember what he said, but he didn't appear to
know what was going on. Ho was asked what the jury were there for. He
kaid No. He was asked if he knew what the jury were there for. He said
No. He was asked if he recollected meeting any one when he went up to
kill those people. He said he met somebody in a cutter. He said he should
hare killed that person but he was too fiur off ; it was too muddy. . I asked
if he thought he should be hung. He said^ " Don't know." I asked if he
wanted to be hung. He said Na He was asked if he'd kill any more if he
was let go. He said No. I hare formed an opinion respecting him. I do
not honestly believe he knows any more of the moral character of an aol,
than a dog or a cat I do not think he has any capacity, or if any, it is as
little as any human being can have. He don't feel any more oompuactioft
than a dog or cat A dog or cat may know they have done wrong, but ye^
know nothing of the character of an act, nor feel compunction. I think he
does not dissemble ; nor have I seen any thing like it for a moment I never
saw any thing that left any impressioii on my mind for half a minute that he
was attempting to deceive. I don't believe it is in the power <^ all in this
room to teach him to carry on a piece of deception for fifteen minutes, be-
cause he would forget what he set about He is incapable of understand-
ing. He is part fbd, bordering on idiocy. I think he is idiotic and crazy.
Cross Examination. — iiy opinion respecting the prisoner was formed
by seeing him that day, and to-day in the jail, and from all I saw when put
together. I was pu2ided that he should say he could read when he couldn't
Mr. Austin and myself were alone with him nearly an hour. I asked him
some questions outside the grate before Mr. Austin came. I discovered no
unwillingness on his part to answer. This was on the first day of June, the
day this court began. Some of the time I thought he was foolish — some-
times that he was crazy — and sometimes a little of both. I think now that
/
be is inci^able of nndentanding and of controlling him8elf--part fool, bor-
dering on idioc J— orazf and lui idiot ; both crazj and insane. If all the
doctors in the world should say he was not a fool, I shoold not believe
them. For a moment I tiiooght he knew better than to ^wer as he did ;
and then agun I saw he didn't When I told Mr. Austin that this was
qneer, he said to me, he tiiixiks he can read but can't We tried him more
than once about reading. Fre^nan was a stnbbom boy when he lired with
me. He was stnpid — ^when I told faim to do one thing, he'd do anodier. I
then thought he was oontnury. I think he knows less now than tben. He
didn't go to school when he liyed with me. He was not deaf when he lived
with me, and would understand what I siud to him ; he can't now. When
he lived with me he looked like ordinary darldes. When I tried him, be
couldn't add nor multiply. I don't know whether he has failed nnce the
first of March* I believe he varies from one hour to the next, as to sense.
As to his fixing on the price of eighty dollars for the horse, I should think
it was entirely accidental 1^ acts in reference to the knives, don't change
my opinion any. I don't attach much importance to the fact that he cannot
count twenty, only as it shows ignorance. As to his mind, I think it is in a
singular condition. I think tbere is near relation between idiocy and insan-
ity, If any person twenty years old couldn't tell how much twice two was,
I should say he was all but a fooL It did occur to me once, whether Uie
prisoner, with his appearance of sincerity, was attempting to play off a game
of imposition. The thought vamshed in a moment There was too much
before me. I have no doubt of his sincerity. I don't believe it is in the
power of all in this room to teach him to carry on a piece of deception for
fifteen minutes.
CBABLEfl A. PABflOirs, Called and sworn, testified : I «n a clerk m
Gov. Seward's office. Sometime in the eariy part of last March, the priso-
ner called at the office and asked if it was a squire's office ; on being told
that it was, he said he wanted a warrant I didn't understand him untfl he
bad asked once or twice. I asked him What he wanted it for. He said for
a man that sent him to prison, and he wanted to get damages. I told him
he was looking for a justice of the peace. I told him where to goy but he
did not understand me. He then went out
Jamcs E. Ttlxr, called and sworn, testified : I was a keeper in the
State Prison in 1841, and had Freeman under my charge for a while. I
soon discovered that he didn't do quite as much work as he ought to. I
told him|he was capable of doing as much work as other men of his size and
experience, and that unless he did a reascmable day's work, I should punish
hun. I talked to him in that way several times. I talked to him and fi>und
it did no good. I called him up to punish him ; told him I was going to
punish him for not doing more wofk, and should do so repeatedly until he
should do more work. When I talked with him about doing more woik, he
gave as an excuse that he was tiiere wrongfully and ought not to worit He
WIUJAM nUBMAV. 268
maj have made other excuses. I at last called him up, and told him I had
done talking to him ; that I was going to punish him. I turned to get the
cat, [cat o'nine tails J and received a blow on the back part of mj head
from him. He struck me with his fist I made another step, and as I locked
around he gave me another blow upon the back. I then hit him with my fool
and knocked him partly over ; perhi^ he fell. I think he did &I1 over. He
jumped up, went across the shop and got a knife, with which he came at me.
I then had to defend myself, and also to take some means to cause him to
submit. I picked up a basswood board about two feet long, fourteen inchea
wide and half an inch thick, and struck him on the forehead. It split the
board and one piece of it fell on the floor, and the other, a piece about fimr
inches wide, remained in my right hand. Other convicts then came up to
him, but I told them to let him alone — that I would attend to him. I tiiea
gave him eight or ten blows with the remainder, and told him to set dowa.
I knocked the knife from hb hand with tbe piece of board, and it fell on the
floor. My impression is that the. blow was a little on the left side of hii
forehead. I then flogged him tea or a doaen blows and sent him to his
work. He never gave me any trouble after that, although he never did a
full day's work. He never spoke but when spoken to, aad was of ftw
words. I considered him below the mediocrity c^ blacks. He was very
hard of hearing all the time he was in my shop. He held his head dowa
aad was rather dull and down cast
Cross .Examination. — ^He was hard of hearing before tiie encounter
and the blow. The board with which I struck him, was kept for a tatty
board in lieu of a slate. I grasped it at the comers and hit him on the head ;
it split, and part of ii remained in my hand, and vith that I hit him on tka
wrist He paid nothing. I let him sit a spell before I flogged him. Hs
didn't stand the flogging very comfortably, for the blows sat pretty snug. I
was some excited at the time. A black man's hide is thicker than a white
man's, and I meant to make him feel the punishment I never punished
him afler that, though he never did a full day's work. He worked at lon^
filing, prepiekratory to the process of japanning. It was regarded as coam
worL He did his work well after that, as far as I know. He always stood
with his head down ; had a down-cast look ; more so than convicts in general.
In looking up he turned his eye and head. I see noflung about his features
now difierent from what they were then. I have seen him once in jail since
his arrest for murder. I can see no difference in his appearance. He is
deaf, and when I asked him in jail if he knew me, he asked me to speak
louder.
Q. When you questioned him in the jiul, were his answers pertinent and
^propriate?
Objected to. Objection overruled and decision excepted to.
A. When the questions were direct he could answer.
Q. Did you see any thing about the prisoner indicating insani^ ?
264 no TMiAL or
A. I did not I nexer thougbt ab<mt it.
Q. Did lie work regolarlj when in the State Prison ?
A. He never lost a daj while under me.
Q. Had 70a teen a number of insane men in the prison, and did 70Q
have any difflcultj in detecting insanity ?
Objected to. Objection orenraled and decision excepted ta
A. As a general thing, I did not
Rb-Exaicikation. — ^When I talked to him about doing more work, he
would sometimes say he couldn't do more, and sometimes that he was sent
there wrongfully. When I spoke about not seeing any tiling insane in him,
I mean to say that the question of his insanity was not brought to my atten-
tion. For tiiat reason I never thought of it The instmment which I caD
a cat, is made and used for flogging men. The stock is made of raw-hide,
and is about two feet long ; the lashes are of about the same length and have
several strands. After using the board upon his head I never made any
inquiries to see whether or not it injurejl his hearing. As to his capacity,
I consider blacks below whites in intellect, and I consider him b^w the
majority of blacks. He has not much intelligence, so far as I can discover.
Ethak a. Wardex, called and sworn, testified : I have lived in Au-
burn most of the lime during the last twenty-five years. I am President of
the Village of Auburn, but hold no office in the church. I knew the pris-
oner fi)urteen yean ago. He then lived with me, and before that with my
fiMher. He lived with me several months. We considered him a bright,
active boy. He used to jilay truant, yet we considered him a bright boy,
and took him for that reason. We considered him kind in his disposition.
We thought he understood weU enough then. He did not attend school on
week days ; we supposed he went to Sunday school. I do not think there
was then any defect in his capacity. He was then about seven or ei^t
years of age, as we supposed. After he left my house I do not recollect of
seeing him until I saw him in the State Prison. Whisn I saw him there, he
was coming to me. I spoke to him. He appeared different from what he
used to. He appeared stupid and different {torn what I expected he would.
He was deaf, and did not appear as he formerly did ; and it made an im-
pression on my mind at the time. He appeared bright when he lived with
me. The difference was so peculiar I don't know as I can describe it
[This witness on the preliminary trial, remarked that the difference be-
tween the prisoner as he saw him in prison, and the prisoner as he was
when he lived with him, was so marked and peculiar that when he saw him
in the State Prison, the transition had been so great as to arrest his atten-
tion ; and in describing the effect on his mind, the witness used the words
'* thinks I to myself, what has come over Bill." That expression was re-
membered, and probably induced the examining counsel to call fbr it on this
trial.]
Q. Did you sayto yourself when you saw him, what has oome over Bill?
WltLUM VEBnCAK. 266
Objected ta Objection flnstained and deckion excepted to.
Q. Did you mention that to your family ?
Objected to. Objection sustained and decision excepted to.
Q. Did you then think to younelf that something strange had come orer
him?
Objected to. Objection sustuned and decision excepted to.
Q- Was it your opinion when you saw him that a change had come orer
him?
Objected to. Objection sustained and decision excepted ta
Q. Had a change come OTer him when you saw him in the State Prison ?
A. He appeared changed. He appeared different from what he did
when I knew him. He was not as sprightly nor as bright, but was more
stupid. The next time I saw him was when he passed my house in a wa-
gon. I had, howerer, seen him in the street sawing wood. I then asked
him how he was, but I think he did not reply. I did not take much notice
of him, yet I recollect that he looked sad. I next saw him when he passed
my house on his way from Oswego, under arrest He was carried through
the Village to the house of Van Nest, and when they brought him back, I
went into the jail very soon afler he anived in charge of the officers. I
went into the jail and asked him if he knew me. He said Yes. I then
asked him my name. Ho said *'Mr. Ethan A. Warden." This occurred in
the hall of the jail, before he was taken to his celL He was then taken to
a cell and ironed. I then asked him if he remembered Hying with me. He
answered Yes, and said ''I wish I was back there." I talked with him
some, but I cannot remember all the questions I put to him. I howeyer
recoUect that I asked him if he talked witi^ a man about the time he started
for the Lake. He answered Na I aaked what time he started. His
answer, was '* About sundown." I asked if there was not another black man
with him. He answered No. I asked if he did not see and talk with
somebody. He answered No. I asked whether he met any one on the
road. He said " Yes ; a man in a cutter." I asked if he ^ke to him. Ba
answered No. I asked if he knew who it was. He answered No. I
asked if he went into the yard of the house this side. He said Yes. I
asked whether when he came out of the yard he crossed the road and spoke
to a man standing by a stump. He said No. I asked whether he did
not talk to a white man. He said No. I asked whether he had a gun.
He said No. I asked whetiier he saw a man with a gun. He said No.
I asked whether he knocked when he went up to Van Nest's door. He said
Yes. I asked who opened the door. He said, ^ The man." I then asked
if he struck him when he opened the door. He said No. I then asked
what he did do. He, said '^ Went in ; stood by stoTe." I asked where his
knife was then. He sud, " here," putting his hand to his side. I took hdd
of his coat and he showed me. I then asked what the man said. He an*
swered," What do you want" I aaked what he told him. He said, «< Warn
tt6 XHS null Of
me." I asked what the maa said then. He said, *^If I eat Lis lirer, he'd
eat mine.*' I asked what he said next He said, '' I made a pass at him."
I asked what the man did next He said, '* Turned and fell out." I asked
where the woman was. He said, ". In a room standing by table." I then
asked where he struck the woman. He said, ** she come out ; I made a paai
at her." I asked where she went He said " she went out" . I asked if he
knew there was a man up stain. He said, ^ No ; opened door, saw a nun ;
made a pass at him." He repeated all this, but paused between the sen-
tences, but I said "well," and he would go on. I then asked if the man
knocked him down. He said, ** No ; I tumUed and fell ; broke my knife.*
I asked where he hit the old lady. He said, ^ At the gate ; she chas'd me
out" I asked if that was after the contest on the stairs. He said Yes.
I asked if he had another knife. He said Yes. I asked where that was.
He said, "By the gate." I asked where. He said, " Covered up." He said
" Twas run under." I asked him what it was under ; whether it was under
the snow. He said Yes.
I then inquired about that knife, and found that it was a knife fixed in a
cane. I asked its length. He said, " About so high," raising his hand I
got the impression that it was larger than a cane. I asked what became of
it He said, "Tve lost it" Once he said, " I broke it" I think I followed
him along to the time when he said the horse fell He said, " Fell down
with me — ^broke my knife." I asked if he broke the knife then. He said,
" No ; I straightened it out" I asked if his hand .was cut there at the gale.
He said Yes. I asked if the old lady cut it He said Yes. I adted him
what made him kill the child. He said, " Don't know any thing about that"
At another time he answered, " I don't think about it ; I didn't know 'twas
a child." Once he said, " I thought feel it more." I then said, " When yoa
started from home, what did you go up there for ?" He said, " I must go."
I said, " Why must you go 7*^ He said, << I must begin my work." I then
said, " What made you do it ?" He said, ** They brought me up so." I then
asked who brought him up 80. He sud, " The State." I then said,f"They
did not tell you to kill, did they ?" He said, " Don't know— won't pay me."
I jsaid, " Did you know these folks before yon went to prison ?" He said No.
I asked if he lired with old Mr. Van Nest when he wasa boy. Hesaid Na
I said, " Was you there a few days before, to get work ?" He answered Yes.
I asked if they said any thing to offend him, or make him angry. He said
Na I asked what made him kill them — what he did it for. He said, "I
must begin my work." I asked if he did not expect to be killed. He said,
" Didn't know but I should." I asked what made him go, if he expected to
be killed. He said, "I must go," or "I must do it" I asked if he went
there to get money. He said No. I asked if he saw a man there counting
money, when he went up to get work. He said No. I asked if he expected
to get any money. He said Na I asked if he intended to get the hone.
He said No. 1 asked how he came to take lum. He said, "Broke my
wiLLiAX nanuv. ' 267
iilngs — hand was cut— came into my mind— take tlie liorie — go — and — get
to — could do more work." I asked what he would hare done if he had not
lrtt)ke his things. He said, '< Kept to work." I asked him whether he would
hare killed me if he had met me. He said, <* S*po8e I should.** I asked
what made him begin at that house. He said, ** Stopi>ed two ov three places ;
thought it wasn't far out enough to begin." I asked if he was not sorry he
had killed so many folks. He said, ** Don't think any thing about that" I
asked if he did not expect to be hung. He said, ** Don't think about it" I
asked if he liked to be in jaiL He sud, *< Pretty well." I asked if it waa n
good place. He said Yes. I asked if he thought of what he had been doing
in the night He said Xo. I asked whitt made him deaf. Ho said, " Got
stones in my ears — got it out" I asked if he got it out, and if he did not
hear better when he got it out He said, << Yes, I think I did." I asked if
he was well. He said Yes. I asked if he drank any thing when he started.
He said No. I asked if he drank any thing that day. He said Yes. I
a*ked when. He said **Aflemoon." I asked where. He said, <*Up at
house." I asked at whose house. He didn't answer. I asked if it was ftt
an Irishman's house. He said Yes. I asked his name. He said, '< Doat
know." I asked if he saw that man afLer he started. He sud Na I ask^d
who got the liquor. He said, " I did." I asked how much. He said a pint
. I asked if he was intoxicated when he started. He said Na I asked if it
did not make him high. He said, ^^ Got over it before I started."
In the course of this conrersation he stated that he had been to lawyers
to get pay, and that they would not do any thing for him. This was said in
answer to some questions which I don*t recollect He appeared difTerevtly
from what he did before. He was stupid and did not appear to understand
very well. It is difficult for me to explain his condition so that the jury can
see him as I did. When he was a boy he was bright, but was not so in jail.
When a boy, and I spoke to him, his countenance had A different cast and
expression from what it has now. He was a cheerful and tery pla3rlbl boy.
Now he is neither cheerful nor lively. He was talkative when he lived with
me ; in the jail he was not In the jail I don't recollect of his speaking ex-
cept when I spoke to him. His answers were slow and sometimes indistinct
He made no inquiries about my family. When I asked him if he recollected
my little girl, he said No. He never manifested any feeling at my coming
to see him, nor did he ask me to come again. I asked him if he wanted me
to come and see him again, and to that I think he answered Yea. I asked
if he could read. He said Yes. He took the book, put his finger on the
line, and said, '* Holy — happy — Jesus Christr-c<une down," and sinular woids
that were not on the page. He knew the letters of the alphabet, and once
in my presence he counted up to twen^Hieven or eight I was satisfied he
could not read, but that he thought he could. I asked him if he would do
better if he were let out, and he gave something like an aflirmative answer.
I think there was no dissembling— ihere could be none. I look upm him
268 ^ fnxBiALof
now and as he was when he lived with me, and he appears different I
could not get any thing from him that showed sorrow (or what he had done,
or feeling for the crime. I don't think him much above a brute in regard
to his knowledge of right and wrong. I don't think he is of sound mind.
I am of opinion that he is deranged.
Cbo88 Examination^ — Q. You have taken a pretty active part, have
yon not, in relation to this defence ?
A. I have felt some interest in it
Q. It has been a very active interest, has it not ?
A. It has not been more active than that of gettii^ him into the jaiL
Q. Have you not manifested considerable feeling in relation to the de-
fence?
A. . I have felt a considerable degree of interest in this case, and should
like to give my reasons why. I saw the condition of the prisoner, and was
aware of the excitement in commumty, and the deep prejudice against
him. If to have felt an interest was to be active, then I was active. I
epEpreased my opinion of the prisoner and of the course that was pursued
toward those who differed with some others in opinion, to the district attor*
ney, who said, himself, that there was more reason for thia defence than in
the Wyatt trial. I talked with the district attorney freely then, and he
knew what my opportunities for judging were, and what my opinion of the
prisoner was.
Q- Bid you express to the district attorney the same opinion which yoo
hftve sworn to ?
A. I did.
Q. Have you served subpanas upon witnesses to attend this trial in be-
half of the prisoner ?
A. I have not I once took one from the prisoner's counsel, and at re-
qofist handed it to a eonstable.
Q. Have you not requested persons to come here as witnesses ?
A. I may have told men to come here, — that they would be wanted ; but
I don't recollect as I have.
Q. Have yon not advised with the oonnael for the prisoner in relation to
the fiusts to be proved on his defence ?
A. I have conversed with them several times about the case.
Q. Did you not tell the dbtrict attorney, in your conversation with hun,
that you knew little or nothing of the prisoner, from the time of his living
with you?
A. I don't recollect telling him sa
Q. Did he not say after thafit, ** then I won't subpcena you."
A. He did say so to me after I told him what I knew about the prisoner.
Q. Did you not say you knew little or nothing of Bill?
A. I may have said I knew little or nothing of him since he left me, bnt
I do not recollect it if I did.
WILIIAM vbbucan.
Q. Tou hare a memoranda that you swear by, have yon not ?
A. I have one before me.
Q. When was it made, and by whom ?
A. By myself.
Q. From what did you make it ?
A. Partly from memoxy and partly from my former testimony.
Q. Is your memory better by taking a memoranda from your former
testimony?
A. I thought I should remember better with a memoranda than without
it
Q, Which remark of the prisoner indicated insanity ?
A. I cannot name any one in particular ; when he made the remark about
the liver I was disposed to think he was deranged.
Q. Any thing else ?
A. Nothing in particular. His manner and every thing taken together,
led me to think sa
Q. Did you not see something from which a jury could infer that he was
in his right mind ; for instance, the concealing of tiie knives ?
A. I thought nothing of that To me, one circumstance would not make
much difference.
Q. Do you think the circumstance of hb concealing his knives indicated
insanity ?
A. It might indicate sanity, and it might indicate insanity, in this case.
The reason is —
Attorney General : — ^I donH want to know the reason.
Witness : — I want to tell the reason.
The Court : — The witness has no right to give the reason.
Mr. Seward: — The witness is asked whether a certain fact indicates
sanity. The witness says it might not in this case, and wishes to say why.
I insist, as well on behalf of the witness, as the prisoner, that he be permit-
ted to give the reason for his answer.
Bequest denied, and decision excepted ta
Q. When did you discover the change yon speak of?
A. I noticed it first when he was in the State Prison, but I noticed it
more particularly when he was in jaiL
Q. What b the difference that you noticed ?
A. I noticed that he was not as bright and lively as he formerly was.
Q. Did it not occur to you that his chains might make some difference ?
A. I don't think they made any difference with him.
Q. Would not the chaining of a man twenty-one years of age, who had
murdered four people, produce some effect upon his cheerfulness ?
A. He would not appear cheerful, yet he would not lose the marks of in-
telligence, if he were in his right mind.
Q. Would you expect he would be as talkative ?
270 SB f BUI. or
A. I woald not
Q> Would 70U expect a criminal who was planning crimes, to be as free
of speech as a boy whose mind was not thus oocnpied ?
A. No ; but if I asked him questions I wonld expect to see him answer
intelligently.
Q. If he were confined in prison, and living on bread and wirter, do yon
think he would be a| cheerful as he was when a bojr at liberty'?
A. I don't think he wonld be as lirely.
Q. If he were deaf wonld it not make some diflf^nce widi him?
A. I think it would, and I think it has with the prisoner.
Q. He was not deaf when he lired with yon ?
A. If he were it was not perceiyed.
Q.^ Can yon tell how well he hears now ?
A. I cannot, only as I see it indicated by his actions and his answers.
Q> How many times did you see him whilst he was in the State Prison?
A. Three or four times.
Q* What are your views in respiect to capital pnnishment ? "^
A. That the law should be changed.
Q. Then you are opposed to capital punishment?
A. I am. I don't think it right for one man to take the life of another.
Q. Do yon think the law ought to be defeated ?
A. I cannot say that I think it ought to be defeated; our laws in generil
ought to be executed, yet I think the law in re^et to taking life is wrong.
Q. How long have you been of that opinion ?
A. I never thought it was ri|;ht to hang men.
Q. Do you believe what the prisoner says to you ?
A. I suppose he thought he spoke th^ truth.
Q^ Then yon think he was sincere in all he told yon ?
A. I thought at the time he was telling me as it was.
Q. Did you believe him when he said he was sent to the State Prison
wrongfuHy ?
A. I think that he thought he was sent there wrongfully ; and I have
thought so, and that u my opinion atilL
Q. Did yon not hear the constable relate, on the former trial, the circnm-
itances of his arrest for stealing the horse ?
A. I did ; and that had the effect to make me believe be waa sent thera
wrongfully.
Q. When did yon think to yonrself that a change had come over hhn ?
A. When I saw him in the State Prison.
Q. When did that change take place ?
A. I think it very likely that it took phice in the State Prison, or that it
oommenced there.
Q. Did you ask him, whilst he was in the State Prison, why he was there ?
A. I did not
WIUXAll fUDKAH. 271
Q. Why did 3r<m sot ask liim that?
A. The rules of the prison did not pennit any conversation with con^icto
except on business.
Q. Do 70a recollect that he could read and write when he lived with
J0Q?
A. I do not
Q. Do you recollect what his views were of God and heaven then ?
Am I never talked with him on these subjects.
Q> Did you not converse with him about obedience ?
A. I used to talk with him about his behavior^ and urge and advise him
to be a good boy.
Q. Yon say that when you passed him in the street where he was sawing
wood, you did not notice him very particulaily ?
A. I saw him, spoke to him, but he made no reply. Further Uian that I
4id not notice him p^oularly.
Q. Can you tell why it is that you take so much more interest in the pri-
■oner since he committed those hig^ and heinous crimes, than you did be-
fore?
A. One reason, perhaps, is, that when he was arrested and brought past
my house, into and through the village, to the house of Van Nest, the com-
mimity were so indignant that many apprehended that he would not get
back alive4 I took my hone and rode up there. It was then said that he
would be huDg without a trial ; that he ought not to be tried, and that he
never would have a trial. I thought that, however guilty he might be, he
should have a fair trial, and I aided the officers in preventing any violenoe
to him before he was lodged in the jaiL I heard remarks at that dme from
one of the members of this court, that I did not think becoming in a judge,
and, altogether, there was occasion for some interest on the part of any who
wishes to uphold the law, and preserve order in community.
Q. Did you think it better for the prisoner to have a trial ?
A. Yes ; and better for the conmiunity ; I thought he ought to have a fiur
trial, not for the purpose of screening faim, but as a matter of prindple.
Q. Did you believe that the populace intended to Lynch him ?
A. I do not know ; I wish to avmd all that part of the matter, as it can
do no good, and can reflect no credit upon any body who had any thing to
do with any such attempt
Q. What was it that excited Uie people to such a degree— the enormity
of the crime ?
A. There were folks who seemed to carry the idea that this had some-
thing to do with the trial of Henry Wyatt
Q. Were you not satisfied then that the prisoner killed that family ?
A. I did not doubt it
Q. Did you not suppose, after he was lodged in jaU, that he would have
aftirtrial?
272 SSSTBULOf
A. At first I heard it sud that there would be only the form ; that conn,
•el would be asagned him, but that he would not hare a trial to any pur-
pose.
Q. Is it not a little singular that he should have a trial when he knows
and every body seems to be satisfied that he killed those persons. Is it not
a little singular that he did not plead guilty ?
A. I think not.
Q. Are you surprised that he ahonld hare a fair trial ?
A. I don*t know that I am.
Q. Did you think he would hare a ftir trial when this oourt began ?
A. I knew nothing in particular to the contrary, yet there were reasoDS
why it might not be sa
Q» What was your expectation ?
A. I expected he would have a fair trial, or ought to have.
Q. If you expected that he would have a ^r trial, why have you felt so
much solicitude about it since the term began ?
. A. Well, the boy had onoe lived with me, as I have stated. Some lime
had elapsed since I had known much of him, until we got him into the jaiL
The dieriff asked me to come and try to ferret out the matter, and find, if
possible, whether he had accomplices. I found him in the condition I have
described, a pn^r object of sympathy and attention. Feriiaps the interest
I felt was enhanced by the effort of some to convict him at all haiards, if he
had atrial
Q* Do you not knowthat your opposition to ca{dtal punishment is the
cause of the interest you feel in relation to the fate of this prisoner ?
A. I do not know any such thing, for no such fact exists.
• Q. Did you not visit the prison with Bev. J. M. Austin ?
A. I think I did once or twice.
Q. Did you see him try to read in the testament ?
A. I did.
Q. How did he articulate ?
A. He sometimes spoke very indistinctly, but by repeating we cddd
sometimes get a plainer answer.
Q. In what connection did he say he had his work to do ?
A. It was said in answer to the question what he did it for, or how he
came to kill the people.
Q* What was that renark ?
A. Ai near as I can recollect it was, " I must begin my work,** or ** be-
gin my work," but I may not have in my mind the precise order in which
the answers were g^ven.
Q. Did you examine him in Theology, there in the jail ?
A. I once asked him some questions on religious subjects.
Q. What did you ask him ?
A. I aaked him if he ever prayed.
wiLUAM vbuhar. 278
Q. What did he say in reply?
A. He said, " not much" — "used to."
Q. What further did you say?
A. I recollect of telling him that he ought to pray.
Q. Did he say any thing to you about their not giving him work ; that
they wouldn't give him work ?
A. He frequently alluded to work ; once he sidd he went in to warm.
Q. Do you recollect of the prisoner's saying, at your first interview with
him, ^* they swore me into prison" ?
A. I don't recollect of his making any such answer to me.
Q. Did he not make that statement to you in the presence of Sheriff Fet-
tibone ?
A. I have understood that the sheriff has so stated. I do not want to con-
tradict him, nor be contradicted by him. I asked the prisoner if they had
any thing to do with swearing him into the prison, and he may have said,
" didn't they ?" but I am certain he never said, << they swore me into pri-
son."
Q. You say you inquired into the cause of his deafness ?
A. I did ; and he said he'd got a stone in his ear — got it out
Q. Did you ever ask him why he ran away ?
A. I did not
(^ Did you ever a^ him why he took Bnrrington's horse to flee with ?
A. I did not
Q. Did you ever ask him why he called the horse his ?
A. I did not
Q. Did you ever ask him which way he went to reach Schroeppel ?
* A. I believe I did ; and also asked him where he left the knife.
Q. Why did you ask that?
A. My object was to see if he knew, and whether he had accomplices.
Q. Have you not examined more with reference to this trial, than for
any other reason ?
A. I have not; I had the state of his mind more especially in view than
any thing else, yet I asked questions for other objects.
Q. Was the prisoner an ugly boy when he lived with you ?
A. Ho was not ; yet he was wild, and would play truant some.
Q. Did you not discharge him because he was ugly — so ugly you could
not keep him?
A. I did not I discharged him because his fondness for play was so great
that he ran away from the house too often.
Q- Did you not consider him an ugly boy ?
A. We considered him a good boy, except in respect to his running away.
We thought a good deal of him. He was a pleasant boy.
Q. Was he not slow to do your bidding?
A. He was not slow in going upon errands. He generally did what I
18
274 xBiTmuLOY
told liim to do, cheerfall^. He was kind, clieerfhl, pleasant and attentzve,
generally, bat he would run away.
Re-Examikation. — Q. You were asked in relation to interviews wiUi
the counsel for the prisoner : were they casual meetings ?
A. They were,
Q. When did you make the memoranda to which you have referred ?
A. Since the last trial, along as things have occurred to me.
Q. Wliat did you understand the prisoner to mean when he said he must
begin his work, or must do his work ?
Objected to. Objection sustained, and decision excepted to.
Q. Did the change that you observed in the prisoner arise, in your 0[nn-
ion, from his being in prison, charged with crime, or from a change in his
mind?
A. He might have been changed by being in prison charged with crime,
but tihere was a change in his countenance that made him Tery different
from what he was when a boy, and his manner indicated a want of intelli-
gence.
Dr. Levi Hermaxce, called and sworn, says : I have practiced med*
icinc, yet my occupation at present is that of assistant keeper of the State
Prison at Auburn. I saw the prisoner about the first of last December, and
had a conversation with him at my house in relation to his having been in
the State Prison. He was sawing wood for me. He told me that he had
been in prison for five years, and that he wasn't guilty, and that they
wouldn't pay him. I discovered that he was very deaf, and inquired the
cause of his deafness. He stated that his ears dropped. What he said of
his being in prison, I don't recollect particularly. I thought his manners
very singular and strange, and what he said about pay, very singular and
strange. He spoke in a gloomy, despondent state of mind. There appeared
to be a sincerity in his manner. The tone of his voice was a dull and mo-
notonous tone. I saw him again on the side walk and he spoke to me again
on the same subject I saw him in jail and talked with him there. There
were a good many questions put to him in relation to the murder, and he
related the whole ; not as a narrative, but in answer to questions. He was
asked how he happened to go up. He said, " It rained and I thought 'twould
be a good time." I asked why he did not go up to some other family. He
made no answer. Doctor Pitney asked why he did not kill him. He didn't
seem to answer, but smiled. I then asked whether, if he had found some
other person, he would hare killed him. He said Yes. I asked whether
he killed them for that horse. His answer was short I asked what he
meant by killing that horse. He said, " They'd sent me to prison, and they
won't pay mc." He was asked whether Van Nest had any thing to do with
sending him to prison. I couldn't get his answer, but my impression is that
he didn't charge Van Nest with it We inquired whether he went to get
money. He said No. Doctor Pitney asked if he didn't think he ought to
WILLIAM fKSSlflK. 275
be hung for killing that family. He said at first " don't know,** and to the
question repeated, " Sent me to prison for nothing ; ought I to be hung ?" Dr.
Bigelow was present at one time, and kept telling him to go on. He was
asked if he could read. He said Yes, and tried to read. He tried, but
failed. He was given money and was requested to count it He called a
ten cent piece corf-ectly ; but a Mexican quarter he called twenty-two shil-
lings, or three or four times its value. He called two pieces right, the rest
wrong. He counted to twenty-six or eight correctly. Doctor Pitney asked
if it would be wrong for me to kill him, (Dr. P.) The prisoner said, " Why
because he is the smartest man ?" " No," said Doctor Pitney, " we are both
alike.** Dr. Pitney then said to him, " Would it be right for Doctor Her-
mance to kill me T' The prisoner said, " That would be bad." When at my
house he said *^ the hearing of his ears fell down." My opinion of him last
December was that he was a deranged man. Since then I have had po
cause to change it — it is my opinion now.
Cross Examination.— I was bom in the county of Rensselaer ; have
practiced medicine twelve years ; am thirty eight years of age ; have always
used some of the medicines that Alopathists and Homceopathists use ; yet I
have been esteemed a Thompsonian practitioner. I was never a regular
practitioner in the old line. I worked on a farm until I was seventeen ; be-
came an agent in a woolen factory ; taught school winters ; then practiced
medicine some ; have sold goods at auction ; have been admitted as attor-
ney in the court of conmion pleas ; and am now a turnkey in the prison.
I was never appointed auctioneer, but sold goods under a license of a gen-
tleman in Flekning. At my interviews with the prisoner in my yard, I
didn't talk over five minutes. There was more said than I have stated, bul«
I gave what I recollected. The wood Vas sawed and piled well. I didn't
make up my mind that he was crazy at the first interview. The next inter-
view was about five minutes, longer or shorter. I then made up my mind
that he was deranged ; taking his manner, conduct and general appearance
and conversation together. The tone of his voice was peculiar ; structure
of sentences singular ; his articulation low and coarse ; not distinct, yet I
heard it. My own hearing is perfectly good. I judged he was deranged
because he thought he had a right to pay, and he spoke with so much
sincerity. There are many things pertaining to insane men which are in-
describable.
Q. Were you with Doctor Bigelow when he visited the prisoner?
A. Not all the while ; was with him a part of the time.
Q. Were you with Doctbr Pitney ?
A. Some of the time.
Q. Comparing yourself with Doctor Pitney, which h the most profound ?
A. I think in Surgery and Medicine, he is a far greater man.
Q. Did not Doctor Pitney say you were both alike ?
A. He said so to Freeman.
276 THl TRIAL Of
Q* Bo you think the doctor will tell a falsehood ?
A. Well, no, I don't know as he wilL
Q. Then don't you belieye he speaks the troth ?
A. I suppose he does.
Q. Then didn't you believe him when he said you were both alike ?
A. I supposed he meant we were both doctors.
Q. Do you think the prisoner spoke the truth?
A. I thought he was sincere.
Q. When he said '< because he was the smartest man," did he refer to
you?
A. Well, I suppose he did.
Q. Do you infer from that that he thought you the smartest man ?
A. I don't, only from what he said.
Q. Then you differ with the prisoner on that subject, do you ?
A. Well, I must say perhaps I do.
Q. And yet you think he was sincere ?
A. I cannot answer that question further than I have.
Q. Do you believe yourself to be sincere ?
A. Ida
Q. Do you believe that the hearing of his ears fell down ?
A. I believe something happened to them, and that he said as I testified
he did.
Q. Can you describe a disease, doctor ?
A. I profess to be able to.
Q. Is insanity a disease ?
, A. It is caHed so.
Q. Will you be kind enough to describe it?
A. I said that some things about Freeman's insanity could be described,
but some things in this case could not be ; that they were even indescribable.
Q. Well describe what is describable ?
A. I can name his looks, his appearance, his voice, his wanting pay and
many other things.
Q. Do not sane men look, appear, speak and want pay ?
A. They do.
Q. Then do not they indicate sanity as much as they do insanity ?
A. In some men they might — ^here I don't think they do.
Q. Do you think the prisoner's remark about your being the smartest
man, indicated insanity ?
A. I thought it did, because he seemed to have reason for killing that
would jusdfy, but he had no reason for killing Doctor Pitney, and to my
mind the remark indicated insanity.
Q. The reason for killing the family then did not indicate bsanity ?
A. Why, that indicated a right to kill because he had a reason-— thaff
all ; but if I killed Doctor Pitney without a reason it would be bad.
WIIUAM VBUMIH. 277
Q. WcU, don't yoQ think it wottld be bad?
A. I do, and that 'would be the public judgment
Q. Then that indicated sanity, did it not?
A. Well, perhaps that did.
Q. How many times haye you heard him read ?
A. Once or twice.
Q. How many times have you heard him count ?
A. Twice.
Q. Did he seem to try ?
A. I thought he did his best.
Q. Could a sane ignorant man do more ?
A. I suppose not; but the aj^earance indicated insanity in this case. '
Q. What i^pearance ?
A. His rolling eye, for one thing.
Q. But does not your eye roll ?
A. Yes ; but there was something peculiar about it in the prisoner.
Q. What was that peculiarity ?
A. Well, I cannot describe it, but it was peculiar.
Q. It was sharp, was it not ?
A. Perhi^ I should say it was sharp.
Dr. Lansikoh Bbioos was next called, and being sworn, testified : I am
a physician and surgeon, and have been physician and suigeon to the State
Prison at Auburn. I have resided in Auburn twelve years, and have known
the prisoner eight or ten years. I knew him before he went to the State
Prison. Considered him a lad of ordinary intelligence, for boys of his con-
dition. John DePuy married his sister ; after which, I believe, the prisoner
lived with him. I have seen him at my office. Have seen him, at times,
since he has been in the jail. The first time, I went on Dr. Fosgate's invi-
tation to see him. I attempted to speak to him, but he seemed not to hear,
and I abandoned the efibrt The next time, I went with Dr. Fosgate and
Warren T. Worden, Esq. Dr. Fosgate, at this time, dressed his wounded
wrist I looked at the wound, myself, and asked him many questions' about
that and other matters relating to himself, and remained there with him about
an hour. Whilst his hand was being dressed, I noticed his appearance
closely, and discovered that he manifested but very little sensibility as to
pain. Something occurred then that induced us to smile, and I noticed that
he smiled when we smiled. At first I thought he understood what was going
on, but after Dr. Fosgate left, Mr. Worden interrogated him about the crime,
when I again observed the same smile and demeanor which I had observed
before ; but it seemed very difficult for him to tell his stoiy without being
questioned. He was asked why he murdered the family, and how. He
generally answered pertinently, but briefly, in monosyllables, except when
the question did not admit of such answers.
As to the commission of murder, he answered, after the question had been
278 THB TRUL.Or
repeated, " Why was I put in pnson five years." His tone was low, subdued
and imperfect He was asked what door he went in at He sud, " Front
door." He was asked where Va£ Nest then was. He said, " By the stove."
He was asked what conversation passed. He said, " Nothing." The ques-
tion was repeated, when he said, " If you eat my liver, I'll eat yours." The
wound on his wrist was across it, and was healing. It was at the termination
of the bone of the arm, and was a severe wound. We found him heavily
chained to the floor, and manacled — the manacles were suspended so as to
prevent their resting on hb ankle. He manifested little or no sensibility to
pain. I observed that he, apparently, could not narrate without our ques-
tioning hiuL His pulse I did not then examine, but did afterwards, and
found that it varied from ninety-four to one hundred and fourteen or fifleen ;
varying according to his posture — standing or sitting. My opinion is, and
was, that he had less mind than when I knew him before \ that his mind had
become impaired — >that he had less vigor or strength of mind— was leas ca-
pable of reasoning, comparing, retaining, and associating ideas. In my
opinion, his mind is diseased — some portions of it more than others ; and
although he is perfectly conscious of what he has done and was doing, that
he thinks and believes he has committed no crime. He justifies himself
under the delusion that he had been wronged, and that society owed him
reparation — that it was rightfully his, and was due to him as an equiva-
lent and satisfaction. This delusion, in my judgment, is an insane delusion—
the delusion of an insane mind.
Cboss Examination. — ^I knew the prisoner ten years ago, and bad con-
versation with him when he came of errands to my office. I do not remem-
ber any of that conversation particularly now, but it related to the errands
upon which he had been sent to me. I gave him directions for the taking
of medicine, and presume for De' Puy's family. My knowledge and opinion
of him at that time, arose from his doing errands correctly. I never knew
of any mistake being made. The occurrence in the jail which induced the
smile mentioned in my direct examination, wfus the remarks made by a
phrenologist upon Mr. Worden's head. It caused Worden and myself to
laugh, as did others who were present. The phrenologist himself was c(m-
fined in the jaiL I am unable to say whether the prisoner heard those
renuirks or not ; they were made in a cell near him, and some of them were
quite amusing. When we laughed, I noticed that the prisoner smiled also.
I am unable to say what the piisoner could do ten years ago that he
cannot do now. He held up his head then, and can now, but he does not
carry his head now as he did then. He was a straight lad, but is not straight
now. His eye is a pretty good one. A wound like that which he had re-
ceived would occasion pain and be sore. I don't know that he felt no pun,
but he seemed to manifest little or no feeling. I did not regard that as the
evidence, but only as one circumstance going to show insanity. I had some
reason to think he felt some pain, but he manifested it but slightly, if at all.
wiuiAM mnfAN. 279
His not complaining may or may not be evidence of insanity. By his nund
being impaired, I meant that he was suffering dementia, and delusion. I can-
not tell how long he has suffered from dementia. I think that when he killed
those people he was as now, deluded. The symptoms of dementia are, loss of
power of associating ideas — ^ioss of memory — ^impairment of moral and intel-
lectual powers — a weakening of perception and comparison — ^and a general
loss of the powers of the mind. The physical symptoms which indicate such
a state of mind, are a downcast look — ^aversion to exertion — ^indolence— loss
of intelligence in the expression of the eye — and, in the extreme stages of it,
drooling at the mouth. At the time of the murder the prisoner had the same
fffmptoms as now.
As I have heard the manner of the killing of that family, I can say that
there was a good adaptation of means to the ends. His plan was well laid
out and well executed. In laying and executing it, I should think there
was a good adaptation of the means to the end designed.
Q. Does not that fact indicate an improvement of his faculty of com-
parison?
A. I do not know that it does.
Q. How did you find his faculty of attention ?
A. He was attentive when questioned.
Q. Did he apprehend your questions ?
A. He appeared to.
Q.- Can you say that you ever knew his faculty of attention to be better
than it was when you interrogated him in the jail ?
I cannot say that I have.
Q. You say he apprehended the subject that you conversed about—did
he not apprehend the facts which he related.
A. The first time he undertook to tell the story he was confused. At
subsequent times he was tolerably accurate.
Q. His accuracy indicated accuracy of memory did it not?
A. In some respects it might so indicate, yet that alone would not show
his memory to be good, generally.
Q. Doctor, suppose him to have been perfectiy sane, might he not have
l^ven a false account of the murder ?
A. He might
Q* And he might not, I suppose ?
A. Of course.
Q. Do criminals generally, whose crimes are detected and well known,
give a true or a false account of them ?
A. I am unable to say whether a majority of criminals do, or do not give
a false account ; but I have no doubt that some criminals frequentiy give a
false account.
Q. Are you aware that criminals generally refuse to make any confession
until proof is found ?
280 XHBnZALOf
A. I am not ; yet it would be perfectly natural that it should be so.
Q. What inference do you draw from the fact of his taking the horse ?
A. I think that perhaps the taking of the horse was to repay himself 'for
the debt due him.
Q. What debt?
A. For his imprisonment I do not doubt that he honestly thought there
was a debt due him, and that he was entitled to his pay.
Q. But how can you infer that he honestly thought that he was entitled
toihathorse?
A. From his conduct and assertions I think he thought that he had been
imprisoned wrongfully, and that he had a right to recompense. This was
his delusion.
Q. Did he say any thing more than you bare named, upon which yon
base your opinion that he thought he was entitled to pay ?
A. Idonotrecollectofany other remark.
Q. Do you think the stesAing the horse to go away with, is itself any
evidence of insanity ?
A. I do not I suppose he knew what the penalty was, and intended to
escape ; but I think, nevertheless, that he was acting under a delusion.
Q. What particular delusion in this instance ?
A. Hie delusion that he must and ought to have his pay.
Q. Do you think he calculated to take the horse ?
A. I presume there was no forethought about his taking the horse — that
he thought of it after the murders.
Q. Do you regard his ability to endure pain as a symptom of insanity ?
A. Great insensibility may be, and I think is.
Q* Which kind of insanity does it indicate ?
A. It is not safe to say that one particular symptom defines either of tbe
divisions or varieties of insanity. All taken together, in this case, indicate
dementia and delusion ; it may not be easy to tell which of tbe several divis-
ions one particular may indicate. All taken together, in this case, indicate
dementia and delusion.
Q. How do you define dementia ?
A. Dementia is a diminution, an impairment or decaying of the powers
of the mind.
Q. How do you define idiocy ?
A. Idiocy comes from idiotia ; and indicates a want of mind from birth.
Q. What is mania?
A. Mania exists where the mental powers, or a portion of them, are ex-
cited into unnatural activity. It manifests itself by raving; but idiocy and
dementia do not
Q. Is dementia a gradual or sudden disease ?
A. It is gradual— « gradual impairment of faculties.
Q. How much are the faculties of Freeman impaired ?
WIUiXAM HKKUfAN. 281
A. His faculties are not entirely gone, but are worse than they once were.
Q. Is dementia perceptible, when it commences ?
A* It may begin imperceptibly, and increase to imbecility.
Q. What class do these delusions belong to ?
A. Delusions such as his, more properly belong to mania ; and I think
that Tiewing the delusion and the partial dementia, he labors under a com-
plication of mental diseases.
Q. But does not the fact that he has such powers of memory, conflict
with the idea of dementia ?
A. In such powers as h^has, I can see nothing in conflict with that idea.
Q. You think, do you not, that he thought, when he had slain that family,
he would be hung, unless he fled ?
A. I have no doubt he knows that the penalty of murder is han^ng ; but
he thinks it should not be en£)rced in this case, because he has done nothing
but what is right He is under that delusion.
Q. Are you entirely confident that the smile you speak of, which you
saw in his cell, was not induced by the amusing remarks of that phrenologist ?
A. At first I thought it was on account of that ; but afterwards, and while
he was narrating the particulars of the murder, in the most shocking part of
his story, he would laugh.
Q. Do you infer that he thought he would not be hung for his crime ?
A. I have no doubt that he knew the penalty, but thought it should not
be enforced. I am of opinion that he thought they would hang him, but
didn't think it right to do so.
Mart Ann Newark being called and sworn, testified : I have lived in
Auburn twenty-six years. Have known the prisoner from a child up. He
was a smart boy, what litUe I saw of Imn. After he came out of prison last
fall, I saw him on the side walk. I nodded my head to him, but he didn't
say any thing. He lived at my house a little over a week last spring. He
was living there, sawing wood and doing chores, at the time of the murders.
I washed for the students of the Theological Seminary, and he carried clothes
for washing and which had been washed, to and from the Seminary. He
did chores for his board. I lived a little south of Auburn, at a colored set-
tlement called New Guinea. He never said much — never asked me a single
question ; only talked when I asked him. When I asked him any questions,
he answered quick and short-Uke. His manner of acting was queer-like.
He was very stiD. He wasn't in enough for me to tell how he did act all the
time. I never heard him talk about any person at all, nor mention any
body's name. During the day of the murder he put snow in the tub, when
I asked. When the bells were rung for meeting, which was about six o'clock
on the evening of the murders, he was at my house. I didn'ft see him have
any knives. He soon after that went away. He went awaf in a hurry-like
—quick. He was sober that evening. He didn't say where he was going,
and I didn't see which way he went. I have seen him since only when he
282 IBM TSUL OT
passed my house in the wagon after he was arrested. He slept in my house
up chamber. I don't know of his being up at night while at my house.
Cross Examination. — ^I mean by his never haying any conversation and
not asking questions, that he never provoked talk. He did chores. He got
his own victuals and cooked it himself. His victuals appeared to be cold
victuals. I lent him the cooking utensils. He slept up chamber. His bed-
room was east — ^mine was west He couldn't make much nobe and I not
hear him, if I was awoke. He slept at home every night he stayed with me.
Before he went out on the evening of the murders, he asked me if I had any
chores to do. I told him to put some snow in* the tub, and he did so. I
don't recollect as he said he was a going out When he went out I was at
my work, with my back towards the door. I never saw him have a knife
or stick. I was not often in his room. He made his own bed, if it was made.
I never saw any knives in his room. Didn't know as he had any about
there. Didn't know which way he went when he went away. Peter Wil-
liams had been there that day to see him.
Robert Freeman, called and sworn, testified : I have known tiie pri-
soner eight years. When Joshua L. Jones kept tiie American Hotel in
Auburn, the prisoner lived there and cleaned the knives for the dining room
table. At that time William was such a boy as others ; perhaps not as lively
as I have seen, but playful betimes. There was nothing deficient about him
that I noticed. Whenever we ordered him to do any thing, he seemed to
understand it and do it I have had play speUs with him. He appeared to
be pretty active in piny. Since he came out of prison the first I discovered
about him was, he appeared to be downcast I spoke to him, but he took
no notice. I then took hold of his hand and spoke louder, and he said, '* how
d'ye do ?" I discovered he appeared more dull and downcast than he used
to. I was here in the court house a good deal during the Wyatt trial, bat
did not see him here.
Cross Examination.^-I don't mean to say he was not here during the
Wyatt trial, fi^r I can't tell. I didn't see him here. When he came out of
prison I saw him at work, sawing wood — a long job of eight or ten days. I
passed him almost every day. All the difference I discovered was his down-
cast and dull look.
William P. Smith, called and sworn, testified: In the fall of 1843 I
was engaged in the State Prison as foreman in the dye house. Had charge
of this prisoner there. He seemed to do what he had to do very well, and
was willing to do as far as I could see. He behaved well whilst I was there,
with two exceptions. Once he had been greasing a pair of shoes, and had
placed them on a pile of wood, near to a stove. One of the other hands, in
moving the wood, upset the shoes, and they fell. He took a stick iind struck
the man on the head, who was lame for a week. The other matter was a
dispute about some yarn, when he and another convict got to fighting. The
keeper flpgged him, and he came to me crying, saying to me that he had
wnxiAM ninBiAN. 288
been flogged. He said they had been flogging him, and he wanted me to
see Israel G. Wood and have him got out, for they were killing him by
inches. He wished me to tell Wood how he was abused. I promised that I
would tell hun.
At that time I considered his intellect yery low indeed. He knew very
little, not much more than a brute or beast When I sent him to the Brus-
sels shop, by telling him two or three times where to go and what to ask for,
he would go and get it very correctly. Robert Cook, the keeper, called him
insane. [The last sentence was objected to and ruled out] The first time
I saw him after he came out of the prison, I asked him how he did, but he
made no answer. I was then told that he was deaf. I tried to get into con«
versation with him, but couldn't make him understand. He appeared difi*ep-
ent ; did not say much ; appeared dumpish. He seemed to stand around.
I saw him in jail the first week in June. He rose up, and then sat down.
I asked about his health. He said it was good. I asked why he killed those
people. He replied, "Fve been to prison wrongfully five years. They
won't pay me." I asked who. He said, " The people — so I thought Td kill
somebody." I asked if he meant to kill one more than another. He said
No. I asked why he went so far out of town. He said, ^* Better chance to
fight up there." In reply to questions, he said he went to the door — " ^vouldn't
go in— <;ouldn't see to fight — ^'twas dark ;" that he looked up street — saw a
light in the next house, and thought he'd go there, for he could see to fight
I asked how many be killed. He said five. I asked as to the order in
which he did it, and got from him that he killed Van Nest first, and the
woman nejit, at the comer of the house. I asked of him if he knew he had
done wrong. He replied No. I asked him if he didn't think it wrong to
kill the child. He hesitated, and finally said, " Well, that looks kind o' hard."
I think I named them all to him, and asked why he thought it was right
He said, '* I've been in prison five years wrongfully — five years for stealing
a horse, and I didn't do it, and the people won't pay me." I got from him
that he had made up his mind that he ought to kill somebody. I asked if he
was sorry. He said No. In all my questions about whether he was doing
right or wrong, his replies were such as to signify that he was doing right,
and had been in prison wrongfully. I asked if he knew there was any such
place as hell, where they punished those who steal horses and kill. After I
pressed him some time, he said he didn't think there was. I asked if then
was any such place as heaven, where people went who do well. He said he
didn't know as there was. I asked if he was in jail or in the State Prison^
He hesitated some time and finally thought he was in jail, but wasn't sure.
I asked if he knew what he was confined there for. He sud No. I asked
how many he intended to kiU. He said, << All I could." He said he meant
to fight and kill till some one killed him. I asked hun if he expected any
one would kill him. He said, " Thought likely there might" I asked if he
went to the widow Godfrey's bouse. He said Yes. I asked what he went
284 THB TRUIi Of
for. He said, " Meant to kill somebody/' He said when he got to the booae
" 'twas dark — didn't like to go in." I asked if he had been to Tyler's house.
He said Yes. I asked if he found Tyler. He said ** No ; couldn't find him."
I asked if he would have killed Tyler if he had found him. He said Yes.
I asked if he could read. He said Yes. I gare him a book, and he run
oyer a kind of jai^n which I couldn't understand. I asked him to count
He counted tolerably free up to twelve, and then slower up to twenty-eight,
and then went off to seventy or eighty. ^
There was a change — a sensible change in the man. He did'nt appear to
know so much ; to have as many ideas about him ; as many looks of intelli-
gence. I don't know as I could describe it very welL There was a slow-
ness—dullness— ^he was slow and short to answer. I thought what little in-
tellect he had seemed to sink lower down fn»n some cause or other. Hii
physical strength and vigor were good in the State Prison. He appeared
active, stout, strong and energetic. Now his manners appear more dull, stu-
pid and inattentive.
Cross Examination.— In prison I didn't see any thing to lead me to be-
lieve he was crazy. I didn't think he was crazy then. Have seen crszj
men ; had one in the shop. Had no trouble in seeing that he was crazj.
The prisoner had a downcast look in the prison. He was rather bad tem-
pered, I should think. I considered his quarreling about the shoes and
yam, evidence both of bad temper, and of a weak intellect I went to see
Freeman in jail, expecting to testify as to his mind ; not with the idea that
he was crazy, but merely to compare him with what I knew him formerly to
be. I have not fonned any opinion as to his insanity. There are some
things that go to show that he was insane, and some to balance them on the
other side. I said that I thought him a very little above a brute when he
was in the State Prison, and I think he has fallen off since. I don't know
as he knew any thing then that he don't know now. He knew me in the
jail, and he hadn't seen me since the winter previous. I think his being
chained would have an unfortunate tendency on his sprightliness. I did not
tell Wood of the prisoner's request, because I did not see him for a great while,
and then I forgot it The prisoner's business in the prison under me, was to
bring wood, make fires, to bring water, and sometimes I would set him at
turning the crank. I asked him how much pay he wanted. He said, '^ Don't
know — ^good deal." I asked him whether if I would count him out a hun-
dred dollars in silver, it would be enough. He said he thought it wouldn't
I aaked him how much would be right He said, '^ Don't know." He bright^
ened up, and finally said he thought about a thousand dollars would be about
right. There was something in this connection said about killing, and that
he was willing to "quit even," and he thought that one thousand dollais
would do. I did not see the same smUe on the prisoner, when he was in piir
son, that I see now.
Horace Hotghkibs, called and sworn, testified : I knew the prisoner ia
WILLIAM IBSSBfAN. 285
the prison Sabbadi school. He was not in any regular class. Bjb know-
ledge was very little. My impression is that he knew a few of his letters. I
endeavored to teach him to read — could see no progress. I think the rea-
son was a want of intelligence. I did not perceive any advance.
I saw him some six weeks ago in jail, and asked him if he knew me. He
said No. I asked if he was in the Sabbath school in prison. He said Yes.
I asked if he knew Mr, William F. Smith. He said No. I asked him who
had charge of the dye shop. He said Mr. Smith. In the course of the con-
versation I remarked to him that he was soon to be tried for his life, and I
asked him what would become of him if he was found guilty and executed.
He said, "I don't know." I asked if he knew there was such a place as
heaven. He said Yes. I asked what kind of a place it was. His answer
was indistinct and inaudible. But in an after conversation, when I asked
him, he said he'd go to heaven because he was good. I asked if he knew
who Jesus Christ was. His answer was indistinct I asked if he had seen
him. He said he thought he had seen him in Sunday schooL He was asked
about being in prison, and he said something about pay. I asked who owed
him. He said, " Every body."
Cross £x4MIKAtiox. — ^I went to see him in jail in company with John S.
Hc^kins. I don't know whether it was because he wouldn't or couldn't that
he didn't learn in prison. It appeared difficult. He always showed a wil«
lingness to learn.
Sally Frksv an, called and sworn, testified : I am the mother of the pri-
soner. My husband died seventeen years ago. I took care of my son till
he was nme yean of age, when he went to live with Captain Warden. Af-
ter living with the captain awhile, he liTed with Mr. Ethan A. Warden sev-
eral months. Afler that he lived with Mr. Cadwell two years. I put him
out to live at those places. About six years ago he went to the State Pri-
son. When he yrpa young, and before he went to prison, he was a very
smart child. He was always yeij playful and good natiired. Ab6ut undep-
standing things, he was the same as any other child. I never knew he was
foolish or dumpish before he went to prison. After he came out of prison
he didn't act like the same child. He was changed. He was deaf and didn't
appear to know any thing. As to being lively after he came out, I didn't
see any cheerfulness about him. When I asked him a question he would
answer, but that was all he would say. He appeared very dulL He never
asked me any questions, only if I was well, and that was when he first came
out of the prison. From that time to this he has never asked me any ques-
tions at all He has never offered to say any thing to me, except when I
asked if he could get work ; then he would'nt say much. Since he came out
I don't think he has been to see me more than six times, but I ha^e met
him in the street and spoke to him. When he came to see me perhaps he
would ask me how I did, and then sit down and laugh ; what he laughed at
was more than I could telL He laughed as he does now. There was no
286 TBM TRIAL Of
reason wby he should laugh. He was laughing to himself. He didn't speak
of any thing when he laughed. I didn't think he was hardly right, and he
Iras so deaf I didn't want to (weeps.)
I don't remember any thing else that he said or did. He was not deaf
before he went to prison. I asked him how he got deaf. He told me his
ear had fell down, or some such foolish answer he gave me. When he came
to see me he would stay an hour or so. He generally .sat still. He would
speak to others if they spoke to him. His answers were pretty short I did
liot see him for about two months preyious to die Van Nest murders. I
didn't know the Van Nest family. I never heard him speak of them. I
saw hun in jail the first of June. I went in to see him, and asked him how
he was. He laughed when I went in, and said he was well I asked him
if he knew what he'd been doing. He stood and laughed. I asked how he
came there. He didn't say much of any thing, but stood and laughed. I
stayed but a short time — a few minutes. When I asked questions, I got no
answer at aU. I felt so bad, he looked at me so, I didn't know what he did
say. I think he was altered a good deal from what he was before he went
to prison. When I went away he didn't bid me good bye, nor ask me to
come again. I am in my fiftieth year. He has an uncle that is, and an
annt that was crazy. William has a sister who isn't very smart I don't
think William is in his right mind, nor that he has been since he came oot
of prison.
Cboss Examination. — ^I saw him about six months before he went to
the State Prison, but I didn't see him in there at all. He took care of him-
self for the five years before. I used to see him almost every week when
I was here. The change I noticed was, he acts very foolish and don't seem
as though he had any senses. I've seen him take a book and try to read,
but he couldn't He never learned to read as far as I knew, more than his
arb-abs. Captain Warden sent him to school a little when he didn't run
away. I went to see him in jail on the first day of court, at the suggestion
of Mr. Morgan. When I went in he didn't say any thing, but stood and
laughed. AVhen I asked how he came to do it, he made no answer. I
aaked nothmg else. Nothing more was said or done that I can tell you. I
have three children— had five, but none of them are crazy but this one.
Before marriage, my name was Sally Peters, and I was bom in Berkshire, in
the State of Massachusetts ; some of my ancestors were red people, of die
Stockbridge tribe. William is part Indian, and part Negro.
Debobah De Put, called and sworn, says : I am twenty four yean
dd. I knew William before he went to prison. I knew him as well as
other colored boys. I associated with him. He was bright as any body else.
He was very chcerfuL I have been with him to balls and rides. He acted
very smart on such occasbns. I talked with him often. I never discovered
cny deafness or lack of intelligence. After he came out of prison there was
a change. If I talked to him very loud, he would talk ; say very little only
WILUAM nUOEXAN. 287
to answer me. He didn't act cheerful, but very stupid — ^never said any
thing until I talked to him. He never talked to me as he did before ha
went to prbon. He had a strange smile. He would laugh very hearty
without any thing to laugh at. He wouldn't know what he was laughing
at He knocked at the door ; Pd let him in and he would sit down and
laugh. I'd ask what he was laughing at. He said he didn't know. When
I asked him questions, he would either answer " Yes," or " No," or " I don't
know ;" only once I asked him how his hearing was hurt, and he said they
struck him on the head with a board, and it seemed as if the soukd
WENT DOWN HIS THROAT. I don't think he is in his right mind now, nor
that he has been since he came out of prison. The reason is that he never
used to act so silly and sit and laugh so, before he went to prison.
Cboss Examination. — ^I live below the Female Seminary in the west
end of the town, but I don't know the name of the street. My husband's
brother married the prisoner's sister. My memory is good. I remember
William well and when he went to the State Prison.
Q. What b that husband's name, that you speak of?
A. Well, his name is EQram De Puy.
Q. Does he live upon that street which you find it difficult to name ?
A. He lives where I do, of course.
Q. Then you live together.
A. I don't know as it is any body's business whether we do or not
Q. Perhaps not ; but I suppose you can have no objection to telling me
how that is^
A. But how do you know I haint ?
Q. Well, Deborah, I thought that perhaps you would oblige me so much
as to answer that
A. Yes, we do ; but I can't answer any more questions.
Q. Never mind, Deborah, we've got along with that, and will torn to a
mofte agreeable subject Do you recollect when you were married ?
A. Do you s'pose I'm going to answer such questions ?
Q. Yes ; I rather supposed you would like to tell me about that
A. Suppose I couldn't tell ?
Q. Suppose you should try?
A, Well, s'pose I shouldn't?
Q. I think you had better tell me that, Deborah.
A. I shan't answer such foolish questions.
Q. Will you tell me where you. were married ?
A. If you'll come down to my house, 111 tell you all about it, but I won't
here. ,
Q. It may be inconvenient for me to come, Deborah, and therefore I shall
have to insbt upon your answering me now.
A. Well, I shall not
The Court — The witness must answer.
288 TBI TRIAL or
{
Q. The court thinks jou ought to answer. Be kind enough to inform
me.
A. I couldn't tell you where I was married.
Q* Bid you have a large wedding party on the occasion ?
A. I couldn't tell how large the wedding was.
Q. Didn't you know something about it ?
A. Of course I did.
Q. Didn't yon have more of the wedding than any body else ?
A. Of course I did, but I can't telL
Q. Can you tell who performed the marriage ceremony ?
A. I couldn't
Adah Gray, called and sworn, testified: I haye known the prisoner
sixteen or seventeen years. He was a smart boy, and was very active. I
always thought him to be a pretty cunning kind of a boy. I think there is
a change in him. It didn't seem to me that he knew as much as he did he-
fore he went to prison. Don't seem to talk as much, have so much life, nor
seem so sensible. Last winter he boarded with me two months. He would
get up nights, late, take his saw and go out as if he was going to work, and
come back and go to bed. He would try to sing, but I couldn't understand
what he said. He made a noise appearing as if dancing. He slept up stairs,
and used to make a noise in the night, and be dancing. I never asked what
he meant by it Never saw him drunk. Never had any reason to suppose
he drank, except at one time. Before he went to bed, one time, he was
noisy, and appeared to have been drinking. After he came out, I told him
to go to meeting. He said, sometimes, he'd go, and sometimes, he didn't
want to go. Sometimes he had a book and would try to read, but I couldn't
understand his reading.
Cross Examination. — He left my house last Januaiy. I never said
any thing to DePuy about Freeman's getting up nights ; only one day De-
Fuy said to me, " You know'd William when a boy." What Freeman got
up and went out for — ^whether to drink or not, I don't know. He went out
twice, that I know o£ He made a noise three, times. -I was lying in bed,
the time I speak of his being drunk. I don't say he was drunk, but he came
in and out, and hallooed, stamped, and went on \ stayed around an hour, and
went to bed. I don't know how he got his liquor ; I had none in the house.
I don't remember of his saying any thing all that time, except when I asked
if he wanted any thing.
Thebon Green, called and sworn, testified: I Was keeper in the Aubom
State Prison five or six years ago, and had charge of this prisoner there
about a year. The condition of his mind was such that I didn't think he bad
much at any time. He could do the work assigned him ; he was called a
half pay man. He worked at blowing the bellows and striking at the foige.
He kept at this work while I was there. He was slow in his movements. I
judged he did his work as well as he could* I never discovered him viola-
wiiAXAM nsmuM. 289
ting the ralea of the shop by talking. Tell him' to do a certain amount of
work, he woold do it in hiB waj*, sometimes. His way was slow, awkward,
dulL He was downcast ; would have freaks of laughing. I couldn't tell
what he was laughing at I have perceived the same laugh here« He was
rather dall. On Sundays I tried to instruct Kim in his cell, but with poor
success. He was so dull he could'nt learn. He would violate the rules bj
going to sleep Sundays in his cell. He was not, however, flogged for that
I never reported him.
Q. Why did you not flog him?
Objected to, and objection sustained.
I don't think he was totally destitute of knowledge of right and wrong. I
told him to do a thing and sometimes he would, and sometimes he wouldn't
do it My opinion of him then was, that he was in some respects^ accountar
ble, and in other respects not accountable. He was very diflerent from any
convict I overbad chai^ of, in his manners and conduct I thought he was
very ugly, irritable, malicious and bad tempered. He was deafl I should
think his capacity as a thinking, reasoning man, was very limited — very low.
He hadn't enough intelligence to warrant me in punishing him for violating
the rules. I think he ought not to have gone at large, and that remark was
made when he left the shop. I should think he had as much capacity as a
brute beast; dop*t know as he had more ; none to spare more.
Cross Examikation. — I sent him for a pail of water once and he didn't
go. He didn't take the letter which I sent to the hall. I sent a man after
him who found him in the yard. The blacksmith for whom he blowed and
struck used to complun that he didn't work right I used to talk to him ; ii
would, however, do him no good
Philo H. Perry, called and sworn, testified : I have seen the prisoner
and have tried to converse with him, I also heard Gov. Seward make the
attempt to converse with him, but to little puipose. The prisoner did not
seem to know much about a court) or trial, or witnesses, or a jury. He said
something in an indistinct and incoherent way about his having been in pri-
son five yearsi, and wanted pay for it I could not come to a satisfactory
conclusion in my own mind about him. I think he has no idea of the enor-
mity of his offence, although he may know what he was doing. He has
scarcely any intellect at all, as far as I can judge, and is ahnost an idiot
When I was talking to him about the trial, I asked him if I should teQ the
jury that he was craay. He said Na I asked if I should tell them that he
waa sorry. He said No.
(Dross Examination. — I did not know the prisoner until after the Fle-
ming murders. I did not see him in jail until afler a plea of present insanity
had been put in for him by Gov. Seward. I heard him try to read, but
couldn't He seemed to know the letters of the alphabet, and did call them
correctly, but he could not read the words. I think he has some mind left,
yet what he has seems to be in a singular condition. I do not say that he is
19
290 im nuAL oi
insane. I think liis difficnlty consiste more in tlie want of iniellect than ia
any derangement of what he has. He may be deranged, bnt he looks to me
more like an idiot
Dr. Charles Van Epps^ called and sworn, testified : I reside in Anbum,
and am a physician. I received my diploma from the New York Universi^,
in 1825, and since that time I have been in practice. I know the prisoner.
I am of the opinion that he has lately been insane. It is not probable thai
the species of insanity with which he is afflicted came upon him in a very
short period of dme. It is possible for dementia to happen suddenly. Those
who have this sort of insanity generally hare thicker skulls than other peo-
ple, and as they do not grow as fast as other parts of the body^ a pressure on
the bnun is produced, which induces insanity. Dementia comes, howerer,
from many diseases which are gradual. I knew the prisoner when a nur^
sing babe, and until he was three or four years old. He then appeared as
bright and intelligent as children generally at that age. Now he appears
not to have the intellect of a child fire years old. He answers questions with
a child-like simplicity, regardless of the consequences, and as if he didn't
know them. For instance, I asked him day before yesterday whether they
had taken him up to the court —
Attorney General : — I object to any testimony relating to this prisoner,
derived from examinations since the verdict of the jury upon his present sa-
nity. That question has been settled by a verdict.
The Court decided that the question of present sanity had been tried, and a
terdict rendered on the sixth day of July, instant, and that the question of
the present sanity could not be again re-tried ; that tiie question now oa
trial in connection with the murder, was whether he was sane at the time of
the commission of the crime ; and that the evidence of insanity must be con-
fined to facts before and at the time of committing the act, up to thoi sixA
day of July, instant, when the verdict of sanity was rendered.
Decision excepted to.
Q. What is your opinion as to whether the prisoner at the bar is insane?
Objected to, and objection sustained.
Q. What is your opinion as to whether the prisoner at the bar was insane
at any time previous to the sixth day of July last?
A. I think he was insane at and before that time. I ground this opinion
upon the history of the man, and what I myself knew of him. It appean
that his senses have diminished — decreased from childhood — and that is to my
mind evidence of insanity. He has been laboring under an impression that
he ought to have pay for the time that he Was in prison, and that somebodj
owed him, and I have not been able to make him believe to the contrary.
That I consider an insane delusion. He has an impression that every body
is against him, and that was why he wanted to kill somebody. He had no-
thing in particular against Van Nest, yet insane people generally kill their
best fricucs sooner than they will their enemies. He thinks he can read,
WlLfiLLM IBUIAH. 291
bttt caimoU He is under a deliuion in that ; yet he appears to be anxious
so show us that he can read. His smile and his general deportment is like
persons who are demented. I call his insanity dementia, or that species of
insanity which is accompanied with a loss of the intellect Idiocy is a per-
fect loss of the intellect, and where it is not congenital it is called dementia^
There is some intellect left in the prisoner, and therefore his case is partial
dementia. As to the design and calculation, I have known insane men to
do acts evincing more than ordinary design. I have heard of nothing con-
nected with the murder of Van Nest, that an insane man would not be likely
to dio. [Witness here related the dialogues ha4 with the prisoner in jail,
which were the same substantially as those had with Warden and Austin.]
I think that he thinks he has a right to kill people in satisfaction of his datm,
and that is a delusion. There is not the least doubt that at the tame the pri-
•oner committed the act, he was insane.
Q. Have you, since the sixth day of July, made any observations which
went to confirm your (pinion ?
Objected to, and oljcction sustained.
Cboss Examination. — I was bom at Kinderhook. I am a Dutchman,
like you, Mr. Van Buren. I conversed with the prisoner several times be-
fore he went to the State Prison, but I cannot give the particulars. I assisted
at a post mortem examination of his father. Prisoner's mother used to be an
intemperate woman. She lived with me a while. I then saw the boy pass-
ing out and in several times. It would be very difficult to tell what the boy
knew then that he does not know now. His head is small, yet it may be as
large as Dr. Brigham's — but has quite a difierent shape. I don't know that
I can state any physical change. Derangement attends the action of acute
diseases. Dementia does not necessarily come as a consequence of disease.
The prisoner's pulse is somewhat remarkable. It is quick without any occ»*
sion (or excitement, and denotes an unusual condition of the system. I don't
think the delusion about pay is a common delusion. X think the prisoner
thought it right to get pay. I also think he was under the impression that
all mankind were his enemies. Had any dissimulation existed, I think I
should have been able to discover it
James H. Bostwick called and sworn, testified : I am a justice of the
peace ; live in Auburn, and have known the prisoner since he was a child.
I think he was as active when a chil^ as other colored children. I saw him
afler he came out of prison. He called upon me for a summons for a man
for whom he said he had sawed wood. I knew the man — told prisoner there
must be a misunderstanding ; and I saw the man and found what it was. I
deduied issuing the summons. A day or two before the murders he came
into my office and said he wanted a warrant. I asked for whom. He said,
^ For those who got me to prison ;" that he had been there wrongfully and
wanted pay. I asked who the persons were. He said a widow wonuin anit
two men ; and he mentioned David W. Simson, a former constable, ai oum
382 THSTEULOV
of them. Then, or in a subsequent conTena^n, he mentioned the nsme of
the widow Godfrey. I asked what he was sent to prison for. He said, *' They
said 'twas for steiding a horse.*' I asked if he did steal it He said, *' No, I
didn't" I asked who arrested him for stealing. He said that Yanderhey-
den arrested him for stealing hens, but that he was discharged on that Such
was the fact, as I learned subsequently. He said they afterwards took him
for stealing a horse, and the widow woman and two men swcxre him into
prison five years. I told him he had no remedy — ^that if those persons swore
false, it was now too late to punish them for it He said that he thought
it was hard that he couldn't get any pay for his time, and turned and walked
down stairs. After he had been arrested for the murder, I caused him to
be taken to the house of Van Nest, in order to see whether Van Arsdale
and Mrs. Wyckoff, who was then still alive, could identify him. Van An-
dale was there, wounded, and the prisoner was directed to stand up where
Van Arsdale could see him. He did so. He was also taken into the yard,
that Van Arsdale could see him through the window. Don't recollect as he
said any thing. I was myself engaged in taking the testimony of Van Ars-
dale whilst there. He was then with much difficulty brought back and lodged
in jaiL There was a large assemblage of people about the house ; many of
whom were highly excited. I had some reason then to suspect thai he had
an accomplice, and I ui^ged the people to repress their feelings until a furth^
examination should be had. He was lod^d in the jail unhurt, except the
wound which he had on his wrist The next day I visited him at his cell,
and there asked him questions about the transaction. I also asked him if he
desired counsd. He ssid Yes. I asked whom. He said he didn't know the
lawyers. He said something about having been put in State Prison, and 1
inquired if he knew who were the persons who put him there. He said the
widow Godfrey, David Simpson and Jack Furman. Jack was the man who
was arrested at the same time, and who turned State's evidence and got dear.
Jack is now himself a convict I asked if he rode into Mrs. Godfrey's yard
the night of the murder. He said he did ; and at another time when I asked
him if he^knew of any body riding into her yard, he said he didn't I asked
if he ever talked with any white man about being sent to prison. He saidt
*^ Nobody but Esquire Paine and you." I aaked him if a certain person
(naming him) had told him that Van Nest had any thing to do with getting
him into prison. He said No. I aaked him if he met a man on horseback,
this side of the house. He said Yes. I asked who he was. He said, *'I
don't know." I asked if he was a white man. He said Yes. I asked if I
should get him counsel He said Yes. I mentioned the matter to Mr. Allen,
subsequently, who acted in his behalf on the examination before me. I put
to him a variety of questions, to which he gave brief but pertinent answers.
He was very deaf, and did not understand unless spoken to in a loud voice.
As to the state of his mind, I can. only say that when he came for the war^
rant it occurred to me that he might be deranged ; but he said, " They tell
WIUXAM TBUMAN. 29S
me I can get my pay now/' and other things that looked as if he might he
rational. Since then I have thought that my impression that he was insane
was groundless. I cannot say that I now think that he was insane, yet his
actions were singular.
Cross Examixation. — ^When he mentioned a summons, he seemed
wigty that the man for whom he had been at work would not pay. I fixiiid
that the man had credited John De Puy for the work, but after I had talked
with him, he said he would give tHe prisoner something. I advised him to
take what he could get When he came to get the warrant, he told me that
he was arrested on a canal boat. He said that Yanderheyden arrested him
again, and pretended that he had arrested ham for stealing hens. I ques-
tioned him about the matter ani he told me. I cannot now remember all
the questions, nor all his answers. On the day when the preliminary trial
commenced, I saw him in the jail, and asked him if he didn't know it was
wrong to commit these murders. H€ said, ** I suppose it was." I aatked if
he was sorry. He said, ** I was sorry when I got to Syracuse." I asked
where he was intending to go when he stole the last horse. He said, '^ The
most I cared for was to get out of the county." I asked what he killed those
people for. He said, " I couldn't get any satisfaction and I noeant to be
revenged."
Michael S. Mtebs, called and sworn, testified: I was the distriet
attorney of this county when the. prisoner was indicted and tried for stealing
^e horse. The witnesses sworn, were Martha Godfrey, William H, £G11
and John Willard ; the latter was known, I believe, as Jack Furman. When
the prisoner was sentenced, he looked younger, stood more erect, and looked
brighter than he does now.
Cross Examination. — There was nothing peculiar about him then. I
have seen him since. I have never discovered any thing to make me be-
lieve him insane.
James R. Cox, called and sworn, testified : I saw the prisoner near
the Sand Beach Church, about eight o'clock in the evening of the murder.
I was in a cutter ; he was walking and had a stick in his hand partly con-
cealed under his coat. As he approached me, he stepped out of the track
and looked at me, turning his eyes as I moved until I had passed him. I
have since asked him why he didn't kill me. He said, " I thought some
of it" Looked then as he does now. When I asked about his hand, he
lifted it up and then let it drop, but gave no answer. I have seen him when
I could not get the semblance of an answer. He appears to know but littic
of the nature and consequences of crime. I am not able to say that he is
particularly deranged, because I do not think that he has much brain to be
deranged. I think he approaches an idiot If he ever had much brain I
should think it had decayed.
Dr. Ahariah Brigham, called and sworn, testified : I am a physician,
and have charge of the State Lunatic Asylum, at Utica. I was subpoenaed
294 IHSTBIALOf
to attend ihe prefiminaiy trial of this' prisoner. Upon arriying here I was
requested to examine liim in respect to hiB mental condition. That vaa
about sis weeks aga Accordingly I risited him several times, convened
with him, and listened to the conversation of others. I heard all the testi-
mony given on the pr^minary trial, and I have heard or read all that has
been g^ven on this. I have endeavored to bestow such attention to the case
aa should enable me to form an accurate opinion. I believe the prisoner to
be insane.
I had heard much of this prisoner before I saw him. I had heard that he
had killed those who had sent him to the State Prison. I had also heard
that many supposed that if his actions indicated insanity, he was feigning it
My first examinations, therefore, were directed to that point, until I satisfied
myself that he was not feigning insanity. I think I could not have been de-
ceived about that ; and now I suppose there is no one who thinks he is feign-
ing insanity. After saying that there has been scarcely a fact relating to
his mental condition which was not known to me as the result of my own ob-
servation, I proceed to say that I asked him what he could prove in defence
of himself. I asked if we should say he did not kifl the folks. He said,
quickly, No. I then asked hiin if we might not say so. He said, " No, thai
would be wrong. I didn't do it" Some one tiien asked him if we mi^t
say he was crazy. He said, *^ I can't go ao fieur as that" I asked him agab
what he could prove. He remarked something about having been in prison
five years'for stealing a horse, and that he didn't steal it I asked him if be
were sorry for the act He sometimes said No; and sometimes, "I don't
know," in reply. His words were spoken slowly, and somewhat incoherently.
In answer to a question whether he was sorry he had killed that little chUd,
once he said to me, **I don't know," and once, *' You may say that," but it
was slowly said. He laughed when I mentioned the child. I continued tke
examination, as I before testified, (ante 5S) until I became satbfied that )>•
Was not feigning insanity, but was actually insane.
There is some difficulty in the case, from the want of facts concerning bis
history, and also on account of his cdor. My experience is that insanity in
cohvred people cannot be so easily detected from the countenance as in white
people. That peculiar pallor, which oftentimes attends insanity, cannot be
so easily detected in colored people as in white people. In this case there
is some evidence going to show that he is paler than he formeriy was.
We learn from the testimony in this case, that there have been at woii
the most exciting causes of this disease. The prisoner was predisposed to
insanity. Some of his ancestors have been and one now is insane. Theie
is no disease so likely to spread in families in which it has once appeared.
It is estimated that about one half of the insane have, or have had, insane,
ancestors. In all doubtful cases of insanity the fact that insanity prevails in
^ family of the person, is entitled to great weight in the formation of an
opinion respecting him.
On the prelimiDary trial in this case, I gaTe^reaaons for believing the pri-
loner insane, which I must repeat I then remarked that the prisoner seems
to have been an active youth, with perhaps not quite as good an intellect aa
the majority of colored persons of his age ; that he seems to have been left
to the indulgence of his passions, without mental, moral or religious culture*
That, in my opinion, was one of the predisposing causes of this man's insap
nity. The indulgence of the passions forms a character that cannot brook
control, subjects them to violent emotions, and thus lays the fbundAtion of
insanity in the passions and affections. «
At a very early age he was confined in the State Prison, where he h«d
various troubles, and was thought by some to be a singular being, and, aa^
some expressed it, a brute. He was disobedient, and for his disobedience
was punished severely. He got into a violent p^sion for very trivial causes 9
was apparently ready to kill a fellow convict for moving his shoes, and acted
in the manner I have been accustomed to see crazy people act In the
prison he seems to have become deaf. Deafness, however, is not of itself a
symptom of insanity, yet it is often a concomitant, and their combination
forms incurable insanity. When combined, I have never known a patieni
to recover. The reason probably is, that the same cause which destroys tha
hearing, or affects the auditory nerve, extends also to the brain itself.
He then came out of prison, and so far as I could gather from all the tea-
tuDony, he was changed. He was a lively, active, sociable lad when ha
entered the prison, but was taciturn, dull and stupid when he came out, and
as his mother expressed it, ^^ he wasn't the same boy ; he acted as if he didn't
know any thing." This I regard ^ a characteristic of insanity. So com-
mon is this change of character in insanity, that many regard it as necessary
to the definition of the term. A prolonged change of character, withbut any
evident external cause, is given, in many works on insanity, as a charac*
teristic ; and the cases are almost innumerable where such changes h^ve
come within my own observation. A mother loses her child, or a man meets
with a reverse of fortune, or has something which has created great anxiety
of mind; and soon after, it is perceived that his character is changed ; not
but that he knows people as well as before, and talks with them ; not but
that he has memory ; but he has become sad, gloomy and unsociable, and
without that interest in things which he formerly had. Thb state often ex-
ists for weeks and months unperceived, unless by intimate friends, until
some delusion, or other evidence of insanity, is observable, or some outbreak
occurs. Then all notice what had been generally unobserved before — that
a change had taken plage, and that the person was insape. In this way in-
sanity very commonly commences. The change of character and of thft
moral qualities oflen precedes any perceptible derangement of the intellect
In the case at the bar I think this change of character has been proved.
I have observed, that we knew but very little of him whilst he was in the
State Prison. Some of the witnesses, however, noticed the change. Dr<
vsmvaxL Of
Hermance, in cooTernng with hini) diouglit him deranged. Then he had
diatnrbed nights ; often was up in the night, and was nmsy. Than that. I
know of no better evidence of insanify. So confident am I that d% 3ple88neM
IS a characteristic of insanity, that I have spoken of it in a published article
on insanity as one of its most indubitable symptoms ; and that article, I no-
tice, has been eztennvely copied and quoted. I can attest its truUi from
my own experience and observation of the insane. It is true, that in some
cases insane persons sleep well, but, in general, the insane have paroxysms
and are apt to get up nights. I cannot account for the conduct of the pri-
soner, in this respect, on any other supposition than that it was the conse-
quence of disease, of which I have testified.
His going to a magistrate for a warrant, without any definite notion for
whom ; declaring that he would have one, after he had been told that it
oould not be issued ; his tender of twenty-five cents ; his getting into a pas-
sion in the office of the magistrate ; his inability to give any connected ae-
count of the injury of which he complained, and for which he wanted the
process, — all indicate an unnatural, if not irrational, condition of mind. We
next come to the act itself, for which he has been attested and indicted. It
was a dreadful tragedy, and yet, as bloody as it was, and as deplorable as it
may be, I cannot but regard it as the result of insanity. I cannot believe
that a sane man, in the full exercise of his intellect and moral feelings, could
do such an act, unless the provocation was very great, or the motive very
powerful and strong. Similar cases have occurred in lunatic asylums, bat
I am not aware that history records any case of the kind happening else-
where. Quite recently, a man killed two patients at the Baltimore Hos-
pital, and was endeavoring to massacre the whole of them. He was so well
as to be about, when the sudden paroxysms came on him. And the manner
of his doing it; the shedding of so much blood ; the killing more than could
have been necessary for any supposable purpose, and the celerity with which
it was done, all were regarded as evidence of insanity. I have always ob-
served that the insane act much quicker than the sane. They will tear their
clothes into inch pieces, destroy their beds, and hreek their bedsteads, in a
period of time so short, tiiat one could not suppose it posuble for them to
hAve done it
In the case of Griffith, in Chen^go county, for killing, the witnesses
expressed their astonishment at the quickness with which the deed was done.
Here, in the case at the bar, the prisoner must have entered the house, went
into different rooms, had some scuffles, killed four persons, looked into va-
rious wmdows, stolen a horse, and rode it half a mile befbre Williamson had
walked that distance. It seems as if he had planned and designed it, made
preparation for its accomplishment, indicating the possession of mind thai
some think incompatible with insanity. Every day's observation, however,
convinces me that it ought not to be so regarded. The insane are as adroit
in planning and scheming to get away, or in accomplishing their purpose, u
WILUiM TltSBMAlf . 297
I
the sane. Hie case of Hadfield, for shooting the King, is in point He had
made a full and careful preparation, had obtained his pistols, and delibe-
ratety went to the theatre expressly to shoot the King. So with a patient at
the Asylum at Utica, who had killed her father, and intended to kill her
mother. She prepared every thing beforehand. I might refer to many
other cases, but the mention of these will illustrate my idea.
That the prisoner undertook to escape, seems to many to be inconsistent
with insanity. Yet, when I see patients every day doing wrong and adnntly
contriving to conceal it ; when I know that they have done the act ; when I
know numerous cases where such insane persons try to escape after having
conunitted heinous offences, I do not think it ought to be so regarded.
A man by the name of Thomas Sanderson, from Chautauque, now in the
Asylum, known by many to be insane, was left with a young man threshing
in a bam. Whilst there, he killed the young man, by stabbing him more
than one hundred times with a pitchfork. He then took up the boards and
buried him under the floor, then took a horse and fled, but was overtaken
by an officer, and, after a struggle, in which the officer was wounded, he was
arrested. He is now in my charge, at the Lunatic Asylum. Since he has
been there, he has attempted to cut the throat of a patient He eats by
himself. We dare not trust him where there are any instruments with
which he can do any injury to others. Rabello, in the State Prison of
Connecticut, whose case has been published, is another instance. He killed
a boy, and then ran off. . These cases show, that, in the attempt to escape,
there is nothing incompatible with insanity.
Since the arrest of the prisoner at the bar, there have been various at-
tempts made to ascertain whether he is insane. To many, the fact that he
remembers, that he gives a rational account of many things, and repeats
them several times, carries the conviction that he is sane. That appears to
be evidence to tome that he has reason enough left to control his actions.
But to my mind that does not carry such a conviction. Living, as I do,
with those who exhibit as much intellect as any person In this assembly ;
whom I daily employ to write letters, to paint portraits, to play on musical
instruments, to compose and deliver orations, which would do credit to men
of learning and general intelfigence ; and when I know these people are as
deranged on certain subjects as any persdh ever was, the fact that the pri-
soner remembers and repeats, does not carry conviction to my mind that he
is sane. But the prisoner does not either remember or repeat well He is
dull, and stupid, and ignorant, and has but little intellect of any kind. And
I think every one must have been struck with the fact, that all who have
examined him have found it necessary to come down to simple questions in
their examinations — ^to putting questions which we would not think of put-
ting to a man we considered sane. Such questions as ^ will you settie for
this watch ?" as put by Dr. Bigelow, and others who have testified on this
298 THB TBUI. Of
trial Such questions seem to indicate, t^t the persons interrogaiii^ the
prisoner considered him a mere child in intellect
I agree with Dr. Spencier, that his pulse furnishes no evidence one way or
the other. Whilst many insane persons have a veiy rapid pulse, that of oth-
ers is too slow for ordinary health. The rapid changes, however, from sixty-
seven to one hundred and twenty, betoken something not exactly healthy.
It indicates that nervous irritability alluded to by the doctor, which we see
among the insane. It is not itself insanity; yet nervous irritability is akin
to it> as a disease of the nervous system is insanity. The prisoner never asks
a question, except for food, for tobacco, or about his wound. He has not
asked for or about his mother, nor about any other person. Unless I sup-
pose him bereft, by disease, of all those feelings, hopes and fears which eveiy
one in a natural stato possesses, I know not how to explain this. It is, how-
ever, so characteristic of cases of this kind, that it adds to my conviction of
his insanity. Eleim, who killed a woman in New York, and waa sent to the
Asylum above two years ago, always answers readily, but never asks a qnes-
tbn on any subject whatever.
The prisoner seems entirely indifie^nt to his fato, and yet has strong ma-
mal appetites — ^he asks for tobacco, yet apparently cares nothing for his tdsL
His total indifference I cannot account for on any other supposition than
that it is the consequence of his disease. His counting and reading b an-
other circumstance worthy of notice ; not, however, because he cannot count
or read, but for the reason that when he counts beyond twenty-eight he ap-
pears just as confident that he is counting right above that number as below
It The same thing has been noticed of his reading ; and the surprise is that
he does not know that he cannot read. A child may do this ; but when it
gets older, although it may practice it, it knows it is not reading. The pri-
soner's insensibility to pain has been mentioned by the medical gendemaa
who dressed his wounded arm. On dressing it. Dr. Fosgato has observed
that he exhibited no feeling — that he seemed to pay no attention to it Air
though many insane persons are sensible to pain, others are not We pot
setons into their necks, and periprm other operations upon them, and they
perform them on themselves. When the wounds are being dressed thej
show no suffering. I had a female patient at the Asylum who would not
eat We fed her with a stomach tube. To resist us she sewed np her month
strongly. I cut the stitehes out, but when doing it she exhibited no more
feeling than if I had been at work on a piece of leather. And yet the lip%
in health, are very sensitive to pain.
The external appearance of the prisoner in his cell, and as he sits at the
bar, carries the same conviction to my mind that it does to the minds o£ Doc-
tors McCall and Coventry. His total indiffereikce — ^his abject and demented
iq>pearance, and his peculiar laugh, which all must have seen, although no
one could imitate it, which oomea on when nothing is going on that he sp-
WIUIAM UmBMAN.
pNeftn to notice, are indicatiTe of mental disease. In the jail, when inquired
of about the offence which he had committed, he laughed ; and when I asked
him if he was not ashamed of himself, he laughed again. In court I have
obeerved it when there was nothing to excite it, so far as I could discover,
and yet I have observed him very attentively. Some have thought it not a
little strange that he should smile under the circumstances in which he is
now placed, and yet they do not recognize it as an indication of a diseased
mind. Now, when I see this every day, in demented persons at the Lunatic
Asylum, and particularly on the Sabbath, when clergymen are preaching to
iu, I conclude that it results from disease. I know nothing in physiology or
pathology that accounts for it^ and yet I am in the habit of seeing it, although
I have never heard it explained.
I think, from the testimony, it may safely be concluded that soon after the
prisoner went to the State Prison, or about that time, he became a little
deranged ; that like most, insane people, his mental condition varied ; that
he was sometimes calm for months, and then excited and more under the
influence of deranged feelings — ^more of a derangement of the passions and
feelings, than of the intellect, at first ; that the intellect finally took up the
delusion, and under, that delusion he tried to get pay. With the intellect
that he had, he, afler he left the State Prison, tried to grope about and get
redress for supposed wrongs, and conununity not paying him as he supposed
they ought, he committed this awful deed, under the strange delusion that if
he killed around a while, as he tried to express it, they would pay him. He
may not have had any definite object in view, as insane delusions are often
not clear, but dim and varying.
At any stage of this remarkable case, had it been submitted to me, I should
have admitted him into the Asylum as a patient, and should have assured
those who brought him that his case was incurable. He is a most dangerous
being, and ought never to be permitted to go at large again for a single
hour. His pulse indicates that something is the matter with him. His flight
is not any evidence to my mind, one way or the other. ^ His eating at the
time of his arrest, s^ows such a state of insensibility as characterizes the in-
sane. He has got into a state of approaching dementia. It is not however
complete, as in case of a total loss of the faculties of the mind.
There is nothing mysterious about insanity when considered as a disease
of the brain. It is such a disease ; and I have never seen a case where, after
death, marks of disease could not be found. It is, in common parlance, said
to be a disease of the mind. But the mind is immaterial — if material, the
mind would die. Being connected with the brain, whenever the brain be-
comes diseased, the mind becomes disordered just as 'the stomach becomes
diseased when the digestion is bad. The brain is one of the most delicate
organs of life, and the least affected by remedies of all
In answer to the question relating to the authority of writers, I may say
800 THX TRIAL OV
that Dr. Ray is very higli authority, and Esquirol has had great experience.
Both are very high authority on the subjects upon which they wrote.
Cross Examixatiox. — ^I was examined in respect to the prisoner on the
trial of the preliminary issue. I then said I believed him insane. As to
medical authors, I think Esquirol the highest authority on the treatment of
the insane. He devoted about forty years to the treatment of the insane in
one of the greatest institutions in Paris. TTiere have been some improve-
ments on his system. Dr. Beck is also very high authority on medical
jurisprudence. Taylor is pretty good authority as far as he goes. He is
professor in one of the Medical Colleges in London. Beck is a professor,
and resides at Albany.
Q. What are the symptoms of dementia ?
A. The loss of some of the powers of the mind.
Q. How does it affect the memory ?
A. In dementia there is sometimes a loss of memory and sometimes not
In complete dementia all is lost
Q- How is it with attention ?
A. Attention is usually lessened.
Q. How is it with the senses ?
A. As a general rule, there is no great impairment of the senses.
Q. How is it with the eye in particular ?
A. It is sometimes affected, but sometimes it is not
Q- How is it with the coherency of the patient ?
A. Those who are partially demented, sometimes exhibit no incoherence,
yet sometimes they do.
Q. Is dementia common to young or old people ?
A. To old people we apply the term, senUe dementia.
Q. Is that the most common form ?
A. I think it is not
Q. Is loss of memory so common that dementia and forgetfulness an
sometimes considered synonomous ?
A. I do not know but they are used by some writers as synonomooi
terms. I do not so use them.
Q. What do you call the dementia of the prisoner?
A. Partial dementia. Most of his mental powers have partially decayed.
Q. Which of them?
A. I should think his memory and attention.
Q. When could he remember better than now ?
A. I suppose he could remember better than now, when he went to the
State Prison?
Q. Who swore to that?
A. I may not be able to name them, yet witnesses have sworn that ho
was a smart, bright, active boy.
wiLLUM ramuH. 801
Q. When was he more attentiye than now, making an aUowance for Lis
deafuen?
A. I don't know tliat there is any positiTe testimony relating to his at-
tention before he went to prison ; yet from all I have learned of him, I con-
clude that it was better then than it has been since.
Q. Do you agree with those who call the prisoner's difficulty monomania ?
A. I think he had homicidal monomania.
Q. Do you think he had homicidal monomania when he killed those
people?
A. That is my opinion.
Q. What are the symptoms of that disease ?
A. Any insanity is called homicidal, when connected with homicidel
Q. How many cases of that kind have yoii ever seen ?
A. A great number. I faaye had several under my own care.
Q. Do you reckon in this class every crazy man who ever killed any
body?
A. I do, where the killing was done during the existence of insanity.
Q. How many homicidal monomaniacs get cured ?
A. Three women have been cured,'or considered so by their friends, and
were taken away against my advice. I do not believe they ever get per-
fectly oured.
Q. What does Esquirol say of such cases ?
A. I believe that he says that they become raving maniacs and die.
Q. Is homicidal monomania preceded by any symptom ?
A. It is sometimes a sudden impulse.
Q. Is it possible to tell when it is cured ?
A. Yes ; but it is impossible to say whether it may not come on again.
Q- Have you any law that enables you to keep in the Asylum a man
pronounced by twelve jurors sane?
A. I know of none.
Q. If this jury should acquit the prisoner, and he should be cured to-
morrow, could you keep him in the Asylum ?
A. There is a law in relation to insane criminals acquitted; passed
April 7, 1842.
Q. Do you think there is any law to keep a dangerous man, who is sane,
in the Asylum ?
A. I think a man who had killed another, and should be acquitted on the
ground of insanity, ought not to be permitted to go at large.
Q. When examined before, did you state you considered the proceedings
to get a warrant evidence of insanity ?
A. I cannot say how I expressed myself, yet the proceedings before Esq.
Boatwick made some impression on my mind.
Q. Do you think you are a better judge than he is whether the prisoner
was insane then ?
302 THS TBUI. OV
A. I would not baTC the jury attach mnch importance to any opinion I
' may give in such little matters. The jury can judge of them.
Q. Do you consider yourself a better judge than Esq. Boatwick ?
A. I think I can judge of it better than one who has observed it less.
Q. What do you say of ordinary physicians ?
A. Ordinary people and physicians who have but little experience on the
■abject, could not judge so well in doubtful cases as one more experienced.
Q. What was there in the prisoner's application for a warrant, denoting
insanity?
A. His going into the office and then not being able to give a consistent
and connected account as to what he wanted, was some evidence of de«
rangement
Q. Suppose the jury find that he did make a consistent statement ?
A. If his statement were rational and consistent it would not, of comw,
prove any thing one way or the other.
Q. In the progress of this investigation have yon been unbiassed ?
A. I have been as anxious to find this man sane as insane.
Q. Have you been as anxious to satisfy yourself of sanity as insanity?
A. If there is a man in the world who should be anxious that this maa
should be put out of the world it is myself. But, notwithstanding the horror
of having this man come into my family, I cannot swear differently from
what I have. I could not ever have another happy day.
Q. Where a man has a physical disease, does it not manifest itself hj
physical symptoms ?
A. Where the mind is diseased it always manifests itself by some symp-
tom, I suppose.
Q. Did you testify before, that insane people in the Asylum paint po^
traits, write letters, orations, &c. V
A. We have patients that paint, write letters, and orations ; we have Iir
dies who paint fiowers and play on the plana Last July we had an oration
from one insane person, and a poem from another.
Q. Did you state that some of their orations would do credit to statesmen ?
A. I probably did, for some of their efibrts are very creditable indeed.
Q. You spoke of this dreadful crime indicating insanity. Suppose I
should take this knife and kill one of the jurors, what would you say of my
sanity or insanity ?
A. If you should get up and kill him and then sit down, in the absence of
any other circumstance, I should think you insane.
Q. Suppose I were to tell you that I was going to do it, and the juror
should apply to a magistrate to bind me over, and then I should do it, wonM
you swear that I were insane ?
A. That might or might not vary my opinion*
Q. If I should go out and steal one hundred dollars, and then come io
again and sit down, would you swear I was insane ?
WILUAM fUOIAH. 80t
A. Sucli a circumstance would, in jou, indicate insamtf.
Q. If I should take a gun and shoot into the jurj box, and kill six of the
jmt)n, would you say that I was insane i
A. I answer as before.
Q. If I should go down to the rulroad bridge and saw off the posts, would
jou swear that I was insane ?
A. I think I should.
Q. Why would you swear so ?
A. Because it would be so contrary to your character and what I have
known of it
Q. Then if I do an act that yon regard as being contrary to my charac-
ter, and you can see no motive for the act, you would swear I was insane ?
A. It would indicate insanity.
Q. Why do you say there has been a change in the prisoner?
A. I obtidned that opinion from the testimony.
Q. Whose testimony?
A. That of the mother of the prisoner. Winner, Warden, Deborah De
Puy, and Adam Gray. They say they noticed a change.
Q. Then you didn't believe John De Puy?
A. I do not say that I did not believe some of his testimony. I did not
rftly on it as much as upon other testimony.
Q. Did you hear Deborah De Puy, and did you base your testimony on
her statement?
A. I did believe her.
Q. Do you take the character and standing of the witnesses into conside-
ration?
A.* I do ; and I do believe she knew of the change.
Q. Do you believe the prisoner's mother ?
A. I do.
Q. Don't you believe the mother, who is a common drunkard, to be un-
aafo evidence?
A. No ; if drunkards were never to be believed a great many would not
be permitted to testify.
Q. J£ this boy has lived here twenty-one years, don't you believe there
are more reputable persons who can prove a change in him, if a change has
taken place ?
A. No, sir ; I don't think I have heard any one who has paid that atten-
^on which I should think requisite. Warden, however, noticed a change at
the time.
Q. Suppose we bring twenty men who had known him all his life, and
who should swear that there has been no change ?
A. If they knew him, and had lived with him, and noticed him, I might
think differcntiy; if they hadn't noticed the change I should not place
IS much reliance upon their testimony as if they had.
804 nn tbul of
Q. Do you ihink his smile is evidence of insanity ?
A. Ida •
Q. Do you think the smile has been accounted for by other witnesses?
A. I do not
Q. Do you believe the prisoner could have been insane in the State Pri-
son 80 long without it being found out that he was crazy ?
A. I think the opportunities there not such as to be most likely to detect
it
Q. Do you believe this man could have been undergoing this remarkable
change without its being found out ?
A. I don't know how many cases of insanity there are in the Stale Prison,
nor how observant the keepers are. From what I know of the management
there, I think he might be there five years and his keepers not find it out
It don't appear that he was under one. keeper all the while.
Q. You have stated that Ids uncle and aunt were crazy. Suppose we
should prove that his aunt was liquor crazy ?
A. The insane are usually fond of liquor, and many people are not insane
when liquor is taken away from them.
Q. Suppose we should prove that his uncle Sidney is perfectly hannlen,
would that have any effect upon your opinion ?
A. That would not diminish my confidence much ; because where insaa-
i^ prevails in the family, it may differ in its appearance, and the subjects
of it, in character.
Q. Suppose we prove that his grandfather smiled as he does, would thst
have any effect ?
A. I don't believe any such smile as his was inherited, except by disesse.
Q. You seem to think the celerity of the act and the number of the peo-
ple killed was evidence of insanity ?
A. Yes, sir. K he had killed Van Nest, only, I should have thought it
more probable that the prisoner had had some controversy with him. Bot
his shedding so much more blood than could be necessary for any supposabk
purpose, and without any motives, I think indicates insanity.
Q. Suppose his purpose was revenge ?
A. I cannot think he killed the child for revenge.
Q. Suppose he wanted to exterminate the race and escape detection, sf-
ter plundering the house ?
A. I think he would not have slain the child even for plunder.
Q. Suppose it should be proved that he said he killed the child lest it
should make a noise ?
A. I don't know as that would rary my opinion any.
Q. This man is part Indian ?
A. I suppose so, but I have not attached much importance to that, al-
though some, periiaps, might
Q. Have you heard of Indian massacres ?
WILLIAM F&KEHAN. 305
A. I have ; jet in many cases tihey have occurred whilst fighting for their
country.
Q. Were they fighting for their country at Wyoming and Deerfield ?
A. Not always ; yet when they were not they had an object in view. I
think they were fighting for their country at Pleasant Valley.
Q. Is insanity contagions ?
A. In some of its forms I think it has been contagious.
Q. Is homicidal insanity contagious ?
A. I don't think that form of insanity is ; yet I am always sorry to hear
of one case for fear that it will induce others to imitate it In that way it
may, perhaps, be called contagious.
Q. Is suicide contagious.
A. I think it was in the French army, until Napoleon put a stop to it.
Q. Are hysterics contagious ?
A. They seem to be catching.
Q. Did you ever hear of an insane man who was slow in the act of com-
mitting murder ?
A. I have heard of cases where the murder was not rapidly executed.
Where they kill with a knife, I suppose it is usually done quickly. I don't
know as there is any insanity in the celerity, but I think an insane man will
do a thing quicker than a sane man can.
Q. Is a want of moral culture a common cause of depravity aa well as
insanity ?
A. It is.
Q. "Wherein is the distinction ?
A. The one is a vice, and the other a disease.
Q. Can yon always tell whether one or the other exists ?
A. It is often difficult to tell where depravity ends and insanity begins.
Q. About restless nights. Is there any proof of them in this case ?
A. I think there is. DePuy and Winner testified of them.
Q. Can you tell whether they were caused by insanity or liquor ?
A. I can't positively tell ; but according to my observation, when a per-
son in liquor gets to sleep he is likely to sleep sound, and is not very likely
to get up.
Q. Don't restless nights immediately precede the offence ?
A. Well, I don't know as to that ; I should think they might, or might
not
Q. Suppose the evidence shows that ever since the murder he has had
sleepy nights, what then ?
A. I don't think that would alter my opinion ; for generally after such an
act, a calmness succeeds.
Q. If it were in propf that liquor made the prisoner disquiet and sleep-
less, and that he had been drinking when the sleepless nights occurred,
would not his sleeplessness indicate nun rather than insanity ?
20
306 THE TRIAL OV
A. I think they indicate insanity, not rum.
Q. Your first inquiry was whether he feigned insanity. Was there any
occasion for feigning insanity nntil the plea was put in ?
A. The feigning, I always consider an important fact to be ascertained at
any time. If he had made np his mind to feign insanity, he might have
feigned before the plea.
C2. Would not the safest evidence be what he did, instead of what he
said?
A. I shonld not take declaraticHis, alone, as they might be more easily
feigned than actions.
Q. About a motive. Was not the case of Green, who poisoned his wife,
a thousand times more aggravated than this ?
A. I cannot say that it was. Certainly there were not as many lives
taken.
Q. I mean in respect to the motive. There was no motive fonnd for
that act
A. I had supposed that there was, until you informed me to the contrary.
1 recollect of reading that case, and that I thought there were no indications
of insanity in Green.
Q. Suppose you had known that there was no motive for that murder,
would that have shown insanity ?
A. Well, I have said the absence of motive is a fact bearing on the
question.
Q. Did you suspect that Green was insane?
A. No, Sir,
Q. What is an insane dehisioa ?
' A. An insane delusion is the mistaking fancies for realities, where the
patient cannot be reasoned out of them.
Q. Suppose I should get an insane delnaon that one of the jurors owed
me and should kill him, would you swear I was insane ?
A. I should think that you were.
Q. Suppose I should be told that a witness had sworn against me in s
civil suit, and that the witness had destroyed my case, and I should go and
kill him, what would you say to that ?
A. I should want to know how correctiy you were informed.
Q. Suppose I should be informed by Gov. Seward, who was counsel in
the case ?
A. If it was him who told you so, and you believed it, and the suit in-
volved a large amount, I should think yon not insane.
Q. Suppose the suit were upon a note, and the witness swore to my band
writing only ?
A. If the suit were a small one, I should think that you must have been
insane.
Q. What is ^e difficulty in telling whether black people are sick or not?
WILLIAM VBSEMAK. 307
A. We do not see bat few colored persons wlio are insane, and therefore
cannot tell as well. I never coald so well tell what ailed a colored person
as a white one, and my experience is that they are more apt to die when
they are sick, than whites.
Q. Does the fact that this man asked no questions, make any difference
with your opinion ?
A. Yes, Sir.
Q. Do you find that by the evidence in the case ?
A. For the most part I do, yet I found by my examination that he did
not One would suppose, however, he would feel some anxiety about his
trial, and would inquire about it
Q. Why do you believe he does not ask any questions ?
A. He never has asked me a question, and yet I have seen him a good
many times. I thought it very strange that he did not
Q. You say he is not aorry. Have you heard the evidence of the magis-
trate to whom he applied for a warrant ?
A. I think his evidence does not show that he felt any remorse. I know
that he sometimes admitted that he did wrong. I suppose he knows that it
is wrong to commit murder, but I do not think when he killed Van Nest
that he knew it was wrong to kill him.
Q. About his going out of the county and about being revenged. Did
you ever hear more sensible talk than that ?
A. I have ; and although I have heard sane people talk of revenge, I
sdll think the prisoner was crazy.
Da. John McCall, called and sworn, testified : I am President of the
Medical Society of the State. I have seen the prisoner at the bar, and have
examined him in reference to his sani^. I came here before the jury in
this case was empanneled. I have not heard all the testimony, but the
greater part of it From personal observation, and also from the testimony,
I am of the opinion that the prisoner at the bar, is insane. I have no reason-
able doubt of it I visited him twice in the jaU^ and put to him a variety of
questions about himself and the murder. I asked him why he killed the
people. He replied that he had been in .the State Prison, and that they
owed him. I asked who. He said, ^' They." I could not gather who he
referred to. I asked if he were not sorry — once ho said No, and once, " I
don*t know." His answers were all short, and to obtun them, I was obliged
to prompt him, and to speak very loud. When I asked him why he killed
the child, his reply was, " Don't know." When I asked him if this family
had done him any injury, he said No. I asked if he would have killed any
one else whom he might have met He replied Yes.
One morning, during the preliminary trial, I asked where he had been
the day before. After hesitating some time, ho said, " In court" I asked
him for what purpose he was in court He said, " Don't know." I asked
who he saw there. After hesitating some time, he said, " Mr. Doublcday."
308 THB TRIAL 0»
I asked what they were doing there. After a few moments he said, " S'pose
trying to find out 'bout the horse." I asked if he could read, and he siud
Yes ; but after trying him, I found that he could not He smiled as he does
here in the court room. I asked him if he knew he was on trial. He said,
** Don't know." I asked him if he didn't know that he was on- trial for kill-
ing those people. After a few moments he answered, " S'pose so." I asked
him if he had counsel. He said, ^* Don't know." I asked him if be didn't
think he would be hung for killing that family. He replied, " Don't think
on't." I asked if he knew what swearing a witness meant He said, ^^ For
trouble." I repeated the question, thinking that he didn't understand me.
He gave the same answer, ** For trouble." I asked him if he were well, and
had enough to eat He said Yes.
At first I did not know but that he might be feigning insanity, bnt subse-
quent examinations satisfied me that he was. not He has not intellect enough,
in my opinion, to feign insanity. His brain is diseased. I cannot say when
it commenced, or what its first manifestation was. It has, in my opinion,
been coming on gradually, and from the testimony, I conclude that it com-
menced in the State Prison. It is Tery evident to me that his deafness
came upon him whilst there. He was struck on the head, or side of the
head, whilst in the prison, and_ that may have occasioned the deafness, and
the same injury may have extended to the brain. It is impossible to saj,
from the testimony, when his brain at first became diseased. In some cases,
inflammution, which destroys the hearing, produces disease of the brain.
The evidence shows that the prisoner has had no education, instruction,
or training. His means of acquiring an understanding of the duties to him-
self and society, have been very limited. When, as in this case, there seems
to have been but little intellect, and the propensities and passions are left
unrestrained, there is always danger that insanity will sooner or later occur.
In my opinion that, together with the blow on his head, has been the cause
of insanity in the prisoner. He was predisposed to it from the first, as it had
been in the family ; or at l^ast, there was a hereditary tendency to the dis-
ease. That being so, causes that would not have produced insanity in others,
had a more immediate and powerful effect upon him.
I think that he committed the murder under an insane delusion, and by
impulse. The same impulse was in some degree manifested in the prison,
when he attacked the oflicer, and when he struck the convict who removed
the shoes, at whom he threw a stick of wood. He seems to have thought
that he had been wrongfully imprisoned, and that he was entitled to pay.
The delusion about pay, it seems, gained an ascendancy over bis mind, until
it became the predominant feeling, and under an impulse he killed Van Kest
and his family. He believed that he was entitled to pay from somebody—
that it was due him. That was the delusion under which he labored, and
did, when I saw him. His visiting his friends but seldom, when he came oat
of prison ; his stupor, silly smile, and taciturnity, when he did ; his getting
WtLLIAM FEEEMAK. 309
up nights, and his talking to himself, all corroborate the opiiuon that he was
insane.
In regard to his getting his knives in open day light, and preparing them,
I can only say that those facts go to show that he did not wish to conceal
them. As to the evidence furnished by the dreadful act itself, I agree with
Dr. Brigham entirely and fully. His going to a house where people lived,
against whom he could have no purpose of revenge, or discoverable motive
for killing them all, is to my mind strong evidence of insanity. Perhaps if
he had only killed Van Nest, there would have been less evidence of de-
rangement ; but the murdering of a whole family, and among them a little
child, is a fact that shows to me that he must have been insane. Indeed, his
object seems to have been to kill, and that if he had met any body else he
would have killed him or them. He didn't want plunder. He took noth-
ing, nor did he try to take any thing from the house, or from the pockets of
Van Nest The circumstances attending his departure to Schroeppel, and
his arrest by Amos, go in corroboration of the same opinion. His statements
about the liver, and confessions generally, are evidence of unsoundness, be-
cause it is not probable at all that Van Nest said any such thing to him.
I think he has no just conception of the enormity of his crime, nor any
just moral feeling on the subject ; nor is his indifference to this trial the in-
difference of a sane mind. His personal appearance, deportment and smile
are those of a person partially demented, and who is approaching dementia.
He has some memory, but very little knowledge or understanding. lie is
not totally, but is partially demented, and is laboring under a delusion. I
think he became insane in the State Prison, and was insane at the time of
the homicide. He undoubtedly acted under an irresistible influence, or de-
lusion, when he committed the offence, for which he ought not to be held re-
sponsible.
Cuoss Examination. — ^I was sworn on the preliminary trial of this pri-
soner. I don't know as I was less confident of his insanity then than I am
now. I then formed that opinion, and I am yet confident tliat it was cor-
rect I have discovered no change. The external evidences of his insanity
are found in his general manners, the expression of his countenance, and the
idiotic smile. I would look at his eyes also, as they make up the general ex-
pression of a crazy man. The movement of this man's eye is unnatural. It
moves rapidly, and generally upward, but sometimes downward. There is
not much intelligence expressed by his eye ; it rather denotes insanity. The
moving of his eye alone, would not be evidence of liis insanity, unaccompa-
nied by other circumstances ; all must be taken together. His head does not
denote intelligence or moral qualities. His head, in the region of the brain,
is smaller than that of persons of his age who are healthy. His whole head
is smaller than a healthy man of his age. It is smaller than Doctor Brig-
ham's or the attorney general's. His body inclines forward and sometimes
sidewise. His general attitude is unnatural ; his arms are rather elevated.
310 THE TRIAL OF '
I don't think his leaning forward is because he is trying to hear, because ho
does so when there is nothing to hear. His position is peculiar to demented
patients. In the strict sense of the term I should not consider insanity con-
tagions, yet at times it is epidemic. It sometimes appears epidemic on the
coming on of warm weather. There is such a term used as cleptomania, and
I think it may exist with htm.
Before going to prison there might hare been some aberration in him.
Stealing hens might have been whilst laboring under a slight aberration, yet
I should not think so. This prisoner's case is one that could not be des-
cribed by any one term mentioned in the books. I have read of similar
ones, but cannot find one exactly like it I do not think as weH of the
classification of insanity by Hale and Blackstone, as I do of that of Dr. Brig-
ham. The prisoner's delusion is an irresistible impulse. The difference
between this delusion and obstinacy, is, that some part of the understanding
is deranged in this, but not in obstinacy. This prisoner does not know
what craziness is. He does not know that he is crazy. No logic would
convince me that he is sane. I did not infer from Winner's testimony, that
the prisoner had been drinking. If he had killed Van Nest only, I said I
should not have thought him insane, yet I don't know that he had any other
motive to kill the rest than he had him.
The capacity of our ordinary physicians to judge of insanity, depends
upon their experience and their learning ; the practice is to send the insane
patients to the Asylum. If physicians have no opportunity to treat cases
of insanity, their ability to judge is Gmited. I should think in a clear case
of insanity like this, an ordinary physician could judge and discover it A
man not a physician would not be able to, perhaps. He might form an
opinion, but it would not be as safe or satisfactory as the opinion of others.
Re-£xamination. — A verdict of a jury in this case, that the prisoner
was sufficiently sane to know right from wrong, I do not consider a verdict
of sanity. It falls far short of it
Dr. Charles B. Coventry, called and sworn, testified : I reside In
the city of Utica, and am Professor in Geneva Medical College. I have
seen the prisoner and have heard the testimony respecting him. I was
sworn on the preliminary trial. My opinion then was, and still is, that tlie
prisoner is insane, and has been for a considerable period of time. His
whole appearance and manner indicate it His acts as detailed by wit-
nesses indicate it The testimony in the case all taken together, convinces
me beyond a doubt As to the causes of his insanity, I find that the exis-
tence of it in his family was one probable cause, the neglect of all moral
culture another, and his confinement in the State Prison another. Since
his release from the State Prison it appears that he has been laboring under
a delusion that he was entided to pay. His open and undisguised prepara-
tion of the instruments, without any attempt at concealment, is not coosis-
t ent with a rational mind. The act, being without any assignable motive, is
(
WILIJAM TRUMAN. 811
also inconsistent, for I cannot conceive it possible that a sane man should
go forth and commit such a butchery without any reason whatever. If
he were sane, he must have known that the probable result would be his
arrest and punishment His belief that he can read when he cannot, is
another evidence of delusion. His indiference when on a trial for his Ufe,
is another reason for believing him insane.
I think the prisoner's case is one of partial mania with dementia. De-
mentia, as the term is used, exists where those faculties that once existed
had become impaired. In perfect dementia there is a perfect loss of all the
powers of the mind. Dementia may come suddenly, but generally comes
gradually. It is a common termination of mania. If the mania is partial
the dementia is partial, and depending upon which of the faculties that have
been injured. At the time of the murder, I believe the prisoner's disease
was more of a mania than dementia, and that he had perhaps more intel-
ligence than now, yet I don't believe, in reference to the act he committed,
that he knew the difference between right and wrong. I think from his
appearance that he is insane now. I examined him in the jail, but can state
but little 'that has not been stated by other witnesses. As to his flight from
the place of homicide, I suppose it was not contemplated until he found
himself disabled. From the facts in the case so far as I have heard them,
I am not able to say that the delusion was upon him until he came out of
prison, yet it might have existed before. I did not hear the testimony of
Green. I cannot say I have doubt of his insanity then or at this time.
[Last sentence ruled out]
I never knew an insane person, unless he was totally deprived of intellect,
who could not distinguish between right and wrong. Insanity may exist
where the patient can distinguish between right and wrong. This is illus-
trated by a man who killed his child and the child of his wife, and said it
was because God had commanded him. He could distinguish between right
and wrong in other things. Where insanity if feigned, ordinarily, the an-
swers are irrelevant and wandering, and oftentimes evasive. I have made
insanity a subject of particular attention and study. At my second inter-
view with the prisoner, I became fully satisfied that he was insane on the
twelfth of March.
Q. Do you consider an ordinary man capable of judging of insanity ?
A. I think he would not be able so well to judge, for the same reason that
a man who had not studied law could not as well judge of legal questions as
one who. had.
Q. What is insanity ?
A. It is very ditHcult to give a full definition of insanity in one word ; it
is a symptom of disease of the brain.
Q. Is a man who is not sane, insane ?
A. Yes ; but that would not be a good definition. It is true that every
312 THX TBUL or
insane man is not sane, yet insane men differ. Insanity 10 to be defined oth-
erwise than by a categorical answer to a question. *
Q. Do you agree with Doctor Brigham in relation to this case ?
A. In general I do.
Q. Do you define dementia as be does ?
A. Substantially.
Q. Do you think the prisoner has cleptomania ?
A. I think he has almost a total abolition of moral faculties, yet his is not
strictly a case of moral insanity, because his intellect is impaired, and his
moral faculties entirely gone.
Q* Do you think you can form as good an opinion as to what took place
before the justice in respect to the insanity of the prisoner, as he could?
A. I think I can.
Q. What do you say about his delusion ?
A. That he was under a delusion that he was entitled to pay and could
obtain it by murder.
Q. Are you aware that a large number of convicts have the same notion ?
A. I never heard of it before this trial commenced, and now I do not be-
lieve that it is a general delusion that prisoners believe themselves entitled
to pay, and that they can get it by murder.
Q. K it can be shown to be general, would it change your opinion respect-
ing the delusion ?
A. It would not make any difference in my opinion as to this case, and 1
would believe that insanity existed in other cases if they believed what Una
man did,, precisely.
Q. How do you distinguish between a mistake and a delusion ?
A. In some cases it would be difficult to draw the distinction, but where
the person imagines impossible things, which he knew did not exist, it would
be regarded as a delusion.
Q- K a man think he is entitled to pay, but cannot get it because he is
not entitled to it, and seek redress, will that be evidence that he is insane ?
A. If a man should think himself entitled to pay, and falling to get re-
dress, should kill the first man he meets, it would be some evidence of insanity.
Q. Would killing in such a case be murder ?
A. I think it would not
Q. Suppose the law made it murder ?
A. It would not be murder in fact
Q. Does delusion always show a loss of memory ?
A. No sir ; if you should imagine yourself governor, it would not show
any impairment of memory. As, for instance, the man who signed himself
Jesus Christ, in France.
Q. Now can you imagine a case of insane delusion without a loss of me-
mory?
WIUOAH 7BXBMAN. 813
A. YeB ; and H^ case mentioned is an instance.
Q. Doi you not believe that the prisoner thought he was doing wrong
when he killed Van Nest ?
A. He said he did not think any thing about it, and such is my belief.
Q. Did you say that the fact that there was no conceahnent of his knives
indicated insanity ?
A. I think I did so state.
Q. If he had shown sectecy would that have indicated sanity ?
A. So far as it went it would indicate sanity rather than insanity.
Q. Now, how was the fact in this case, as you understand it ?
A. That he openly fitted his knife into a club, in a public shop.
Q. Suppose he turned his back and concealed the fitting ?
A. I cannot believe that any sane man would thus openly make his pre-
parations for a homicide, yet insane men do sometimes conceal.
Q. Can you conceive that a person should commit murder fx^om revenge ?
A. I can.
Q. Is not revenge a sufficient motive ?
A. It may induce the act, but it is a reason that would not be adequate
to a man of sound moral sense.
Q. Why did he not, in your opinion, finish his work after he had begun ?
A« My view of the matter is that he desisted because his arm was wounded.
So far as he had any intention, that was it. There was no reason for his go-
ing to a particular house more than to any other.
Q. Was not his flight evidence of sanity rather than insanity^
A. I think it was no evidence that he was sane.
Q. Don't you find any evidence in this case to contradict the idea of in-
sanity ?
A. I do not
Q. As to his apparent indifference, are you not aware that he is very deaf?
A. I am ; but that does pot account for his insensibility. I never saw a
sane deaf man who wouldn't try to hear when he was on trial for his life.
Q. Have you not seen men who were indiCerent about living ?
A. I have seen people when dying who manifested no interest in refer-
ence to death. But in those cases the mind had already become impaired.
I have never known a sound mind that did not manifest some sensibility as
to the result.
Q. Doctor, have you prescribed for the insane ?
A. I have.
Db. Thomas Hux, called and sworn, testified : I am a physician, and rer
side at Albany. I was licensed sixteen years ago, and have practiced since,
with the exception of six years, which I spent in Europe. I am now one of
the Professors in the Albany Medical College. I have seen the prisoner.^ I
saw him on Wednesday morning, the fifteenth instant, for the first time, in
his cell. I also called there the next morning with Doctors McNaughton and
814 TH> TRIAL Of
Brigbam, but was, by tbe Sheriff, refused admittance. #1 have seen liiiii
since in court Have not heard all the testimony. •
Mr. Van Buren asked Mr. Seward what he proposed to prove by this wit^
ness.
Mr. Seward observed that he proposed to prove by this witness, that in
his opinion, the prisoner is, and was insane at the time of the commistton of
the crime.
Mr. Van Burex said he objected to the proof, on the ground that the ver-
dict on the preliminary issue, rendered on the sixth day of July, instant, was
and is conclusive that the prisoner was sane on that day ; and that the same
cannot be contradicted by evidence. (Cites Cowan and Hill's Notes, part
L, 762; 7 Wend., 78.)
Mr. Seward stated that he proposed to prove by Dr. Hun, that from
conversadons with the prisoner since the fifteenth day of July, and from his
personal appearance, and from what testimony he has heard, he believes the
prisoner now insane, and that he was at the time of committing the act, for
wliich he stands indicted.
The Court — The witness may give his opinion as to the sanity or insanity
of the prisoner, upon facts within his knowledge, before the sixth of July,
instant, or from the personal appearance of the prisoner ; but not from any
conversations with him since the sixth of July, nor from the testimony in the
cause.
Decision excepted to.
Witness continued : If I exclude what I have learned of the prisoner once
the sixth day of July, I cannot give a positive opinion respecting him. From
his appearance here in court, I would suspect him to be insane. I could not
form any opinion as to whether he was sane or insane on the twelflh day of
March. His appearance as he sits here in court, and the idiotic expression
of his countenance, indicate insanity. Insanity is a chronic disease of the
brain. It is a derangement of the mental faculties, depending on a.phyacal
disease of the brain. If on the twelfth day of March he appeared as he does
now, I would suspect him of being insane then. Insanity generally comes
on slowly, but in some cases suddenly. The prisoner's insanity may have
come on since, but it is more probable that he may have been insane then.
Q. Did you make a personal examination of the prisoner at the bar since
your arrival here, with reference to the state of his mind ?
Objected to, objection sustained, and exception.
Q. Is it your opinion, founded on your personal examination of the pri-
soner since the sixth day of July, instant, that he was insane on the twelfUi
day of March last ?
Objected to ; objection sustained, and exception.
Q. Is it your opinion, founded upon your personal examination of the
prisoner since the sixth day of July, instant, that he is now insane ?
Objected to, and objection sustained.
WILLIAM FREEMAN. 815
Mr. Seward then submitted the following objections to the decisions of
the court :
1. That the verdict on the preliminary issue has not yet been given in
evidence on the trial of this issue.
2. That if given in evidence, it is not conclusive in this cause, on the
present issue.
8. That it is not a verdict on this issue.
4. That there has been no record filed, or judgment rendered or entered
on that verdict
5. That the verdict rendered on the preliminary issue is no more conclu-
sive than a venliot on the present indictment would be on a subsequent trial
of an indictment for the murder of any other person by the prisoner at the
same time.
6. That at most, the verdict is Only a judgment in pais ; that it may be
contradicted and explained.
7. That at most, it should only go to the jury as evidence with the other
facts in the case ; and that the jury have a right to find a different verdict,
and are bound by the verdict on the preliminary issue only so far as they
may think they ought to be, when taken in connection with the other evi-
dence in the cause.
The court re-affirmed its decision. Excepted to.
Q. Suppose a young man to have been brought up in this community
until he arrived at the age of twenty-three years, and who had learned his
letters in the Sunday school, should you believe he would think he could read
when he could not ?
Objected to, and objection overruled.
A. I should think him insane.
Q. If when he tried it were found that he could not, and he should be
told that he could not, yet persisted in saying that he could, what then ?
A. It would be additional evidence of the same character.
Q. Suppose him unable to count above twenty-eight, and yet going through
a process of numbers, thinking he could count ?
A. That also would lead me to think he was insane.
Q. Suppose he were unable to multiply two by three, but should answer
that the product was sixty-four ?
A. The same.
Q. Suppose the prisoner to have been sent to prison at the age of six-
teen— to have served his time — to have gone to a justice of the peace for a
process to get his pay of them who sent him there — on being told there was
no remedy, to have procured, prepared, sharpened knives in open day ; to
have made indiscriminate slaughter of those against whom he had no cause
of complaint, for the sake of his getting his pay ?
A. If I believed he did it for that reason, I should conclude he was insane.
It would be an insane act.
816 THIE TBUL Of
Q. Believing that he did it for that reason, and under those circnm-
stances, should you think he knew the right from the wrong of that act ?
A. K he did it for that reason, I should not
Q. Suppose he entertained that belief, and acted on that ground, would
there in his case be an insane delusion ?
A. Certainly. If a prisoner came out of State Prison who was innocent
of the ofience for which he had been imprisoned, and should think himself
entitled to pay, and after being told that he was not, he should persist in
that belief, and act upon it, it would be an insane delusion.
Q. Suppose that he, for that reason, should slay one man, two women and
one child who had no connection whatever with his imprisonment ?
A. That would be strong evidence of the existence of an insane delusion.
Q. K when conversed with about the transaction, he should say that he
would have gone on and killed others, if he had not killed this family, and
only desisted because wounded ?
A. It would be the expression of an insane man.
Q. If, when asked why he escaped, he should say he wanted to get out of
the county, and when his hand got well to return and do more work ?
A. A part of that would be a sane answer ; but that part relating to his
coming back and continuing his work, would show an insane mind.
Q. Suppose a person to have been in childhood, smart, playful and active,
and to have had good learning ; to have been sent to prison five years and
to have come out dull, stupid and idiotic ; to say nothing except when spoken
to, and then only generally ; what would that indicate ?
A. It would indicate great imbecility of mind, but I don't know that it
would denote insanity.
Q. Would it lead you to suspect that he was insane ?
A. It might be simple stupidity, in consequence of his treatment in prison.
Q. Suppose he should say that he hxid seen Jesus Christ at the Sunday
school ?
A. If he spoke sincerely, I should think it indicated insanity.
Q. Suppose such a person, after having killed four persons, should say
sincerely that he thought it was right ?
A. That would indicate insanity.
Q. Suppose a prisoner on trial for the crime of killing four persons,
should, when asked what they were trying him for, sincerely answer, " a
horse,'* for which he had been sent to prison five years ?
A. The answer would indicate insanity.
Q. Suppose a prisoner after being in prison five years for stealing a horse,
should sincerely say, on coming out, that he had broken the knife that he
used in eating, and he should sincerely ask whether they could send him to
prison four years more for that, what would that indicate ?
A. It would indicate either insanity or great imbecility.
Q- Suppose a prisoner charged with four murders, to be eight days ia
WILLIAM 7R£EMAN. S17
court where lie waa defended daring that time by three counsel on a plea of
insanity, and at the conclusion of his trial, on being asked if he had any
counsel, should say that he didn't know ?
A. No sane man would be likely to make such an answer.
Q. Suppose a person on trial for his life should answer the physician who
visited him in jful, all the questions put to him involving the whole histor}'
of the murder and tending to his own conviction, " yes," and " no,** what would
that indicate ?
A. I think a sane man who was feigning insanity might admit the crime,
but whether a very ignorant man would, or not, it is impossible to tell.
Q. Suppose he were so unlearned as not to be able to count beyond
twenty-eight — nor to know whether he could read ?
A. I must answer as before.
Q. ^ Suppose he were severely wounded on his wrist, and chained with a
heavy chain, without making any complaint ?
A. An insane person makes less complaint of pain than a sane one, but
a sane person might have submitted to that without complaint
Q. How far may persons retain memory in a case of partial dementia ?
A. They may retain it enough to remember the principal events of their
lives.
Cross Examination. — Q. What are the symptoms which you discover
in this man, denoting insanity ?
A. His listless manner, his inattention to what is going on around him, and
the idiotic smile upon his face.
Q. How is the general expression of his face ?
A. It is idiotic.
Q. How is his eye ?
A. It has an idiotic expression.
Q. Describe that idiotic expression ?
A. I cannot describe it more than I can the eye of a person that is angry,
and yet every person can see symptoms of anger in the eye.
Q. Then you consider that the prisoner's eye indicates idiocy?
A. I do not discover it in the eye, more than in any other feature. His
eye, however, is dull.
Q. Do you think his eye is dim?
A. I do not use that word. It lacks lustre.
Q. Any thing else ?
A. Nothing that I can describe.
Q. What are the symptoms of dementia ?
A. When dementia is complete, there is a total abolition of the mental
and moral faculties.
Q. In complete dementia, is memory entirely gone ?
A. Almost entire forgetfulness would denote dementia. *
818 HUB iKiAb or
Q. When tlie disease is so far advanced that you call it dementia, is for-
getfulness of recent even'ts, one symptom ?
A. It is a very common symptom in all its stages.
Q. Do you remember a case where there was not some forgetfulness ?
A. I have never observed these cases with sufficient care to answer
advbedly.
Q. Did you ever see a case of dementia where you did not discover a
lack of attention ?
A. I recollect of none.
Q. Is dementia most common to old or young people ?
A. It b most common to old, but many occur in the young.
Q. Where it is perfect do you have to feed the padent ? ,
A. In some extreme cases there would be loss of appetite.
Q. If this man cats well and regularly, would you not infer thai he had
not that symptom ?
A. Certainly. I speak of that as one of the symptoms that indicate the
last stages of dementia, and probably occurs in but few cases.
Q. Did you ever know a case of delusion where the padent had not lost
the power of comparison ?
A If he fancies a man to be a horse, and understands that a horse is
lai^er than a mouse, he would then have comparison.
Q. But would he compare that horse with a man, or that man with any
other man, so as to see that a man wasn't a horse ?
A. He might know that a horse was less dangerous than a lion, and
might not think every other man a horse.
Q. Is the idea that a man is entitled to pay after being in prison, an
insane delusion ?
A Any man might have that supposidon arising from ignorance. It
might, however, be such an idea as to amount to a delusion^?
Q. But suppose every one should tell him that he was wrong, and yet
he should not be convinced, but should say he would have revenge, would
that be an insane delusion ?
A. I do not thiuk there is any insane delusion in revenge upon those who
had injured him.
Q. K ea man will shoot into a crowd, would you say that indicated in-
sanity?
A. I think that no sane man would shoot into a crowd. If he did, I
should say that he had a modve.
Q. J£ it appears in this case that the prisoner was in want of work, and
went to Van Nest's and asked for work, which was refused, and then passe<i
two men whom he might have killed, to kill the Van Nest family ; do you
not think the killing might be from sanity and revenge ?
A. If I were satisfied that he coounitted the act upon so slight a cause,
WILLIAM FUEMAN. 319
I should say lie was insane, for no s^ie man wpuld commit a murder so
atrocious for that reason only.
Q. Have not men called others to the field and killed them in duels for
a slighter motive ?
A. I do not think any dueUist would have killed his man, had the latter
been unarmed ; but that is a very different act from the one for which the
prisoner is on trial
Q. K it be shown that Van best's house was in a retired place — ^that he
was a wealthy man and had money to lend, might not his object have been
plunder ?
A. I have often heard of rich men being murdered. From the facts
comprehended in the question, I could draw no inference one way or the
other.
Q. If he ran away, would you not infer that he thought he had been
doing wrong ?
A. As a general proposition, I should say that when a man commits a
crime and runs away, the inference would be that he knew he had been
doing wrong.
Q. If he denied the stealing the horse which he had stolen for flight, but
claimed to own him, would that add to your suspicion ?
A. It would.
Q. If he knew he had been doing wrong, would you consider him sane as
to that act ?
A. So far as that goes it would indicate sanity, but he might in other
ways, at the same time, manifest insanity.
Q* Are design and concealment evidences of sanity, as far as they go ?
A. Such indications are common, both to the sane and the insane ; yet
they are most common to sane people, as all sane people plan their move-
ments more than the insane.
Dr. James McNauqhton, called and sworn, testified: I am a physi-
cian, and reside in the city of Albany. I am Professor of the Theory and
Practice of Medicine in the Albany Medical College, and Surgeon General
of the State of New York. I have practiced physic since 1817. I was
educated at Edinburgh.
Q. Have you examined the prisoner in reference to the state of his mind ?
Objected to, unless the examination was before the sixth of July, instant.
Objection sustained, and exception.
Q. What is your opinion as to the sanity or insanity of the prisoner ?
A. The Attorney General objected to the question, and insisted that the
examination should be restricted to a time antecedent to the sixth day of
July, instant ; and that the witness should not take into consideration any
thing he may have learned by or from the personal examination of the
prisoner, made by him, since that day.
Objection suiitaiued, and decision excepted to*
320 THX TRIAL Of
Witness says : I cannot, of coui;^e, form a Teiy positiTe opinion of tlie
mental condition of the prisoner, from seeing him here in court He ap-
pears to be stupid and foolish. I take him to be a person of very feeble
intellect His smile is idiotic— either natural or acquired. He may hare
always been as he is now ; yet if it appear that he had more intelligence
formerly, I should conclude that it was not natural idiocy. If I knew noth-
ing of him, I should from his appearance, alone, say that he was an imbecile.
He is either idiotic or partially demented. I could not say that he is not
feigning, but I don't think he feigns. If he looked as he does now on the
twelfth of March, I should have given the same opinion of him then that I
do now.
Cross Examination. — Q. Do you know that colored people are more
deficient in numbers than whites ?
A. I know that, as a general rule, they are not as well educated.
Q. Do you consider insanity contagious ?
A. Not as we use the term in medicine.
Q. Is it epidemic ?
A. It has been known to preTS|l extensively at some seasons.
Q. AVhat qualities would you expect this prisoner to manifest, dodlity
and mildness, or violence ?
A. The habitual expression of his countenance is rather pleasant; if let
alone and not provoked, I think he is rather harmless.
Q. Should you think him active or dull ?
A. His appearance would indicate dullness, at present
Q. If his appearance is the result of disease, and he looked on the twelfth
of March as he does now, would you expect him to act then as he does now ?
A. It would depend on the disease. If the disease affected his brain and
lessened its action, then I should expect decreased activity.
Q. Have you paid particular attention to surgery ?
A. I have, sir.
Q. Did you amputate the leg of an eminent lawyer in Albany, near the
thigh, and did he manifest any pun ?
A. He did not make much complaint'—no more than to show it a little in
his countenance.
Q. Docs inability to narrate indicate a want of coherence ?
A. If a person from inability could not narrate, it would indicate a want
of memory.
Q. Is the difficulty in finding the motive of actions any indication of
insanity ?
A. I do not suppose there is any insanity in the difficulty. If there were
no rational motive for an act, the act would of course be irrational.
Q. Are preparing, concealing, and grinding knives in the night, an indi-
cation of design ?
A. So far as the circumstances may be considered by themselrea, they
may be evidence of design.
WILLIAU FBXnfAN. 821
Q. Is subsequent fligbt and denial of property stolen, and lying as to the
ownerehip, evidence of sanity?
A. Taken by itself I should so consider it
Q. AVhich would be the safest way to discover the insany of this man, to
take his acts and declarations before the murder, or his declarations after ha
was arrested and in jail, after a plea of insanity had been put in ?
A. His actions previously, I should suppose, would have the most influ-
ence ; yet his actions ought all to be taken together.
Q. So far as any change in the man is concerned, who woMd be the best
judges, those who had the management of him In prison, or those who are
called in to see him now ?
Objection. Objection overruled and exception.
A. That would depend upon what attention was pmd to his appearance.
Q. Suppose the persons seeing him in jail had not seen him for several
years before ?
A. They would be likely to notice the changed sooner than those who ssw
him every day.
Q. If it should be proved that the prisoner was ignorant, depraved and
criminal before going to prison, would you think that his homicide did not
result from depravity ?
A. Depravity may have induced him to commit the crime. I don't con-
ceive that the crime itself, unaccompanied with any other oircumstance, is
any evidence of insanity.
Q. If it should appear that he went to the retired house of a wealthy fa-
mily, and murdered them, and ceased only when his hand was cnt, would
that indicate insanity? ^
A. I must ainswer as before.
Q. If this prisoner had the same general expression of countenance when
he was admitted to be sane, that he has now, woold it not be fiur to Met
that he Is now sane ?
A.' No, sir.
Q. Does he not now look as if he were sane ?
A. If I were to judge from his looks alone, I should say that he never
was particularly sane. Nature has written that pretty clearly on his coaik-
tcnance.
The prisoner's counsel here announced that the testimony for the defence
had closed, but desired that the jury might have an opportunity of making a
personal examination of the prisoner.
Objected, and objection sustained.
The prisoner's counsel then rested the defence.
Nathaniel Lynch was then called and sworn on behalf of the people.
He testified as follows : I know the prisoner. He lived with me Eome six-
teen years ago, and abH> a few days last winter. When he was young he waa
a lively, playful boy. We couldn't keep him ; he would run away every
21
3222 THS IKIAL OT
day. His motlicr brought him to our house. I didn't know much of her.
She was a drinking woman, and we concluded we couldn't keep the boy.
She is part Indian, as is said. I don't remember in particular how he car-
ried his head ; I know he was almost always smiling, and laughing, and ap-
peared to be a lively, laughing, playful boy. I have noticed, during this
trial, the peculiar turning up of hw eye. I do not remember that particu-
larly when he was young. After a little time he grew out of my know-
ledge, and I didn't know about him until last winter. I then found him on
the side walk) in Auburn, and employed bim to go with mc ubout three
miles after some cattle. I went up to him, found him deaf, asked if he waa
engaged, and if he would go and help me drive the cattle. He said, " I can."
He got a colored boy to take care of his saw-buck. We rode some distance
before I said any thing to him. He'd grown out of my knowledge, and Fd
forgotten him. Said I, " You havn't lived long in Auburn, have yoa." He
said he*d always lived here. I asked his name, and he said it was Freeman.
I asked if he was brother to Luke. He said Luke was his uncle. He then
said, " I've lived with you." I took him with me to see me pay over the
money for the cattle. We then drove them home ; he drove them and I
rode in the cutter. When he got back I handed him three shillings, and
asked him if he was satisfied, and he said he was. The nex^ day he eawed
wood for me. At night he asked me if I wanted him the next day. TLe
next day he got there before daylight He said he^thought It was about day
when he started. I oflfered to pay him fifty cents a day, and handed him the
money. He asked five shillings per day, and said he could get it elsewhere.
I told him I only gave four shillings a day. He appeared to be quite pat
out. He contended for five, but took the four shillings a day, and went
away. After that I saw him several times in the village. Once he asked
for work, but I had none for him. In January, he came up and asked if mj
cattle hadn't got away, and said he saw some in Clarksville that looked like
mine. I told him mine were at home, and he turned and went away. I saw
him three weeks before the murder. I next saw him in jail after the mur-
der, but before this court I then asked him if he knew me. He said, " Mr.
Lynch." I asked about the time he lived with me. He said, " I was quite
a small boy." I asked if he got whipped. He said, " I did some," and de-
scribed a whipping Mrs. Lynch gave him — how he ran away, and how he
got on to the fence — then ran away until his mother brought him back. He
then said that he asked Mrs. Lynch for his clothes, and that she Bald she
would give him a whipping in lieu of hb clothes. I asked him him whether
I ever whipped him. He said, " You did once or twice, a little," I recol-
lect of whipping him. I asked him where he went to from my house. He
fiaid he went to Captain Warden's. I asked where he went to from there.
He said he went to live with a colored family in New Guinea. He said one
day a man overtook him and asked if he wouldn't live with him. He said
he told him he would, and went He said he next hired out to Mr. Curtis.
WILLIAM FREEMAK. 323
I then conyersed with him about the murder of Van Nest I asked him
at what time he went up there. He said, ** Just at dark — edge of eycning."
I asked if he went right to the house. He said, " I went by the house.** I
asked if he met any person. He said he did. I asked where he was. He
said, " By side of the road." I asked why he didn't go right in. I think
his reply was, *• It was a little too early." Then I asked who he killed first
He said, "The man." Didn*t you kill the woman first He said No. I
asked where the woman was. He said he saw her coming, through the win-
dow. I asked if he did not come up behind her. He said he met her and
stabbed her. Then he came in and stabbed the child. I asked who next
He said he met a man at the head of the stairs, and stabbed him here, (put-
ting his hand to Icfl breast) I asked what the man did. He said the man
catched the candlestick and hit him on the right side, and that he slipped,
when the man hit him again, so that he slipped down the stairs. He said,
" I thought rd stab him again." I asked why he didn't He said, " The
man got the broom and kept striking me, and I thought I'd go out" I asked
when he struck the old lady. He said at the gate. I think he said he broke
his knife in the halL I asked with what knife he stabbed the old lady. He
said, ^* In cane." I asked where he carried his knife. He said, *'In here,"
pointing to his breast under his coat He said the old lady cut his wrist bad.
I asked how he came to kill the child. He said, " Was afraid it would make
a noise." I asked how he felt about killing the family. He replied, " It
looked hard." I asked what made him get such a poor horse. He said, " I
was in a hurry, and didn't mind much about the horse." I asked why he
didn't come to my house and see me. He said that he had got his wrist cut
and knife broke, and he thought he'd go off till his wrist got well, and then
come back and do some more work. I said to him, " We are good friends,
unt we Bill ?" He said Yes. In all these interviews I didn't think of such
a thing as insanity. He helped me kill hogs, and helped me carry meat, and
did errands. Aside from his deafness, I never discovered any want of ap-
prehension in him. He moved so quick that I thought of hiring him. When
I saw him in jail I discovered no change in him. He is in the habit of smi-
ling, and was last winter. He then stooped as he does now. When I asked
him why he killed that innocent family, he said, " I've been in State Prison
five years, and they wouldn't pay me."
Cross Examination. — I never communicated these facts to any person.
I was not requested to go into the jail by the counsel for the people. At
the time he told me about the cattle, he said he lived in Clarksville. When
the prisoner lived with me I was a member of the First Presbyterian church.
I don't remember of taking him to church. He received instruction in the
house about what I wanted of him. Cannot s^ whether I gave him any
religious or moral instruction. I used to talk with him. Finding his mother
intemperate, I concluded not to keep them. I talked to her about the Savior,
but could not now tell the particulars. I am not a member of that church
824 , THE TBIAL OV
now. I am not under obligation to tell how I ceased to be a member of it
I was charged with having had unlawful intercourse with one Catharine
Ramsay. That ofience was never proved against me in a legal way.
Alvah Fuller, called and sworn, testified : I was sheriff's assistant
when prisoner was brought to the jail. I went for Dr. Fosgate to dress his
wounded wrist ; he said it hurt him. I asked if it pained him. He said it
did some. When the Doctor came he asked the same question, but got no
reply. I saw him in court during the trial of Henry Wyatt. While in jail
I asked him if he had enough to eat He said Yes. He asked me for to-
bacco, and I gave it to him. He told that Dr. Fosgate said he ought to have
a leather on his shackles — that the doctors said they might create inflamma-
tion, and his leg would have to be taken off, and it would kill him. I said
to him, " Bill, you aiu*t afraid to die ?" He said, " No ; but I want to live a
little longer." He eat well. I never discovered any evidence of insanity
about him. I spoke to him in the court house during the Wyatt trial.
-Cros3 Examination. — He was on the second bench from the end when
I spoke to him. I carried his victuals to him in the jail. I know nothing
about his sleeping. I asked if he could read. He said Yes. A testament
was lefl for him in the hall.
Aaron Demun, called and sworn, tesUfied : I am uncle to the prisoner
by marriage. The prisoner is twenty-one or twenty-two years old. He has
made it his home with me a good deal before he went to the prison. He*d
ran away, and then come back. He was a rather wild boy — wouldn't re-
main long in a place. I did not see him in. prison, but saw him when he
came out He came along to me and said, " Uncle Aaron, how d'ye do ?"
I asked how he did. He said, " Pretty hearty." He'didn't seem deaf. The
next time, I saw him down at DeFuy's. He there sat still, and didn't say any
thing. That was in the winter. I saw him in the street after that I once
aaked him where he boarded. He said at Mary Ann Newark's — ^but that
he didn't exactly board. " I bring my provisions, and she cooks for me." I
asked if he slept with her. He said, " No ; she's a christian, and don't do
no such thing." He told me he was then going of an errand. He was ca^
rying a basket for her.
The same day he committed the murder, he asked for tallow to grease his
boots. J said he could take some tallow to grease his boots. He told me be
was going to hire out by the month with some farmer. I told him that was the
best way for him to do. He said to me, " Uncle Aaron, you've a good place
here. Are you to work here steady ?" I said Yes. I told him that if he didn't
get more than seven or eight dollars a month, to take it He talked as rar
tional with me the day of the murder, as he ever did. He always nAD
THAT SMILE, AND THAt DOWN LOOK. I kncw his grandfather. He had
that same smile. I see no change in William, only that he has grown laiger
and older, and is deaf.
Cross Examination. — His father had the same smile on his countenance.
WILLIAM FRSEICJlN. 325
His mother did not His father has been dead ten or twelve years or more.
His grandfather died two or three months ago. The prisoner used to like
to play just like the rest of them. He was wilder than the rest of them. He
lived with me when he was eight or nine years old, and I had no depend-
ence on him ; he would run away. When I spoke to him, he was across the
street I have no doubt he heard me. That was the day he came out of
prison. I have been sworn before. People have talked to me, but it never
changed my mind. William was too lively for me when I had him. He
didn't need any whipping, except for running away. Afler the greasing of
his boots, I didn't sec him until I saw him here in court
David Mills, called and sworn, testified : I knew the prisoner when
he was in the State Prison. His conduct was very good whilst I knew him.
I didn't know of his being punished. He was very faithful at his work. I
didn't discover any thing about him indicating insanity. I have noticed his
appearance in court here. That was always the same. There was always
a smile on his countenance. Would smile when there was no occasion for
it I knew his grandfather, and thought a good deal of him. I think his
smile resembled the prisoner's. I don't think he had as much of a down
look as William has. Since he came out of the prison, I met him one day,
and he went home with me to move a pile of manure. He did it, and banked
up my cellar. I requested him to saw some wood. He took the saw, and
said it was dull. I gave him a shilling, and told him to get it filed. Ho did
80. I asked him afterwards if it went any better. He said Yes. When he
got through I asked him how much I should pay him. He said he didn't
know — whatever I thought best He said he wanted a pair of fine shoes. I
told him I would go down to the shoe store with him. I went with him to
my son's store, who handed down some shoes, but he didn't like them, but
pointed to others, which ho tried on and they suited him. I paid for them,
and told William that he would be in my debt, and must come and wash off
my buggy, and he did it He looked a little pale, but I never saw any thing
in him that induced me to think he was not sane.
Cross Examination. — ^I had nothing to do with punishing prisoners. I
talked with him in the prison. He complained of ear ache, and I once sent
him to the hospital, and he got something to help it His deafness varied.
Dr. Jedediah Darrow, called and sworn, testified : I am a physician
and surgeon. I have examined the prisoner in the jail. I coiicluded that
his memory was good. I talked with him consideraHy. I discovered
nothing that indicated that there was insanity about him. My opinion was
that he was sane at the time I saw him.
Cross Examination. — ^I have not read any thing upon the subject of
insanity for a great many years. My opportunities for observing insanity
have been very limited. I had a patient under my charge once who was
insane, and who was sent to Utica. I could not say what form of insanity
the patient had. I do not give a professional, but only a common sense
326 TnS TRIAL OF
opinion of this prisoner. I supposed there was a qaestion about his sanity,
ax^ so I went in. I asked him nothing about the tragedy. The questions
I put to him he answered well.
Israel G. Wood, called and sworn, testified: I know the prisoner
and knew his father and grandfather. He worked for me before he went
to prison. He was a good boy to work, and would do about as I told him to
do. I have a distinct recollection of his appearance then ; and I cannot see
any difference in him now. He never held up his head, but looked from
under his brows. He stooped, and never was much of a talker. I never
knew of his asking any questions. As to his smile, he would always smile
when he was asked questions. His grandfather was always smiling, but he
held up his head. The old man would smile like him. I was jailer when
the prisoner was arrested for stealing the horse. He broke jail and got out,
and let another prisoner out He made his escape ; the other prisoner did
not. He broke the lock with the handle to a shovel. I took him at Lyons
and brought him back. When he was arrested he gave an account of the
whole matter, and which ^way he went Since his arrest for the murder, he
has told me the same story. I talked with him a good deal I never thought
he was crazy. I never have discovered any craziness. It is my opinion
that he is not crazy. I have no doubt on the subject
Cross Examination. — His grandfather would generally smile when he
was spoken to. I never heard his smile spoken of. The prisoner could
count money when he lived with me. He worked on the streets some and
sawed wood. I said nothing to him about the murder when he was in the
jail. I don't know much about insanity. When the prisoner was in jail
for stealing the horse, he used to say he was not guilty, but he was afraid
Jack Furman would swear him into the State Prison. I never myself dis-
covered a man to be crazy, without being told of it
Benjamin Van Keuren, called and sworn, testified : I was foreman
in the prison hame shop in 1840, and the prisoner was then there. He
worked at filing for plating. He was a middling kind of a workman, not
the best nor the poorest Sometimes he was pretty good, sometimes con-
trary and stubborn. There was nothing very peculiar about his conduct
as I saw. Sometimes he was saucy, and once I reported him for that
Once, when he had not done as much as he should have done, but was
playing " old soldier," by handing m^ the same work every day, I told him
I should report him. He got surly. Next morning I asked him bow he
got along, and he wanted-a new file. He said to me, " You must be a fool
to 8*pose a man can do as much with a dull file as with a sharp one.** I
told him I should report him. He said, " Report and be damn*d." I then
reported him to Captain Tyler, the keeper. He took him to the wing and
punished him, by showering. AAer that he would look up and grate his
teeth at me as I passed ; I did not, although I ought to have reported him
for that On the twelilh of June of that year he was turned away from
WILLIAM F&EXMAN. 327
that shop arid went to the silk shop, and then to the dye house. Tyler once
punished him with a whip. They had a rencontre, and Tyler struck him
with a piece of a board. The shop was a noisy one in consequence of the
forges and machinery. I don't think Tyler hurt the prisoner. I can't see
any difference in him between there and here. His position then was
about the same as now. I see no difference. I ncTcr thought he was crazy.
I don't think he is now. I have seen him since he came out of prison. He
smiled m prison. His smile is familiar to me. I always thought he saw
something that pleased him, which I couldn't see. I hare no idea he was
crazy.
Cross Examination. — He laughs now just as he used to in the prison.
I don't see any malice in him now. I saw him after he came out once, and
asked him how he did. I didn't notice whether he smiled or not I think
now that he looks intelligent, but I think he looks ashamed. That expres-
sion which you call a smile, I call a scowl. I was up at Van Nest's house,
and while there, I said he ought to be Lynched. I changed my opinion
soon afterwards. I don't know that his deafness increased. On the former
trial I «ud I did think it increased. The blow on the head was a middling
kind of a hard rap. I think it did not hurt the negro. I never had such a
blow on my head, but I think I could stand it I don't think a board three
fourths of an inch thick that should be broke over my head would hurt me.
I think Tyler struck as hard as he could, but I don't think such aboard ever
broke any body's skull. I have seen a nigger here in town break a two inch
plank, by butting his head against it
Daniel Andrus, called and sworn, testified : I knew this prisoner be-
fore he went to the State Prison. He worked for Cadwell a part of two
seasons. I never noticed any thing very peculiar about him. My recol-
lection is, that he was a boy of small mind, and rather bad temper. He
drove team once to plough my garden. He also drew some wood for me.
Cadwell had chaise of a stone quarry, and had considerable teaming to do.
After his time was out in the prison, he came to my olEce. I had acted as
his counsel on his trial. He came in and I spoke to him, and told him to
rit down. I soon after asked if he wanted any thing. He turned his ear
towards me, when I perceived indications of deafness. He replied, " No, I
came to sec you." I then conversed with him about his going to the State
Prison, and he answered my questions as readily, so far as I noticed, as he
did before he went to the prison. I enquired how he had fared in the
prison, and in reply he complained of the keepers. He siud they got a
pique against him and punished him when he did not deserve it After he
got through with telling me about his imprisonment, he asked me if I had
any wood to saw. I told him I had not He went away, and I have not
. talked with him since, until after he was arrested. During the Wyatt trial •
I saw him here in the court house. He seemed to be paying attention to
the trial as others were. Robert Freeman was also here in court I saw
328 TKB TRIAL OF
the prisoner once ift the jail, and went aioaad and spoke to bim througk
the grates. I asked how he was. He said, " Pretty- well" I asked how his
fare was. He said, *< Pretty good." I asked if he knew me. He said he
did. I asked what my name was. He said, *^ Esquire Andrus.** He looked
at me smilingly, and asked me if I would give him some tobacco. I gave
him some and asked him if it was good. He said, " Good enough." He u
some deaf, yet I have no doubt but that he can hear me when I speak now,
I was sitting near him during this trial one daj, and when about a foot
from him, I whispered, ** Bill do you want some tobacco," and he turned his
head toward me and nodded assent I gave him some. He carries his head
more on one side, I think, than he used to ; for then he was pretty erect I
don't recollect about his smile. He used to talk a good deal, and at umes
was full of nonsense. I can see no difference in him, only in his growth
and deafness. I think the expression of his eye now is as it used to be.
Cross Examination. — I talked with him at my office the same as I would
talk with other men. I did not talk upon politick or religion. I don't know
whether he could read or write. When he drore the team to plough my
gprden I held the plough. I presume he would not have done as he did if
I had not instructed him. I directed him how to plough. I recollect tiuU
Jack Furman was not sent to the State Prison when the prisoner waa. I
think Jack waa arrested, but turned State's evidence, and convicted the pri*
•oner. I may have seen the prisoner in the State Prison, but I did not re*
cognize him if I did. I did not recognize him at first when he came to my
office. He did make complaint against two of his keepers. He said they got
a pique at him and punished him a great many times when he wasn't goilty.
I think he said it was for pretended violations of the rules of the prison* I
cannot tell what portion of my testimony he has heard. I cannot designate
any word. I have not the least agency in the prosecution of the prisoner.
I was one of the triors appointed by tiie court, and was a witness on the pre-
liminary trial. The district attorney called upon me soon after this crime
was committed, and I told him what I knew of the prisoner. I don't know
as I told him the prisoner was not insane, yet I presume I have expressed
that opinion to others. I went to the jail, not to see the prisoner, but to see
a Mr. Wheaton, who was confined there. I don't know whether the priso-
ner knew that I was a lawyer before I went to the State prison, but I sup-
pose he did. I said on my former examination, that I thought the prisoner
was not insane. I do not suppose Freeman could hear any part of Wyatt*s
trial from where he stood. He might have heard some things t^at occurred,
but I do not think he could Have kept the run of what was said and done.
Walter G. Simpson, called and sworn, testified : I have known the pri-
soner ever since he was a small boy. I think I recollect his i4>pearance. It
' was downcast, and he carried his head forward. When looking at yon he
would look up with his eyes inste^id of turning his head. I have noticed his
appearance here in court I think his appearance is very much the same
WILIJAK YKEXMAN. 820
as when be lived at Cadwell's. He always had verj much the same appear-
ance that he has now. I recollect the smile, and I tliink it is now very
much as it was before. His father had a higher forehead than the prisoner^
and a darker complexion , but otherwise he looked a good deal as the prisio-
ner docs. His father was a smiling man and stooped some, and hb grand-
father had the same stoop and smile. I saw him in the jail and conversed
with him. He said he stabbed the man first, and the woman next, and the
old lady out at the gate. There were a good many there a talking with him.
I heard a good deal of talk with him, and talked considerable with him my-
self. From what I know of him and what I have seen, I think he is san«.
Iliave not seen any thing to make me think him insane.
Cross Examination. — Harry Freeman was not stupid. He was a plea-
sant man, and always smiled when he saw me. He was quite talkative. Ho
was always a favorite among white people. I saw the prisoner the evening
it was said he took the horse. His aunt was an intemperate woman. She
was said to be crazy, but I don't know whether she was or not, from my own
knowledge. She used to come to my house frequently.
Lewis Markham, called and sworn, testified : I have known the priso-
ner twenty years. His folks lived here with Col. Hardenburgh. He was a
smart boy ; was pretty active and quick. When sent on errands he gene-
rally went pretty smart -He was rather retiring, and hardly ever commen-
ced conversation unless spoken to, and then answered pretty quick, Yes or
No. His personal appearance was very much as now, only he has grown old-
er, and large. I have a very distinct recollection of the smile, which was
the same as I sec now. His stooping and turning up his eye were the same
then as now. I understood he was growing deaf, but I did not notice it
then. I was here when he was tried, and think I was one of the jurors. I
remember that his appearance then was very much as it is now. I cannot
perceive any dificrenoe. I recollect well how he looked as he sat in the cri-
minal's box. I saw him in the State Prison every day for a year, as I was
relief keeper. I did not notice any alteration while he was in the prison.
Have seen liim frequently since he came out. I have nodded to him as I
passed, and he would return the civility. Saw him at his meals, in his cell,
and in the chapel. I was on night duty, but never Iicard any complaint
about his not sleeping. His health appeared to be good. Over a year, I
Chink, his father drove a team for us. He was always smiling and cheerful,
and very similar to the prisoner. He most usually smiled before he an-
swered.
Cross Examination. — Harry Freeman was a very talkative man.
When he was sober he was a very sensible man. When he met me he al-
ways smiled the smile of recognition. His hearing I believe was good. I
don't know any thing about this boy's education. He was a sprightly, lively,
playful boy. He generally answered questions. I never remarked any lack
of oonvcrsational powers. I never discovered any defect in his mind. At
330 TUB TRIAL or
the time he lived with Cadwell he didn't mingle with other boys, but wm
busy driving team and about the Seminary. Before that he was playing
around with the other boys. If his mind be imbecile I have no knowledge
of that fact I always thought him a pretty shrewd boy, and that was my
opinion of him whilst he was in the State Prison. I know nothing of hit
mind since he came out of prison. I never spoke to him in the prison. I
observed nothing but what he was attentive and faithful. I was one of the
petit jurors before whom he was tried. I don't remember that he had any
counsel, or if he had, who it was. The trial didu*t last more than one day.
I don't recollect how long his trial lasted. It docs appear to me that some
one spoke in his behalf, but I won't be certain that he had any counsel. I
believe I have not spoken to him since he was in the box on trial. I think
he heard then. I don't recollect of noticing then or since iirhethcr he was
deaf. I^always supposed hb mind to be as it formerly was. I didn't notice
any change.
Stephen S. Austin, called and sworn, testified : I have known the pri-
soner six years. I saw him in jail when he was there under arrest for steal-
ing the horse. I was there as assistant awhile. He was then a troublesome,
quarrelsome fellow. His personal appearance and manner was very much '
as now. He carried his head forward, and moved his eyes instead of his
head. I think he was blacker then than he is now. He is heavier now than
he was then. I recollect that he fought with a boy in the jail, and flailed
him. I never had any conversation with him except to ask him something.
His answers were, Yes and No. I don't know that he was deaf. Since he
came out I have seen him about the streets, and spoke to him once. He
ask^ed if I had any wood to saw. I told him I hadn't. He asked if I would
have before long. I told him that Mr. Kelly sawed my wood. I have had
no other conversation with him. I never discovered any insanity in him nor
did I ever suspect any. It is my opinion that he is not insane. I have seen
insane persons, and have taken care of them. After the story got around
that the prisoner was crazy, I asked John De Puy one day if he thought him
crazy. He said, "No ; he is no more crazy than you or I, except when he
is drunk. Then he's an ugly little devil, and I was always afraid of him."
He then told about his having a knife at a ball, and that he, John, blamed
the negro for not telling him of it He said the prisoner had threatened to
kill him, and he blamed Hersey for not telling him of it
Cross Examination. — I now keep a livery stable in Auburn, and have
been a constable of the village. When the prisoner was in jail, I considered
him a mischievous, cunning kind of a darkey. This conversation with John
DePuy was near my stable. It was after I had heard that he was crazy,
and long before this court He may be crazy for what I know. It is a mere
matter of opinion that he is not I know that Daniel Smith came out of the
State Prison crazy. I did make some remarks after the Van Nest family
were killed by the prisoner. I recollect of saying that be was not worth the
WILLIAM FREEMAN. 331
powder and shot it would take to shoot him. They were talking about
hanging him, and stoning him to death, when I said the poor devil wasn't
worth the powder and shot to shoot him. I saw stones and missiles thrown
at him. When I got up to the house, I found but very few who were not for
killing him on the spot I made the remark in the presence of people who
were talking of Lynching him. I assisted on that occasion. I didn't think
it right to shoot him.
Abram a. Vajjderheydex, called and sworn, testified : I went after
the prisoner at the time of the murder, and assisted in bringing him back.
I have had process for him several times for petit larceny. The first warrant
I had for him was for breaking open a pedler's cart. I also arrested him
once on a charge of stealing hens. The first time, I found him at John De
Puy's, under a bed. I arrested him and brought him before a magistrate.
The fowls that I arrested him for taking belonged to Jonas Underwood.
That was before he was taken up for stealing the horse. lie got away from
me on the warrant for stealing hens. When I got the warrant for stealing
the horse, I found him on a canal boat, and brought him back. Before I got
to him, he told the steersman to lay up, as he wanted to go ashore. I told
the steersman I had two warrants for the prisoner. The prisoner said it was
a damned lie — that I had no warrant for him. I arrested him and brought
him back. I found a bottle in his pocket. He was discharged on examina-
tion for stealing the horse, for want of proof. Two or three weeks after, he
was again arrested. One Jack Furman had, meanwhile, been arrested on
the same charge, who had stated that the prisoner stole the horse. I recol-
lect the prboner's appearance at that time. He moved his eyes without
moving his head, and stooped some. He had a peculiar smile which I no-
ticed. I think it was about the same smile that I see now. I don't know
but there may be some difference. When I arrested him, his answers were
brief and short ; generally Yes or No. When I first saw him after the mur-
der, I asked him how his hand came hurt. He said, " Stabbing — stabbing."
I asked how he came to commit this crime, but he made no answer. I
asked him the second time, when he said, " I don't want you to say any thing
about it" I said to him that we were alone, and he might as well tell me
how he came to commit the act He replied, " You know there's no law for
me." I asked what he meant by that He said, " They ought to pay me."
I asked how he came to kill the little child. He said, " Didn't know as 'twas
a child." I then asked him how he left there. He said, " Went to bam
and took a horse." I asked how far he rode that horse. He said, " To the
•ettlement" I asked what then. He said, " The horse fell down with me,
and I left it" I asked which way he went then. He said, " Came right
down." I asked him which way he went He said, »* To where I got this
horse." I asked where he went then. He said, " To Syracuse." I asked
what time he arrived at Syracuse. He said, " 'Bout daylight" I saw him
in jail on the Monday following, and talked with him. I don*t think he was
THB TRIAL Of
insane. I never saw him when I thought he was. I have seen insane peo-
ple, but all I have seen look differently from what he does. They generally
have a wild look of the eye.
Cross Examination. — When I had the conversation with him he was
under arrest He has always denied stealing the horse. I never believed
that he liid, and I believe that is the general opinion. I swore on the last
trial that I had no idea that he ever stole the horse. I said on the prelim-
inary trial, that the prisoner now appeared different from what he did cm
the other trial, or when I arrested him before. It is my opinion now that
he is not as cheerful as he was before he went to prison. He was always
bragging about his running ; said he could run away from me. I have said
that 1 didn't think he was insane. I have said that there was no defence for
him. I gave it ^is my opinion that he was sane, as I never had any other
opinion. It is my opinion that this is not an honorable defence. I think it
is probable that I have said so.
Abetus a. Sabin, called and sworn, testified : I have known this pri-
soner fiflcen years. I saw him at Captain Warden's, and in the streets after
he left there. I always took him to be a down headed fellow. When spoken
to he would turn up his eyes. I next saw him in the State Prison, in the
hame shop. He had that smile there which he has now when spoken ta I
have seen him about the streets twice since he came out ; once he was saw-
ing wood. I assisted in getting him into jail, and talked with him some after
he was in his cell. I can't give his words, but the substance was that the
persons he had killed were the means of getting him into the State Prison.
I told him they were not. He made no reply. Mr. Ethan A. Warden was
there, and conversed with him. [See Warden's testimony for conversation.]
I think when a boy he was stiller than other boys. I think there b some
resemblance between his smile and that of his father's. I never considered
him insane. I have seen a good many insane people, and I never saw one
but what I could discover it in their appearance.
Cross Examination. — I don't know but all fathers and grandfathers
smile. The prisoner was no more nor less playful than other boys. I saw
him in prison before his striped dress was put on him. I then told him I
was sorry to see him come in so young. He wept I don't know that I had
any other conversation with him than that alluded to. When he said they
were the means of sending him to prison, he did not say what he was sent
to prison for.
Jefferson Wellington, called and sworn, testified : I knew Freeman
when he lived with Mr. Cadwell. He was a pretty ugly fellow. He took
away my umbrella, one time, and threw a flat iron at me, and threatened to
kill me. I lent him an umbrella to go down and see his friends, and he did
not bring jt back. I told him if he did not I should whip him. He did not,
and I whipped him. He then threw the iron and threatened to kill me>
He was sociable, about like other boys. I don't know as I ever saw any
WILLIAM VEKXMAN.
thing more ugly than he was contrary. He was much the same then as now
in his appearance.
Cross Examination. — ^He brought back the umbrella after I whipped
him. I used a horse whip upon him. He was angry, and so was I. I don't
know as I was ever afraid of him. He left Cadwell*s before I did.
JosiAH Sherwood, called and sworn, .testified : I hare known the pri-
soner since he was a small boy. He was a still boy, and spoke only when
spoken to. He was always crooked ; his head inclined forward. Never took
much notice respecting his smile. He looks like his father. Do not discover
any difference in him, except his deafness. Never discovered any insanity
about him; yet he might have been insane when he killed the people, and I
not know it. The most I can say, is, I never saw any insanity about him.
Cross Examination. — I am overseer of the poor, and have had several
cases of insanity under my charge. I think, from what has come under my
observation, that there is no difficulty in discovering insanity where it exists.
Cannot say but that it may be difficult to discover some cases of insanity.
Thomas F. Munroe, called and sworn, testified : I am police officer of
this village. Have known the prisoner since he was a boy. He was about
seven years old, and perhaps older. I knew him when he lived at Cadwell'a.
He was not as large as he is now. He was stout and springy, and ugly tem-
pered. Have seen him throw stones at other boys. I have a boy about his
age, at whom the prisoner once threw stones. I spoke to him about it once,
and picked up a stick and told him that if he didn't let the boys alone I
would lay it over his back. Was present when he was brought up for steal-
ing k horse. I then talked with him some, but he protested that he did not
steal the horse. He said another negro took him, but that he came to Au-
burn in company with him. I don't see any change in him, only that he is
a little more bent over, and a little more down cast than he was. I always
noticed the manner in which he turned up his eyes. Have seen him sawing
wood in the street, and he would look up at me, as I passed, in that way.
Have seen him smile a good many times, and cannot see any difierence be-
tween his smile now and as it was then. After the murders, I had a conver-
sation with John De Puy about this prisoner, in which De Puy said he was
not crazy. Never saw any insanity about the prisoner. Never suspected
it, nor heard that any body else did, until after the murders.
Cross Examination. — He was a boy when I first knew him. When
he lived at Cadwell's, I saw him frequently. He was quite quick and active ;
not much different from other black boys. He was ugly, and about the
ugliest boy I ever saw. I don't think his appearance is as intelligent as
that of colored people generally. I think perhaps he is as intelligent as the
middle class. If he heard and had not that down cast look, he would appear
as well as any of them. He denied stealing the horse. I did say something
about manufacturing witnesses on the former trial. I said to several that I
thought they had been up to the jail to be manufactured into witnesses. I
'334 THE TRIAL OF
think I have said that they were either perjured or devilishly mistaken. 1
think the prisoner can hear. I think he has heard my testimony. 1 served
subpoenas on the first trial for the people, at the request of the district
attorney. I have taken a part in this trial, so far as thb, that I like to see
the law sustained and the people protected, and have served subpccnas on
twenty or thirty witnesses.
Silas Baker, called and sworn, testified : I knew the prisoner when
he was in the yard of the State Prison. I did night duty in the State Prison.
I never knew that he was disturbed of his rest in prison. I punished him
twice in prison, once for striking another convict and once iu relation to
hangiug out yarn. His appearance in the prison was much the same as now.
He was more still and quiet than other convicts. I noticed his smile in
prison, and the same smile in the chapel, when he had nothing to smile at
I never supposed him to be insane. I have not discovered in him any such
appearance. There is always something about insane men which indicates
insanity.
Cross Examination. — Those whom I have seen insane were admitted
to be insane before I saw them. I flogged the prisoner with a cat o'nine
tails. I saw him smile in the chapel as he does now, and without any appa-
rent cause. It occurred to mc that at such times he was occupied with his
own thoughts. It did not occur to me that he was insane. I suppose an
insane person might smile without any apparent reason, but nothing is more
common than to see convicts smile without apparent cause. I never had
any conversation with him except in relation to his work. If he was in-
sane his insanity must have been slight lie generally obeyed the rules d
the prison.
James Parish, called and sworn, testified : I was at work in the djt
house in the prison, when the prisoner was there. I don't see any material
difference in him now from what he was then. I recollect that he smiled
frequently without my knowing what he was smiling at He did his work
regularly. I saw him since the murder and asked him when he became deit
He said last fall.
Cross Examination. — He was punished in the State Prison, once for
•triking another convict and once about some yarn. He was not punished
for stealing that I know of. I never knew whether he could read or not
John P. Hulbert, called and sworn, says : I am a counsellor at law
and reside in Auburn. I was in the jail a short time after the prisoner wai
arrested, and there heard some conversation between him and Doctor Fos-
gate. The doctor directed him to stand up, sit down, and to hold his arm
in a certain position, &c. and asked him various questions respecting it* !!•
asked if it did not pain him. He said it did not much. I did not see any
thing that led me to believe that he was insane. I was here last winter
during the trial of Wyatt, for murder. I may be mistaken about seeing tl»
prisoner in the court house then, but my impression is, that he was here.
WILLIAM VAZEUAN. 335
Cross ExAMnrAxiON.— I have read upon the subject of insanity, but
mostly in books of Medical Jurisprudence. I have never devoted my at-
tention particularly to'it, however. I have not seen much of this prisoner,
but from what I have observed of him, I have not much doubt that he is
sane. My opportunities for judging, have been limited, Had I more know-
ledge of him I could judge better in relation to the state of his mind than I
am able to now.
Augustus Pettibone, re-called, testified: I am the keeper of the
jail where the prisoner has been confined. I have not discovered any in-
sanity about him. I have heard no disturbance from him nights, except one
night when I forgot to give him hb bedding. He then rattled the chains
and knocked against the wall. The man carried him bedding. He has al-
ways eaten his rations well and been in good health, so far as I know.
Cross Examination. — This disturbance occurred in the month of May.
He is chained to the floor. The floor is stone, and he was led that night
accidentally without bedding. I did not hear what he said. On Thursday
or Friday last, the attorney general told me that he did not want me to let
any more go in to be manufactured into witnesses. Dr. Hun and Dr. Mc-
Naughtou came the next morning and admittance was refused.
Robert Simpson, re-called, testified: A day or two previous to the
murder, the prisoner came to me to get a knife ground, and ground it him-
self. I do not know whether he fitted the knife to the stick at my shop or
not I could only judge that ho did, from his actions.
Benjamin F. Hall, called and sworn, testified : I reside in Auburn, and
am a counsellor at law, by profession. I have seen the prisoner. I never
noticed him particularly, however, until he was brought to the jail for killing
the Van Nest family. At the request of the examining magistrate, I went
with others to the jail, to aid in repressing any disorder that might arise, and
preventing any violence to the prisoner, when the officers, who were near at
hand, should arrive with him. An immense concourse of people had assem-
bled about the jail for some purpose, and many apprehended tjiat an attempt
would be made to rescue the prisoner from the officers, for the purjpose of
punishing him summarily, for killing Van Nest and his family. Upon the
arrival of the officers with the prisoner, I saw him, and assisted in lodging
him in jail. Since then I have seen the prisoner but once, except in court
That was during the preliminary trial. Being at the jail for another pur-
pose, I was requested by Doctor Spencer, of Geneva, who was then there, to
interrogate the prisoner. We entered his cell together. The prisoner was
•tanding when we entered his cell, but afterwards sat down. I asked the
prisoner if he knew Captain Chase. He said he did not. I asked him whe-
ther he knew me. I got no answer which I could understand. I asked him
if ho worked in the stone shop when in prison. He answered Yes. I asked
what kind of work he performed. He said, " Worked 'round at all kinds of
work." I asked who the keeper in that shop was. He said, " Captain
836 THX TBIAL Of
Green." I asked him to relate his difficulty with Tyler. He said, " I ^
ted to get out — didn't want to stay there — told him I was clear — he went up
6n to the stairs and came down,** pausiag between the sentences. I then
asked what Tyler then did. He said, " He struck me." I asked what Tyler
said he did it for. He made no answer. I repeated the question, to which
he replied, ** He told me to go to work, and I wouldn't." I asked where he
worked when this happened. He said, " In hame shop." I asked where he
went when he left that shop. He said, " They sent me into shop they were
building up." I asked if it were a brick shop. He said, " Yes, sir." I
asked how many brick shops there were in the prison. He answered, " Two,"
and then added, " One was built whilst I was there." I asked which shop
was built first He said, <* One on the west side." Knowing that there was
no shop on the west side, I asked which way it was from the re?ervoir. He
said, " The right side." I asked what was done in that shop. He said, " Fi-
ling and blacksmithing." I asked where the shoemakers were taken when
the old shop was removed. He said, ** B'lieve they took 'em over to ano-
ther shop." I asked if he knew Mr. Robert Muir, a contractor. He an-
swered Yes. I asked if he had men making bed ticking. He said, '* Had
some men ; don't know what they did." I asked him if he were ever in tha
cutlery shop. He said, " Was in there one time." I asked if he knew how
they polished knives. He said, " They've wheels." I asked what moved
the wheels. He said, " Go by steam." I asked whether he had good food.
He said, " Pretty good." I asked when he came out of prison. He said,
•• September." I asked how many years he was imprisoned. He said, " Five
years." I asked who the head keeper of the prison then was. He said,
•* Captain Cook." I asked where he was convicted. He said, " Here." I
asked the name of the judge that sentenced him. He said, " Don't remem-
ber." I asked whether the judge was an old or a young man. He said,
** Was a heavy, thick set man." I asked if he saw him in this court .He
said', " Don't know as I did." The hour having arrived for the opening of
this court, wo retired from the cell. In that examination I did not*discover
any form of insanity that I am acquainted with. So far as that opportunitf
enables me to judge, his mind is of a very low order, and quite feeble, but I
did not discover, from his manners or answers, that he was deranged.
Cuoss Examination. — Q. How loqg were you with the prisoner on
that occasion ?
A. From fifteen to twenty minutes.
Q. Have you examined the prisoner at any other time ?
A. I have not
Q. Was that examination sufficient, in your opinion, to determine Qm
question of his insanity ?
A. It was not ; and hence my answer that I did not discover any form of
insanity that I am acquainted with.
Q. Do you consider a conversation of twenty minutes a thorough exami-
iialion of the prisoner ?
wiLLi^c ntiOMAif . 887
A. I db not; nor dol beliere tiiat any one can make a thorough estamina-
tion of him, in that period of time.
Q. ACgfat he not ha^e beeh insane without your diseorering it ?
A. I can onfy sa^that I did not disoorer it
Q. Have 70a ever seen insane pensons frcnn whose appearance 70U could
not detect their insanity?
A. I haye seen those who were said to be insane, but whose insanity I
did not diseorer from their appearancci.
Q* Where did you see those persons ?
A. In the State Lunatic Asylum, at Utica.
Q. Did you coftVerae with them?
A. Not much, if at all, so ftr as I now recollect
Q. Bo yon ccmsider the prisoner^ mind sound ?
A. I am not able to say whether some of his mental fhcultieto have, or
have not, been impaired. He is a stolid taciturn, ignorant being, having
mind enough to comprehend vxy questions, and to make brief answers to
them. Beyond that I cannot answer advisedly.
Q. Have not brutes a mind ?
A. They have that i^hkh is caHed mind, but have no intellectual faculties.
Q. Did you ever see a human being who had not some intellect, and some
mSad?
A. I recollect of no instance where there was not some glimmering of in-
tettect and miiid. I never saw a case of perfect idiocy^ or dementia.
Q. Can insanity exist where there is no mind ?
A. Ko,sir. Themanifestaiaonsofmind depend, I suppose, upon the health
and activity of the brain. When that is diseased the mind is disordered, and
that I suppose to be insanity. When the brain ceases to act, there canr be
no longer any insane manifestations, for death ensues.
Q. Then you consider insanity a disease ?
A Medical writen so regard it
Re-Examination. — Q. Are you a lawyer by profession ?
A. The praetiee of the law is my business.
Q. Cannot a lawyer as well detect external indications of insanity aa i*^
physician ?
A. If insanity were apparent peiiiaps a lawyer might detect them as well
as a physician. In doubtful cases, I think a medical man, who has made that
sulject his study, could detect them better.
Q. You seem to qualify your opinion. Have you any doubt- at oU but
that (lie prisoner is sane ?
A. My answers must be according to the knowledge that I have of the
prisoner. He is a low, stupid, and ignorant being; yet in my examinatioB
I did not discover in him any form of insanity that I am acquainted
with.
Bet. AloKso Wood, caBed and sworn, testified : I am ohiq;ilain at the
22
m tuuh Of
State Prison, and ksow this prisoner. Fkvt nw him tbere about four weeks
prior to his discharge, and from that time until his dischai^ I saw him al-
most every day. I also saw him the Monday evening preceding the murder.
He was at a barber^s shop^ in town, where he requested to have his whiskers
shaved off. Never saw any insanity about him. When he left the prison
he appeared to feel welL When in there he made scnne music and fun about
him. I noticed no stnpidity or dullness.
Q. Are you aware that a migority of the convicts in that prison think
that they are entitled to pay from somebody for the time they are in prison ?
Objected to. Objection overruled, and exception.
A. I cannot say that a majority think so. Have heard some of them say
that they were, but cannot say that they were serious about it.
Q. But is it not common for convkts to speak in that way ?
A. I have h^hrd men speak in that way ; or, have heard them say that
they were entitled to connderation, on account of extra services. But I
cannot say that such an impression is common.
Q. But did not Mr. Townsend, the former chaplain, testify that it waa
when he was there ?
A. I believe he did— and it may have been then ; but Ido not know that
it is now.
Caoas £xiMiNATiOK.-^In visiting the cells, in rotation, I first spoke to
him. I asked him how he was — ^hoW he got abng, and many other similar
questions. Saw him at the time of his discharge, and expressed the hope to
him that he would so behaye in future as to never be imprisoned again.
Whilst in prison, I asked him if he wanted a bible. I understood th«t he
said that it would be of no use, as he couldn't read. After being di^ssed to
leave the prison^ he was taken to the clerk's office, where a check was pi^
sented him to sign ; but he declined signing it He was paid three dollars.
He said he had been imprisoned five years unjustly, and he wasn't a going
to settle so. The clerk told him he could not have his money unless he
signed the receipt. He said that he couldn't write. The clerk told him
that he must make his mark. He then did so, received his money, and went
away.
Hakrt Lampon, called and sworn, testified : I keep a public house at
P^rt Byron. About two weeks before the murder, the prisoner and three
other black fellows came to my house, on Sunday. They put their horses
under the shed — ^took somethug to drink — etayed about half an hour, and
went away. The prisoner appeared sulky. They had some conversation
about the pay, in which the prisoner took a part. The prisoner untied the
hones, paid the ostler, and appeared to t>e driver. He eame in and got
some change at the bar, and ordered some liquor to drink, and they drank
around. I didn't see any thing cracy in him.
Cross Examination.— I testified before, that it was beer. We call
every thing beer, now-a^ys, as it has to be beer befiire it's any thing else.
wiLLUM fumur. 8M
Think thej drank beer on^ or twice wliile thete, and my ber keeper mjv
thej drank liquor once.
Dr. Charlxs A. Htob, called and avom^ testified: I am a phyridan
and sargeon. Have been in practice twelve or thirteen years. Have visi-
ted the prisoner twice in the jail, for the purpose of examination. Had
never seen him before, but saw nothing in him there to make me think he
was insane. From seeing him twice, it would be difficult to say that he is
insane. I was ra&er of the opinion that he was not
Ckoss ExAMmATiONw — ^I had entertained the impression before seeing
him that he was insane. Upon arriving there, in company with other medi-
cal men, and examining him, I was not able to discover any derangement
of the miental faculties. He appeared dull and stupid, and dinncUned to
talk much, yet in all that I saw I discovered no insanity. I have seen many
cases of insanity, but my <^portnnities for treating it profesaSnally have not
been very extensive.
Dr. Samuel Gilmobe, re-caUed, testified: I have seen the prisoner in
jail Several other physicians were present* I have heard the material
parts of all the testimony, bnt not all of it I heard the prisoner read and
coant, aa spoken of by other witnesses. I ahK> taUced wkh him about the
murder, and whether he did not consider it wrong ; also why he ran away»
and wl^ he stole the horse. It is a difficult matter for me to separate my
own examination ot the prisoner from what I have heard testified about him,
yet it is my opinion from my examination of him diat he was not Insane.
Cbosb ExAinNATiON. — ^I do not see any thing in bis acts in relation to
the murder, that indicates insanity. I think his preparation of the knivea,
and the concealment of them, and his going in the night, indkaftes forethoughti
calculation and intelligence, which are indications of sanity. He seems to
have planned the honucide with as much skill and care, and carried it ont aa
well as any sane man could. I don't Uiink the murder indicates insanity,
but it does indicate great depravity. I think his inability to read or count
well, indicates ignorance. He may not be as intelligent aa negroes generaUy,
yet he must have known that it was wrong to commit murder.
Db. Joseph Clabt, called and sworn, testified : I am a practicing phy-
sician. I have been in practice thirty-five years. I have visited the priso-
ner three times for the purpose of examination. I had some convematioii
with him each time, and heard conversation that I did not participate in. I
have seen so little of insanity that I don't know aa I ought to express an
opinion. I think nurses and those that attend die sick, will sooner discover
insanity than others. I consider insanity delirium without fever. I think
that those who attend the sick will discover a delirious idea sooner than a
physician. I should disHke to give a decided opinion in respect to the pri-
soner. I have not had that oportunity of deciding that I ought to have had
in order to form a decided opinion. From what I have seen of him it is my
opinion that he is sane.
S40 ' «n mjLi, ov
Cross Examikatiok.— H« nay be insane. My exandnatkm of him has
not been such as to enable me to give a confident opmion. I ^tb only my
prernling opinion from what I know of him. His pnlse, when standing,
ranged from one hundred and twenty to one hundred and twenty-three.
That might denote disease or a nervous state of the system. Doctor Willanl
was there, and ptoposed questkms to him at considerable length. There is
such a form of insanity as dementia. It comes from disease of some kind.
Diseases Ymvjr different stages* I think a man may have dementia and yet
may have some m^nory left. I have seen dementia in old age. Whether
the paitient would exhibit anger, hatred or tenderness, would depend upon
the intensity of the disease.
Dr. David Dmoif, called and sworn, testified : I am a physician and
surgeon, and reside in the Tillage of Auburn. I have seen the prisoner se-
▼end times since he has been confined in the jaiL I wenl^there several times.
The first time I went to see him from motives of curiosity, but snbsequentiy
at request, fbr the purpose of ascertaining the state of his mind. I have vis-
ited him, in dl, six or eight times. Sometimes I remained with him fifteen
minutes ; at other times half an hour or more. The first time I saw him was
soon after his arrest I examined him at eonsideraUe length in reference to
the events of his Kfe, and the circumstances attending the murder. The
conversation was conducted by questions and answers. In these examina-
tions and his general manners and appearance, I discovered no evidence of
insanity. He is ignorant and depraved, yet I was unable to discover wherem
any of his ftcnlties have been disturbed. I conclude that his mind is now
in tiie same condition that it has been since he was a boy. I discovered n<^
thing about him indicating insani^.
Cross Examinatiox. — Q. Ton say that you examined him and disco-
vered nothing about him indicating insanity ?
A. I have so testified.
Q. Tiniiat do you connder insanity?
A. Some derangement of the intefiectual fhculties or the pasaons, either
partial or generaL
Q. What do you call a derangement ?
A. An alteration fhmi the natural or healthy state.
Q. What do you call the intellectual Acuities ?
A. The fkculties by which we reason, compare and judge.
Q. What are the afibctions and passions ?
A. The affections and passions are tiie motive powers. The passions are
certain emotions producing certain desires or aversions. The affections are
those certain desires or aversionf
Q. What is comparison ?
A. By comparison we compare two or more things with each other.
Q. What is judgment ?
A. Judgment is the faculty which enables us to choose and decide be-
WILUIM VRBBMAV. 841
tween two or more things, after comparison has done its work. It may be
termed the decision made.
Q. What is reflection ?
Q. Comparison and judgmenti or, perhaps, I should say the tliought be-
stowed upon a subject
Q. Do yoi4 consider the will a fiicidty ?
A. Perhaps not strictly, yet it is generally called a &culty.
Q. What kind of a faculty is it?
A. As I wish to avoid a metaphysical discussion, I will answer by saying
that the will is a faculty by which we resolve to do something, in choosing
between two or more things, the will and the judgment are both in exercise.
Q. AVhat moves the will ?
A. I regard the passions and the affections as the motives of 40tion«
Q. How is the will directed ?
A. The intellect directs the movement.
Q. Is the will a power ?
A. It is usually called a power, •
, Q. What kind of a ppwer, physical or menial ?
A. MentaL
Q. Is the will passiye or active 7
A. It is an operation of the mind^ and is therefore, in one sense, active.
So far as it is a result of action it is not
Q. What has judgment to do with the will?
A. It is an intellcetual faculty and directs the wilL
Q. What is reason ?
A. It is commonly called an exercise of the intellectual faculties.
Q. Is it not a faculty of itself?
A. No ; for when it is applied to the faculties instead of the ezereise of
them it embraces several — ^memory, comparison, judgment, and some others.
Q. Have you had any experience in the treatment of the insane ?
A. I have seen many insane persons, but have not had much experience
in treating insanity.
Q. Where have you seen most of insanity ?
A. I have seen most of it in the Alms House in Philadelphia, but have^
seen it elsewhere.
Q. Have you seen persons whom yon would not know to be insane, from
observation ?
A. Yes ; and I have seen maay whom I would know to be insane at
ught
^ Q. Have you ever been called upon, before, to determine a case of doubt-
ful insanity ?
A. I recollect of no case where I have* been.
Q. Did you ever discover insanity in waj one who was not befbre known
to be insane?
842 TBI TRIAL or
A. I think I can saj that I hxre.
Q. In' whom?
A. In a man in the State Prison — a convict
Q. When did yon make that discoyeiy ?
A. Some two or three years ago, when mj brother was the physician
ihA«. I went in with him to determine whether the convict was, or was
not insane.
Q. How did yon decide ?
A. That he was insane.
Q. What was the question about it ?
A. Whether he was really insane, or whether he was feigning insanity.
Q. What was the result of that caae ?
A. I never heard of the man afWwards. /
Q. Hare you ever treated a case of partial or general insanity, pro-
fearionally?
A. I have not I have seen cases of melancholy, however, that I have
Created in the same manner that I would the first stages of insanity.
Q. How does melancholy affect the mind 7
A. It affects the disposition, conduct and habits, but it does not necessa-
rily derange the intellect It sometimes exists with and somedme^ widiout
derangement
Q. Bo you consider melancholy insanity ? (
A. It may be called an incipient stage of insanity, as either the intellect
or passions are affected more or less, and sometimes both.
Q. May the passions be deranged and not the intellect?
A. Derangement of the passions sometimes eidsts without any appreci-
able derangement of the intellect
Q. In a case of settled, confirmed melancholy, is not the mind mote or
less diseased?
A. In some degree it is, yet some people recollect, compare, judge and
imagine well, notwithstanding.
Q. Will they not do all things that a sane person will ?
, A. I suppose so, in most instances.
Q. Does insanity frequently commence with melancholy ?
A. In many cases melancholy runs into insanity.
Q. IMd you say to Doctors Briggs and Fosgate, afler visiting the prisoner
in the jail, that yon then thought him insane ?
A. I did not I have never had but one opinion about this case.
Q. Are all the prisoner's intellectual faculties in order ?
A. I did not discove]; that any of them were deranged.
Q. Do you believe in an insanity that disturbs the moral powers ?
A. I have already so stated.
Q. Then you admit that moral insanity may exist?
A. I admit the principle of moral insanity as a disease of the brun
wxiiUAM runiAN. 848
Q. Do 70U cozunder that tlie prisoner^a moral powers are in a healdiy
state?
A. It is my opinion that his moral powers are now, as tBey were by
nature.
Q. Do you belieye that his passions and affeetions are not deranged ?
A. I think they hare not been affected by disease. There has been no
ebange in him except such as circumstances might natvrally produce He
was a bad boy, committed crime, has been imprisoDed for it I presume he is
now more depraved than he was, and that his depraved dispositian has
grown with his growth, and strengthened with hb strength. He has a veiy
low grade of intellect, and is Tery ignorant, but that is not insanity.
Q. Then yon think there has been a change in him ?
A. Undoubtedly there has been some change. His going to prison very
young, and being confined there five years, would naturally produce some
change ; besides, he has grown older.
Q. When you were looking after symptoms of insanity, what physical
appearance of insanity did you expect to find ?
A. In the maniac there is a wild, glassy expression of the eye, and gen
erally a paleness. Besides those, there are a good many other looks and
expressions indicating insanity, which may be detected.
Q. Have you ever visited the State Lunatic Asylum at Utica ?
A. I have not
Q. Do maniacs frequently smile ?
A. They do ; and their smile is very peculiar and unmeaning.
Q. Is not the smile of the prisoner peculiar ?
A. Well, perhaps it is ; yet I don't think it indicates insanity.
Q. Yon say he is ignorant ; what is the degree of his intelligence ?
A. He appears to have but little.
Q. Wliat is the degree of his intellect?
A. It is difficult to tell by any examinations that were made there in the
jaiL He was there to be tried for life; oppressed with the weight of his
crimes ; ignorant and deaf, to be sure, but with every motive to conceal and
deceive. His intellect is of a low grade, but how much he has precisely,
cannot well be determined under the disadvantages of his situation.
Q. From what you discover, can you compare his Lntdleet to that of any
other being? '
A. I should not think he has as much intellect as an ordinary child of
fourteen years of age. In some respects, he would hardly compare with
children of two or three years.
Q. With a child of what age would you compare him, in respect to
Jmowledge ?
A. With a child two or three years old.
Q. Doctor, what is dementia?
A. Dementia b an enfeebled state of all the faculties.
3^ tmTBUI*:Ot/
Q< Wliatarethe6jm|»ta»i8of denieiilm?
A. Demented persons are submissive, and easily controlled ; having no
vrill of Aeir vwuy they are subject to the will of others. They are alao des-
titute of passion, or only capable of being momentarily affected ; luad are
incapable of any prolonged effort
Q. What is an insane delusion ?
A. It is the thorough belief of Ihe reality of aomething in opposition to
the evidence of the tenses.
Q. Mi^t not th0 prisoner have been partially demented without your
dttoovering it in the jail ?
A. I cannot say what might be. I -saw no evidence to satisfy me that he
was.
Q. Might he not have been laboring under an insane delutton on the
twelfth of March, and yet you not discover any evidence of it ?
A. I cannot answer as to what might have taken j^aee before I aaw the
prisoner. I saw no evidenoe of delumon there in the jail.
Bid-Examination.— Q. Do you mean to express any doubt a$ to the
sanity of the prisoner ?
A. Ko; I think he is as sane aa ever he was.
Q. Did you mean to be nnderetood that his miad is like a diild, or that ^
his information is like a child ?
A. I mean to say that he is Very ignorant and depraved; that upon some
subjects his information is like that of a child. I can't oompare his native
strength of intellect with a child of any age.
Dr. Sylvester Willard, called and sworn, testified : I am a physi-
cian and suigeon, and have been in practice twenty-three years. Have been
tax or eight times into the jafl to see the prisoner, for the purpose of ascer-
taining his mental condition. I engaged his attention, and requested him to
tell me about the matter for which he was imprisoned. I began by aaying,
«'Bill, did you kill ihem?" He answered Tes. I said, •« What did you kill
them widi ^^ He said, <' Well, I killed them with a butcher knife." I asked,
«< Where did you get your knife ?** He said, '< Why, I height it—I bought
two." I asked, «' What did you give for them?" He said, "« I gave one and
sixpence for one.** I asked him what he did with his knife after he bought
it He said a man helped him grind it ; then he took it up to -the hig dam
and ground it himself. I then told him to go on and tell me the whole story.
Then he sud, <* I took the kmfe and carried it home, and took it •to the room
and hid it" I told him to go on. He continued,^ Well, I let it lie there
till I got ready to go out to kilL" I again told him to proceed. Be then
said, " When I got ready to go out and kill, that night, I went up stairs and
threw it out of the window." I told him to go on. He said, ** I threw it qut
of the window, so that they shouldn't see me when I went down stain." I
told him, ^* Go on." He continued, ** I went down stairs, myself, and went
round and got my things, and then I went off up south." I then adted where
WILUAIf IBXnCAN. 845
he went to. He said, << I went op to Van Nest's." I asked wM he went
there for. He said, ^ I went there to kill them." I asked what he did when
he first went there. He said, *'' I saw a light in the house, and didn't go in
when I first went there." I asked what he then did. He said, ^* I stayed
out roand the house." I asked how long he stayed. He said, ^ I stayed a
little while, until I saw a man come out and go away ; then I went into the
house, and saw Mr. Van Nest" I asked what he did then. He said, <* I
stabbed him." I asked if he killed hhn. He siud Tes. I am not able to
give all my questions and his answers, but I continned to inquire, and he to
answer, until he told me that he killed Mr. Van Nest in the house, and the
woman out of doors, and the child in the bed, and that it was asleep and was
corered up in the bed clothes — ^and that he then went up stairs, and was
drive n down by a man who struck him — that he stabbed the old lady out
near, the front gate. I asked how many he killed. He said, ** I killed five."
I asked whom. He said^ ^ Van Nest, his wife and child, and the woman at
the front gate." I asked how many he meant to kill He said, *< All I see."
I asked what made hhn stop. He said, '* I got my hand cut and couldn't
kill any more." I asked how he got his hand cut, and who cut it He said,
** The woman at the gate." I asked what she cut it with. He said, *< With
my knife. I s'pose the piece that was broken off." I asked how she came
to cut it with his knife that was broken off." He said, " I s'pose she pulled
it out of her body." I asked what he did then. He said, "I went to the
stable and got a- horse, and rode him away down to Mrs. Godfrey's." He
said, ** I meant to kill her." I asked why he didn't kill her. He said, << I
didn't like to go into the house in the dazk." I asked if it did not look hard
to kill those folks. He said, ^ It looked hard." I asked what he did after
that He said, ** I rode down back to Auburn — the horse felL" I asked
what he did then. He said, " I stabbed hhn." I asked what he stabbed
him for. He answered, " 'Cause he hurt my leg." I asked what he did
then. He said, ^ I went on to the middle road to Skaneateles, and took
another horse, and rode on towards Syracuse." I asked about his knife.
He said, ** Threw it away near Syracuse." I asked where he was going.
He said, ** I was going out of the county until my hand got well, and then
come back again." I asked if he knew what they did with people that mur-
dered. He said, " They hang 'em." I asked if he thought they would hang
him. He said, " I don't think they will hang me." I asked what he thought
they would do with him. He said, " I thought they might kill nud." I asked
why he killed those people. He said, " Because they put me in State Pri-
son, and I couldn't get my pay." I asked if he thought Van Nest put him
in prison. He answered No. I then asked what made him kill those inno-
cent people, and said it was not right to kill innocent people. He said, ** I
meant to kill every body." •
After getting these matters of plain relation, I undertook to excite his
fears. I then said to him that they were going to hang him, and that we
846 THS CBIAIi Of
hod come as his friends to see if we could do him any good. I asked fana
what word we should carry back to court He said ^ I don't know." I
asked him to tell us something. He said, ^ Don't know." I asked if we
should not tell the court that he didn't do it He said, <* No, that wouldn't
be right" We then told him that there had been a great deal of noise about
this matter, and it is time it was settled. I then inquired how much he
would ask if I would paj him off. He said, "I don't know." I then asked
him to say something — ^no matter what He said, " I don't know." I asked
if it should be one dollar or one hundred — ^to say something. He said, ^ I
don't know." I handed him a dollar bill, and asked how much it was. He told
me rightly, and the same in regard to a three dollar bill, but a ten dollar
bill he called one. I talked with him at great length, and felt his pulse. In all
my examination I did not find evidence sufficient to make me think him in-
sane.
Cross Examination. — There are symptoms of insanity in the prisoner,
but there is not in my opinion sufficient evidence to make it out The act
of killing itself, is such as insane persons might perform, but it is not enough,
of itself, to make out insanity. I have not heard of any act in this matter
that necessarily indicates insanity. A sane mind, means a sound, well reg-
ulated and well ordered mind ; having the regular exercise of reason and
the other faculties. An insane mind is the reverse — an unsound state of
the reason and other faculties, or their irregular exercise. A demented man
may have a temporary insanity, and yet he cannot be said to have an un-
sound mind. His mind may be sound, but its exercise irregular.
Q. Does drunkenness affect the reason ?
A. It sometimes destroys it, or in such a state it is sometimes gone.
Q. Where does that reason go ?
A. I never kept track of it, to know where it is gone.
Q. Does drunkenness affect the intellect ?
A. It is not brought into exercise.
Q. Where is his intellect at such times ?
A. I cannot say where. A drunken man has not the regular exeidse of
his mind.
Q. How is it when a man is perfectly intoxicated ?
A. He exercises his reasoning faculties so far as he has any.
Q. Is the irregular exercise of the faculties in insanity continuoiis or
occasional ?
A. Sometimes continuous, but sometimes intermittent
Q. When the exercise is irregalar, is not that a temporary insanity?
A. A man who has an irregular exercise of the mental faculties for ooce,
may or may not be insane.
Q. Is insanity generally chronic ?
A. It is not necessarily chronic.
Q. Is it generally active or violent ?
WlUiIAll f RXBUA5. 847
A. Sometimes it is riolent and active, at others inactive.
Q. Have you had any experience in insanity ?
A. Not a great deal ; I don't profess to be an adept, yet I have seen a
few insane persons.
Q. Is insanity a disease ?
A. It may or may not be a disease of the physical structure of the Inrain.
There are functional derangements without organic disease.
Q. Do insane men have lucid intervals?
A. They often do.
Q. Are men temporarily insane ?
A. It is not always permanent Persons may be bewildered, as by a blow,
for instance, and not show the effect of it afterwards.
Q. Might he not have been insane on the twelfth of March, without its
being discovered now ?
A. If ho is diseased at this moment, and not the last or next, the disorga-
nizatbn would be hardly discoverable.
Q. Why, in your opinion, did the prisoner require prompting ?
A. Whether he thought I didn't want to hear any more, or wbether he
had a motive for stopping, I cannot say.
Q. Now, sir, was it not because he could not proceed ?
A. I think he requires impressions to be repeatedly made on him, to in-
duce him to narrate.
Q. Is he not, sir, a very dull man ?
A. In memory he is not dull ; it is very tenacious.
Q. If he had motives for his incoherence, what, in your opinion, were they ?
A. I know not what his motives were ; whether he thought I wanted to
hear no more, or whether he didn't choose to answer.
Q. Unezpluned, was it not an evidence of dullness ?
A. It was, perhaps, one evidence of dullness.
Q. Did his failure to go on appear to arise from inabiKty or imbecility ?
A. I cannot say that it arose from either ; I cannot tell why he did not
goon.
Q. Tou are sure, I suppose, that he did not go on ?
A. When I jogged him he went on.
Q. Did you ever see a sane man, twenty-three years old, who did not
know whether he could read or not?
A. I have no recollection of ever having seen one.
Q. Could he read correctly?
A. He was ignorant of words, but knew his letters.
Q. Does he not think he can ?
A. He appears to think so.
Q. Was it not strange that he thought he coulfl read when he coold not?
A. It would not be strange if he thought he did read.
Q. May not a man be insane and yet be able to remember ?
948 THSTUHiOF
A. It is luppoeed tliat there maj be wme fonns of insftnity i^ widcli me-
mory does not immediately participate.
Q. May not a man be insane widioat any appreciable diaturbance of hii
intellect?
A. There ia a form of insanity laid down in the books, where the passions,
emotions and affections are deranged, without any appreciable disturbance
of the intellect, but my impression is that a derangement of the intellect ge-
nerally follows.
Q. What is your opinion of the prisoner's conscientiousness ?
A. There are instances in which he has manifested conscience, or power
to distinguish between right and wrong ; but it is comparatiyely inactire, as
is shown by his crime. His conscience is dull and sluggish.
Q. How do you distinguish between sluggishness and morbidness of con-
science ?
A. A conscience may be sluggish when, in the &ce of a flagrant act, you
cannot bring it to bear upon that act A morbid conscience is as likely to
be excited by the most trifling offence as it would be oyer the dead bodies
of those they have slain.
Q. Upon what does a man's conscience depend ?
A. Its proper cultivation and exercise, depend upon himself.
Q- Doctor, may not the prisoner's conscience be in a morbid state ?
A. He has shown no signs of morbidness of conscience.
Q. Do not his acts, some of them, indicate that his mind was disordered ?
A. I suppose you ask that in reference to the question of responsibility.
His acts evince some intelligence and great depravity, but I think him re-
sponsible.
Q. Why do you think him responsible ?
A. He has been capable of planning and carrying into execution, and that,
in my estimadon, proves him to be responsible.
Q. Are there not cases where insane men plan and execute homicides ?
A. There may be cases of insanity in which a person may be capable of
carrying out plans bad in themselves ; but whilst he may plan and cany into
execution, he will generally approbate his doings and take no pains to avoid
the consequences. But such was not the case with the prisoner.
Q. Was the prisoner capable of comparing ?
A. He distinguished between hanging and killing.
Q. What do you suppose was his motive in killing these people ?
A. He may have killed them from revenge, and it ma^ have been done
for pay.
Q. If pay was his object, how could he get it by murdering thai; family?
A. He sought to get his pay peaceably, but could not get it ; and he may
have ^xmsidered killing to be the best compenaalion he could getr— rev^ge.
Q. Was that a sufficient motive for such an act ?
A. It appears that he has stated that he thought he would kill around.
wiLUAX noBKAir. 849
If tliftt were his raasoning, it is evidence of his weaknesB in teOing that if he
killed around the country, they would pay him.
Q. Do yon see any evidence of unsoundness or soundness in the fact that
he held conversation with yon so familiarly ?
A. I do not He may not have comprehended the consequences of com-
municating the facts, but that weakness falls short of insanity.
Q. How do you explain the idea that he did not expect to be hung ?
A. I cannot tell where such an unlikely idea came from ; but I think that
he did not suppose his telling me increased his danger.
Re-Examination. — Q. Doctor what did the prisoner say he stabbed
the horse for?
A. He said he stabbed the horse because he fell down and hurt his leg.
Q. Did yon find the prisoner always awake ?
A. No ; we once found him asleep.
Q. When?
A. During the trial and after the adjournment of the court, whilst a jury
was being obtained.
Q^ Did yon say any thing to him about bones ?
A. Once, whilst talking with him with a view to ascertttu the state of his
mind, I said to him that die doctors wanted his bones.
Q- What were the words used ?
A. I said, ** The doctors want your bones, and want to know if you are
willing that they should have them. What do you think about it, Bill ?*'
Q. What was his reply?
A. ** I don't think much about it," and to the question repeated, he said,
"I don't believe it"
Q. Did you ask any thing further about the bones 7
A. Tes ; I asked him if he ever saw any bones — and he said yes. I
asked where. He said, " In Doctor Pitney's office."
Q. Did yon ask him any thing further in respect to the bones ?
A. I asked him again if he did not believe they wanted his bones, and he
then answered No.
Q. What is the reputation of Doctor Pitney, as a medical man ?
A. His standing is very respectable, and in surgery his experience is very
great
Dk. Leandsr B. Bioelow, re-called, testified : I have been in prac-
tice twenty years, and reside in Auburn. I have resided here twenty-six
years this f<dl. I am now physician to the State Prison, and have been, in
aH, about seven years — ^I have been connected with the prison nine or ten
years. I have had more or less insane persons in the prison, and those who
feigned insanity. I have had a parUal acquaintance with the mother of the pri-
soner fbr the last eighteen or twenty years. She is a hard working woman, but
is subject to intemperance. Jane Brown has not resided in this place fbr
some years. She^ was a daughter of Harry Freeman. I never heard of her
850 TOM iBiAL or
being cHzy, until the commencement of tlus triaL I never saw any tibing to
indicate insanity in her, except ordinary intoxication. I have not seen Sid-
ney Freeman much of late years. I think him an insane man. I remember
his insanity from the singularity of his delusion. He imagined that Jesus
Christ was in his throat, choking him. I remember that this prisoner came
twice, during his confinement in the prison, to the HospitaL I merely knew
him as a child b^re he went to prison. I first saw him in jail, at the com-
mencement of this court I was requested to go there by the district attor-
ney, and went at his uigent request I had been before requested by Dr.
Fitney to yisit the prisoner, and had refused.
I have seen him in jail a number of times — ^from six to ten times previous
to the sixth of July. I went to see him with the vie^ to satbfy myself in
reference to hb sanity or insanity. I wrote down my questions and his an-
swers, at the time I questioned him. I may have put some questions to him
without writing them down — once, when Dr. Coventry was in. With this
exception, I think I have done so when I went for the purpose of question-
ing him. At the examination, when Dr. Coventry was present, I asked
what was going on in the court, at his suggestion. He answered, in effect,
that he thought some witnesses were sworn. He said he stopped at the first
house this side of Van Nest's. I think I then asked him, " Why didn't yoa
go in ?" He answered, ** The door was fastened—I took hold of it, and
couldn't get in." He sud he heard a sound in Jhe house. I do not think
the remark which he frequently makes about his being confined in pnson,
is an evidence of insanity. I do not think this is an extraordinary remark,
from a convict of his degree of intellect I do not discover any thing that I
consider an insane delusion in this man's case. I have seen him hold a book
and designate letters correctly, but he did not pronounce words by the com-
bination of those letters. Have seen him in court Do not connder it an
evidence of insanity that a man thought he could read when he could not
I should think there would be no difference, necessarily, in pretending to
read when he could not, and not knowing how. Should not think him insane
from his manner of counting. Should think it might be from want of edu-
cation. Do not see any thing in his external appearance that denotes insaa-
ity. Have seen this smile — ^have seen it continued to a pretty hearty laugh.
r did not consider it an idiotic laugh. We both laughed at the same thing.
I have seen the prisoner's grandfather within the last year. The old gen-
tleman is a very pleasant man, and never speaks without smiling — ^he smiles
generally before speaking. I think what is thought siooiling, is not; but is
done by turning his tobacco in his mouth. I see no evidence of insanity ia
his smile. His getting up nights while at John De Puy's, without any other
circumstance, would be to me an evidence of insanity ; but taking De Fay's
testimony— his going to difierent persons and telling them not to let him
have liquor, is an evidence that he did drink, and of his getting up to drink
and being intoxicated. Inthiacasejif the killing were an insane act» I shoold
WILUAH f BSniAV. 851
look for the getting op nights to immediately precede the act So far as I
have examined this man, I don't know that I can designate a symptom of
dementia. His attention is readily called and attracted. I have not neticed
that his attention was easily called ofif. In dementia memory b destroyed.
I find no difference in the memory of the prisoner in recent and remote
events. The- prisoner remembers as well what occurred fire years ago, as
fire dajrs. From the examination I have had, my impression is that he
knows what is going on in coort He knows the subject matter of this issue.
I came to this conclusion from asking him questions. Don't know as I have
occasion to suspect that he has answered me otherwise than honestly. Can't
say I think he has answered me fVeely. He has required frequent urging
before he would answer. When he approached the scene of his murders,
he would stop and would go no further, except by prompting. That prompt-
ing consisted in saying, " What then"—** What next"—** Go on," &c. When
speaking of his escape, he has given me the principal points from taking the sec-
ond horse down to Phoenix. He said, ** I thought I would go down back there t
and cure up my hand." If these things he told me should prove true, it
wonld make no difference in making up my mind. His statements may be
confused, at times, when a good many are in the cell at once, or when two
or three ask questions at the same time. Where he makes mist^es, it may
or may not be from 'design. I heard Mr. Austin's testimony. From his
testimony, I think he either misrepresented to Mr. Austin, or had foi*gotten ;
and from my knowledge of him, I think he did the former. I think he
feigned when he said he was sick in the jail, six years ago— the same in the
prison. Have no doubt of his ability to detail the facts of the murder. He
no doubt was very much excited when he had entered upon the murder.
My saying, ** go on," or ** what next," to him when relating the facts, I
don't think strengthened his memory, but would rather confuse him if he could
not recollect, and he would be as likely to take up the narration at some other
poiift, as the one in immediate connection. I never heard him say he had
** work to do," or ** do more work," in my interviews with him. My impres-
sion would be, from the connection, that he meant to come back to work.
I don't consider that killing people comes under the head of work.
A partof Burrington's bam stands within the limits of the road — ^the door
opens on the road. The house stands some sixteen feet from the road. Taking
all the evidence in this case together, I am satisfied that he is a27 lavoBASfT,
IMJLL, STUPID, MOROSE AND DEGRADED NKORO, BUT NOT INSANE.
Cross Examination.— I did not go to the jail for the purpose of con-
fusing the prisoner. On the contrary, when I found that when numbers
came in it did, I 8toi^>ed. My object in saying to him, *' go on," was to
see if he could go on with a connected chain of events. When he was told
to go on, it did not seem to confuse him. He seemed to take up the chain
and go on. YHien a child is told to go on, in reading, it is simply to go on
in Ae process of reading. When I told Freeman to go on, it was to h»Te
852 tBM TBUL <a
him conttniic, because he stopped. I do not tfamk he smiles at all i
when others think he does. I went to the jail for the purpose of pre-
paring myself as a witness, for the purpose of testifying. I was on this
stand on Wednesday, and went into the jail afterwards, and came into
the court and testified to questions and answers put and answered then.
I was requested by Dr. Pitney to go to the jail, who said Mr. Seward wanted
him and some other physician to go and examine the prisoner. I told him
I had not seen the prisoner, and would not go in. I did not gcu I made
the same objection to the district attorney, at first
Rb-£xamikation. — ^I have known men in prison, over twenty-three
years old, who could not mnldply two by fbur, and who could not read. I
have seen both white and colored men in that condition. A few days since,
I examined a prisoner by the name of James Madison. He is a negro, twenty-
four years of age. I asked him to let me hear him count Heaaid, ^^Twiee
ten is twenty — ^three times ten is fifteen." I asked him how mndi two times
four was. He said, ** It would be nine.'^ I asked how many days there
were in a week. He answered Six. I ariced how many shillmgs there were ia
a dollar. He said, <* I couldn't tell thaf I aaked how many dacys there were
in a month, and how many cents there were in a shilling, and he made the
same answer. I asked how many hours there were in a day. He said, *' I
don't know, sir— *I couldn't teU." He counted up to tlnrty regulariy, aad
then said, *'fi)rty, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety, sixty, forty, forty-one,
forty-two, forty-three, forty-five, forty-seren, forty-eight, fijrty-nine." I then
said, " Then what ?" He replied, ** I don't know— I can't make it out" I
asked how many quarts there were in a gallon. He siud, '* I can't tell." I
asked how many pecks there were in a bushel. He said, '* I guess it is three
pecks — ^three or four. Let me see — I believe it is two pecks in a half a
bushel. I guess it is four pecks in a busheL" I asked how much six and
seven were. He said, " It would be thirteen." I then asked him to count
again. He began with <^ ninety," and continued, ** thirty, twenty4hiee,
twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-
nine, thirty, forty, ^ftf, sixty ; thaf s as fiir as I went the first time— I can't
go no further. Stop — ^I can go one more— sixty, sixty-one, sixty-two, sixty-
five, sixty-seven— there, I won't count any more. Thafs as far as I went
the first time, and I made a balk." The other was a white man, by the name
of Jacob Miller. His age was twenty-nine. Seeing him in the prison, I
called him up to me and asked him if he could read. He said he could. I
asked him to call over the letters of the alphabet He called them correctly*
I then pointed to this sentence — ** The old Romans used to write in the Latin
language." He then began to read by saying, *' T-h-e o-l-d R-o-mpa-n old mm
u-e-e-d seat to w-r-i-t-e church in t'-h-e L-a-t-i-n tin l-a-n-g-u-a*g^e JesQs."
I asked him if he could count bills. He said, ^' I can't count one bill from an» >
other." He said nine and nine were nineteen, and that six and five wevs
fifteen, and that seven and eight were eighteen. He said tiiree tim^ four
WILLIAM FBBUUr. 868
were thirteen, and counted to forty-five, and from fifty to seventy-nine cor-
rectiy ; but lie could not count correctly to one hundred. He didn't know
how many pints there were in a quart, nor how many pecks there were in a
bushel. I have conversed with the counsel for the people, by their request.
I don't know that they expressed to me any opinion, whatever, of the pri-
soner. Since the decision on the first trial, I have frequently expressed the
opinion that the prisoner was sane. I have seen some indications which,
when taken by themselves, might indicate an insane rather than a sane state
of mind ; but I think they are explained by his conversation or conduct, so
that I think he is not insane. I have no doubt, whatever, but that ths
PRISONER IS SAKE.
Dr. Thomas Spencer, called and sworn, testified : I am Professor of
the Theory and Practice of Medicine in the Medical College at Geneva. I
have taught in that department ever since the Medical CoUego was organ*
ized. I have examined the prisoner in respect to his sanity. I have had
from ten to twelve interviews with the prisoner, between the first of June
and the sixth day of July. These interviews averaged something like an
hour each. I was present at one time when Mr, Hall, at my request, inter-
rogated the prisoner. I noticed his answers, which correspond with the
testimony of Mr. Hall, in relation to that interview. I was present with Dr.
Bigelow at several interviews, and requested him to adopt the plan of ob-
taining written answers. At my first interview, I took with me the prisoner's
uncle, who resides here. My object then was to compare the prisoner's
present condition of mind with his former condition, as a test of sanity or
insanity. With the same view I went to the cell with others, with whom he
had lived in boyhood, to test hb memory and all the faculties of his mind.
The objections to other modes of examination were, that they were frequently
hurried and irregular, and would tend to produce confusion of mind ; espe-
cially as the prisoner was frequently told that they were going to hang him.
It appears that some one had suggested the idea of hanging. I have sought
opportunity to go in with every physician that asked me. I have been in
with Doctors Doane, Bigelow, Pitney and Dimon. I have made such an
examination that, taken in conjunction with other facts, I am enabled to
form a satisfactory conclusion as to the state of his mind.
The facts as to the reading lessons, the cyphering lessons, as to the
murder, and the reasons he has given for it, such as revenge, connecting it
with pay for his time in prison, I have heard gone over; I have ascertained
that he has slept well, eat well, and has been in good physical health gene-
rally, and, afler due deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that th^
prisoner is sane. I have no reasonable doubt of it I attended the prelim-
inary as well as the present tntl, I have taken careful notes of the whole
testimony. I have bestowed much mental labor upon this case, that I might
analize the whole testimony, and arrive at a certain result as to the prisoner's,
lanify. I attended the preliminary trial and heard all the testimony ; an4
28
854 Tin TRiAt or
the effect of aU the evideace bag beeu to lead me to a greater cerUunt^r ; bat
on a question of this kind no man can feel perfect certainty. He can only
feet proximate certainty. A man cannot eay he sees no indications of in-
sanity in the prisoner, for there are circumstances and actions which are
coriunon to sanity, as well as to insanity. But my belief is, that there are
none of the most constant, most descriptiye symptoms of insanity in this
case.
Insanity is the deranged, impulsive, incoherent, deluding exercise of some
or all the ftctddes of nund ; suspending the control of conscience, reason
and judgment, oyer the thoughts, words and acts of the padent This
deflhition, I believe, covers Qvery form of deranged mind which renders a
person irresponsible for .his acts. Insanity, then, is a ctisease having symp-
toms— sanity, a healthy exercise of the powers of the mind. The essential
poi^t in insanity is a chiEuige — generally sudden, occasionaUy slow — In the
action of the mind and body.
1. A change ftom himself,^ in comparison with himselfl
2. A change as compared with the rest of mankind, of his own grade
of mind.
B is a mescal fact, that in dementia there is a want of coherence of idea
and a want of attention oh the part of the patient In every form of insanity
there is more or less want d[ attention and coherence of thought between
questbns and answers put to an insane patient A man who feigns insanity
alwkys wanders more or less from a question in his answers. And why ?
Because the insane man always wants this coherence and attention in a
greater or less degree. Other physiciuis have so sworn on this trial, and I
fully concur in their opinions in this particular. With the exception of
some confusion of thought, as I believe produced by the rapid gemination
and the number present at a time on many occasions, there has been a
general coherence between the questions propounded and the prisoner's
answers to them. So far as I have heard the details of witnesses, of exami-
nations like to those I have made, the same coherence of thought has been
exhibited wherever the prisoner was made to understand or comprehend
the question. Finding, in this case, a general relation and coherence of
thoiight between questions and answers as they have been made, the con-
clusion of my mind is irresistible, that the prisoner's mind must be sane.
I would, however, mention that I have instituted a course of investigation
which has led me to far greater certainty than I should otherwise have felt
It was to prove, affirmatively, that sanity exists, by comparing the facts that
have been brought Out, With the several faculties of mind ; also to compare
those &ct8 with the most constant and descriptive symptopos of insanity.
To this end I divided up and marked memorically the several faculties of
mind, as they are generally agreed upon by 'those who study the physiology
of nund. I have referred to those faculties by names which every one can
understand, and I have divided them into three classes.
wnxii^lntsAHAlr. 865
1. Tlie mvoluntarjr Acuities, iiction<r or feelings of mind.
2. The voluntary faculties of the mind. . '
3. The intermediate ^^uities of the mindl
The involantary faculties I mailed i^th the odd numbers, and they n^f
be designated the odd, unbalancing, tempting^ affectiTe, and instinetiTe
faculties. Of these, I make sensation, hunger^ thirst, love of society, children,
money, combat, fame, tiature^s laws, Iot0 of divine things, revenge, ftnger,
joy, hope, fear, self preservation. Between self preservation and the vobin*
tary faculties, I place conscience, as the essential balancing faculty between '
the voluntary and involuntary faculties.
The most voluntary faculties are, attention, perception, memory, under-
standing, comparison, combination, reason, invention, judgment, sense of
justice, pleasure in right, horror of wrong actions, attentkiD, considtratioD|
and will, and other volitions, mental and muscular. Will, I mark as the '
thirtieth (acuity. As aids of conscience in regulating the voluntary &cnlties,
I would name sympathy and sorrow, for human weal: md woe. We have
three other intermediate faculties, and which are the essential seat of insanity.
They are conception, imagination and association.
M the faculties are umted intpcme whole, as in iMUthk aad strenglii th^y i
act together. I have, in an imaginary waj^, connected all as one whole, by '
telegraphic wires, and ready to act togethet* from &n imagmary centre — ^the
will — simultaneously, for wc^ kno^ that iss a whole they aire m^tod. At this '
point will be observed, what I call an imaginary centr^ — ^the will ; all ar^ -
acting under the influence of tiie wilL [See chart, next^ page.]
Conscience i^gdates the w^l whilst we are awake, an^ sane. Wlen we
are asleep, and insane, the thoughts may be considered sin going around the
will and con^denc^. The insane m^ is essentiaUy a dreaming man awakle.
He mistakes his own fandes and imaginations for- realities, which was the
definition given by Dr. Brigham of the delusions of insanify. The insane '
man make6:the same mistake that a sane man does when dreaming. I men-
tioned as tiie three intermediate faculties, conscience, sottow and sympathy.
The upper ones are conception, imagination, and association, and are the
essential seat of insanity of dreaming. They are the feeders <^ ibe mind. I
shall therefore be pardoned for saying tW' conception is the tlioughtpstating
faculty of mind; the faculty whieh receives the impiressions of sight, noises,
touches, smells and tastes. Tmagination i^ the thou^^^-gathering, thoughJk-
gronping Acuhy~tbe storehouse of tihought— the thoughts without order.
However disorderly may be the thoughts iid sleep, we view them as realities;
80 do the insane. Association is the thought-relating or tthongh^oohering;
faculty of mind. The derangement of these three intermediate faculties,,
between the involuntary, or least voluntary, and the voluntary, or most voU
nntary, constitute the essential elements of insanity.
The brain, the littie brun, spinal marrow and nerves, are the instruments,
or media, connecting the mind with material things, and are the seat of
856
TSfM TKUL Of
the disease called insanity. To illustrate mj Tieirs, I hare prepared the
following diagram :
THREE CLASSES— THIRTT-SIX FACULTIES.
I Involantar^ Faculties, IL Intermediate UL Voluntary
Actions, or Feelings of Mind. Faculties. Faculties.
*. ^..^ * * . : f \- . -*
1 Sensation* -^ 81 Conception. -*■ 2 AttentionT^
t|B I I 0|4
tL
3 Hanger.
82 Imagination.
4 Perception.
6 Thirst
88 Association.
CO
6 Memory.
14
7 LoTe of Society.
9 *• ChlldMB.
U « Honej.
13 " CoBibat
15 *' Fame.
17 • Nrtora'aLawa.
19 ** DiTine TUiigi.
81 ]Ut«B|0^
S3 Anger,
96 Joy, JBope,
27 Fear,
And other pas-
w
alties aad mo- §
tives. tt
a
t
8
Z -H.
8 Undentandioff.
10 Comparison.
HBmsoo.
16 InTration.
18 JndgmenL
aoSenaeofJastioe.
82 Pleasure in Bight
94 Horror of Wrong Acts.
96 biTentton, CoKirdinatiMi.
28 Other VoUdons, mental and
moral.
Y ^ X*.
29 Self-Pr^erTation. ••- 86 Conscience. i^
SO Will
y Unaaeertained Centre oftbongSit,
X T Z Dreaming or Insane Road
of Thoaght aroimd Conscieaoe
and WQl.
V A B C D Union of all the Mental
Facttltiea, as if by electric wires, as
one whole.
VrilXXAM FEUlfAV. 857
In the prisoner^^ case^ the facts detailed by the witaess Lynch, show the
healthful performance of the faculties of perception, imagination and associ-
ation. He recurred to an incident that occurred in the prisoner's childhood.
He recoUected of being whipped, and told the story. He spoke of runmng
away to his mother, and other matters connected with that affair. In insanity
we almost alwap have strange sights, and hear strange noises. We have
negative evidence that the prisoner has seen very few strange sights, if any,
and that symptom is, therefore, absent. As to strange noises, he does not
hear any.
Kzcessiye hunger wiH produce insanity, as at sea, where men eat each
other. Derangements hare lucid intervals. A man was kicked by a hone
on his forehead. He had alternate turns of derangement with perfect sanity.
When he was fbr a few moments insane, he would complain of hunger, but
when sane he would not. In his sane expressions he would stop, and insane
ones begin, and when his incoherent thought was over, he would go on with
the subject upon which he was first talking. With respect to thirst, I see no
evidence of derangement in the prisoner. In traversing this case, I have
compared the acts of the prisoner with the thirty-sLx faculties of the mind,
and by recurring to the evidence, I will show them all to be in a healthy
state.
To show that hunger existed, I refer t(\ the evidence of his furnishing
himself food economically, by moving to a house where he could provide for
himself. That is as a sane economical man would do. He went out in
search of labor precisely as a sane man would. Now the insane are ex-
ceedingly improvident In respect to fear, hope, self preservation, it appears
that the prisoner shook in jail and wanted counsel, but didn't know the
lawyers. He also said that if they would let him go this time, he would do
better in future. In this he also exhibited comparison — ^he would do better
or righter. A man who knows what it is to do righter, knows what it is to
do wronger. This shows to us that conscience would yet whisper right or
wrong — that conscience existed. So also did the remark about the child
being rather small. In giving the reasons for committing the murder, he
spoke of having been in prison wrongfully, was agitated, and one witness
thought he was going to cry. That exhibited a sense of injustice, and that
that had not lost its influence on the prisoner's mind. His love of mon^
was evinced on various occasions. He went to the justice to get pay from
those who owed him. He hurled a two shilling piece at the man, which
may be done, however, by the insane or ill tempered. Combativeness was
exhibited when he stoned the boys, and when he threw the flat-iron at the
witness who whipped him at the Seminary. These were impulsive move-
ments. In the prison, he struck a man for moving lus shoes. He struck a
keeper twice, and afterwards went at him with a knife. This is one of the
symptoms of homicidal mania, yet it b like the symptom of moral depravify.
It lihowB a continuance of lis old habits of nund, and is negative evidence
that msKfotj ^oes not exbt, §n(l positive evideiy^e; of moral ^^oprsyily. Up
to the time of thia murder, I have not been.abl^ to find one single &ct| ex-
cept of a temporary character, which shows insanity. The strongest
evidences of insai^ty to })e found in the prisoner, are hb getting up nights,
singing, dancing, and going tlirough a mock fight, fas if with his fellow ou^.
On t^e preliminary trial, these facts led me momentarily to the belief of
insanity. I entertained the pleasant belief that I qould testify that he was
insane, uptil I remembered having seen just such symptoms produced ^y
intemperance.
Bevenge is here associated with the idea of pay. I myself have heard the
•prisoner, in substance, say, that he committed the murder from revenge.
The idea of pay and revenge, associated, is the e^eatial insane delnaon,
according as tlie learned doctors from IJtica, have testified. But let us
compare this wjth descriptions already given of insane delusions. Idistaking
fancies and imaginations for realities, is one definition of an insane delusion.
An insane delusion is one that is contradicted l>y,the le^uaon and sense of
all mankind. All Insane delusions, like the d^usipns of sane i|iien, are the
effects of false facts or reasonings. They lead men, into delusioBS. Inasnt
men ^ways have liiese fancies--^thin)c they see something that iqtpeana
reality and leads them into delusions. How is thb wrong belief here ; is it
an. ^bsurdi^ or an insane delusion? , To dete^jmine thiB, we most see on
what.it is founcled— how be geis up this delusion. He says that be was im-
prisoned innocently. , He says he didn't steal the horse, and has ufiifinmly
said so. I conclude ttiat he did not, and if he did not, then Us assertion is
true. It is a fact, then, that he had be^n wrongfully imprisoned, and had npt
been paid fi)r biis tim^. tie believes he ought to have pay. If a man has
Worked five years for nothix^g, it b not an absurdity that he ought to, bate
pay. Wheii one boy strikes another, the .strikee says, '^ 111 pay yon fpr
that,** or in otlier words, " 111 get my pay by striking yjOU*" That displays
the fa<iulty of revenge. How is it here ? Who ought to pay him ? Against
whom win he revenge hiinseilf, if the people have not paid bim ? How will
he get his pay ? Now, is tliis conclusion a belief that he can properly re-
Velige himsc^lf in that way ? Because the people won't pay him? Who
tned him and imprisoned him five years? The people— the whole people
of tbe state. The idea of general revenge, is therefore associated with a
true fact— that the whole people sent him to the State Prison. Adxnitting
it! to be right to revenge iiyuries, it was right for the prisoner to avenge
himself. He confesses that it is Throng to avenge injuries ; he confesses that
he committed the crime ; ^d can the conclusiop be resisted that he com-
mitted the act knowing it to .t>e wrong ? His knowing it to be wrongy shows
A^at conscience was in operation.
He exhibits tlie faculty of attention. When a (j^uestion was put to him,
he always attenaed to it, indicating that he apprehended it, and showing
^at his faculty of perception w,as sane. He remembers, he understands
mhuAM FRxsiuir. 359
and compreliends what is said. 'Bla answers correspond witli t&e questions
put, wlien be has had time for deliberation. To some extent he can cqpn-
bine numbers— caa tell a one, three and five dollar bQl. His excuses ha.Ye
shown that reason has been in operation, and rightly exercised. As to l^e
reason he g^ves that he could get pay by revenge, it is an insane what ? Or
an absurd what ? It is either an insane delusion or an absurd reason ; a^id
to my mind it is only an absurd reason, and my reason for that opinion, is
that no sane paan can get up any thing but an absvird reason for murder.
He misjudged in reference to a true fact — that the whole people imprisoned
him ; but we are all liable to misjudge from false facts. It has not the char-
acter of an insane delusion ; it is not founded on fancies or imaginations. It
is, in my opinion, but an absurd conclusion of a sane mind.
Having now established, affirmatively, that all the faculties of the mjuod
are healthful, I wilj proceed to notice the facts showing the 'same thing
negatively. In the books, we have mania, monomania and dementia. The
question here has been narrowed down to monomania or dementia. The
negative proofs that dementia does not exist, are that the prisoner .attends^
comprehends, and, within the compass of his mind, reasons coherently. f£
monomania existed, he should have the symptoms. Monomania is G2iai:a|D-
terized by some absurd belief, in fancy or imagination. A man believes his
legs are glass. He will sit still for fear of breaking them. The preacher
believes himself to 'have become an apostle, or the Saviour. Thos^ are in-
sane delusions. They contradict the reason and the sense. The monoma-
niac who has the homicidal propensity, is affected with these symptoms. Qe
believes some unjust necessity requires him to kill his fellow — ^hb father 9r
his mother, perhaps, or his children — to keep one from starving, or to make
angels of another. In lucid intervals these temptings are disclosed, and
friends are begged to avert ihe catastrophe; and generally that b done
before committing the act, but tins is by no means uniform. How then c^
we disUngnish between, an impulse of moral depravity and the impulse of
insanity ? The best authorities say that homicidal insanity is always followed
by furious niadness, or by suicide. But there are exceptions. Other facts
have to come in; but homicide b almost always succeeded by .general
mania — ^furious insanity. The sane guilty geikerally make arrangements as
to the instruments, time, place and manner of escape. The insane g^ilty
do not It is true that they frequently do, but their movements are a gOQd
deal n^ore hurried, more rapid than those of the sane. They are impulsive.
They become impubive because the imagination goes the crow road, and not
around, by reason and judgment
In the case at bar, . the facts show that the prisoner was in a hurry, at the
very moment of starting foi; the murder. That looks something. Hke an
insane impulse ; yet he was deliberate — ^he enquired if there were chores to
be done, before he l^fl, and pat some snow In the tub. Thb deliberation
balances the insane impulse, for both do not go together. Again, conceal-
860 XHB ZBI AL OV
ment of intention is the leading symptaat of the sane criminal ; and ^
closure of intention, is a leading STmptom of the insane. By the confessions,
he concealed his instruments — threw one out of the window — ^passing bj the
sleigh he had it under his clothes-^he concealed various other moyements
in the construction of his knives — and then fled amongst strangers. Sane
criminals generally conceal, until thejr become convinced that thej cannot
escape the penalty. The prisoner confessed after he was apprehended— -yet
at first denied the murder. But when confronted with Mr. Van Arsdale, in
a manner that would convince any sane man that he could not escape, he
confessed the murder. He has made the same confession to me and to
other witnesses. Does not this look like the sanity of crime. If he had
been affected with homicidal insanity, we should reasonaHy expect to find
him affected with furious madness. But he has each time conveyed the
same train of thought, and almost always used the same words. That does
not happen in cases of impulsive insanity, for there is more or less incohe-
rence, want of memory or want of comprehension there, which have not
been exhibited to any appreciable extent in the prisoner, either in the tes-
timony of witnesses or in the examinations made by me. I can no longer
doubt that the prisoner is sane. He has a low order of rational, uneducated
mind. I have bestowed great labor in this investigation ; and in view of aD
the facts bearing on the case, .1 entertain no reasonable doubt that the pris-
oner is NOT INSANE.
Q. Doctor, what attention have you paid to the subject of insani^ ?
A. I have studied and taught it to my class in the Medical Ck>llege, for
several years. I have now surrendered that department to Dr. Coventiy.
I have, however, during my whole professional life, ^ven more or less attes-
lion to the subject of insanity.
Q. In your opinion, which is the safest criterion for judging of the in-
sanity or sanity of the prisoneiv— his acts previous to the murder, or his cob-
versations since?
A. All should be taken together. Those occurring previously would be
the most certain, because the prisoner may seek to deceive us, since the
commisnon of the act
Q. Is not all the testimony derived from his statements since the murder,
founded on the supposition that those statements were true ?
A. I have gone upon the assumption that he intended to speak the truth,
but I have not relied so much upon that, as the manner of his statements.
Q. Can you conceive of a case of insanity where no external signs cf
disease, in mind or body, are discoverable ?
A« "No, Sir. I cannot conceive of any case where a disease of mind or
body is not manifested by some external symptoms.
Q. Do you find any evidence in this case, showing any attempts to reason
the prisoner out of this idea about pay ?
A. I do not The justice, I believe, told him that he could net get pay ?
inUIAlC VUBCAH. Ml
Q. Do yoxk infer from the evidence, that this man eyer thought that Van
Kett Bald, " If 70U eat mj liver, Til eat yours ?"
A« That k an expression of the ancients. If Van Nest spoke to him, he
might hare heard that I don't think the prisoner has imagination enongh
to conceive it
Q. One of the witnesses observed that the prisoner said, that he thought
he should go to heaven, because he was good. What is your idea about
that?
A. I don't think his ^ulty relating to divine things, his conscience, has
been much cultivated.
Q. If restlessness is indicaUve of homicidal mania, does it not immediatelj
j^recede the offence ?
A. It does, and follows, also. It is one of the most characteristic symp-
toms.
Q. Have you ever visited the instituticMis for the insane, in England?
A* I have visited the asylums in London and Paris.
Q. Is there any thing in the circumstances of this case, that precludes the
idea of going to the house of Van Nest after plunder ?
A. Nothing, independent of his own declarations.
Q. If he had homicidal monomania, and he knew that Van Nest had
nothing to do with his imprisonment, is it not irreconcilable that he did not
attempt to kill the first man he met, instead of going to, and lying in wait
about the house ?
A. I should not regard it as an impossibility. A man acting under an
insane delusion would be likely to attack the first man he met
Q. In your judgment, would it not be indispensable in this case, in order
to show an insane delusion, that the prisoner had an insane impulse to kill
that family?
A. It would not lead to that house at all. Insane men generally don't
deliberate— they don't generally plan. There are exc^tbns, however.
(^ Do you see any thing b the prisoner's reading and counting, that is
inexplicable?
A. In that I see nothing inexplicable at alL In that I see no particular
indications of insanity — no fancies or insane delusions. Of his reading, the
facts all show that he never learned to read. He never had any more in-
struction than a child, and when that instruction was left off, his life* was an
oblivion. Whilst under the influence of hope and fear, he was, soon after
the murder, set to reading. An uneducated mind wouldn't make a' very
nice distinction between letters, words and thoughts. He would have no
just conception of reading, any more than the blind wonld have of sight
A man fell head first from the scaffold, producing eoncnssion of the brain.
Becovering ftom that, he was unable to speak. By accident, one day, the
Bible was handed to him, and he read right off. The Bible taken away^
it was some time before he ooold speak. In the prisonei^s case, the fiicnlty
of association called up his reading.
nSBTBZHOf
C2. Is tlitere aiiyilimg in the penonal appearance of this prisoner indi-
cating inaanity?
A. His tmiie at first induced me to believe lim insane. But I have seen
other people who were addicted to tliat singular habit I have investigated
the matter thoroughly, and have come to the conclusion that there b nofh-
ing in his personal aippearance that necessarily indicates insanity.
Cboss ExAiONAtiON. — Q* Was the loss of Speech a physical or mental
affection ?
A. Both. The brsin' was injured and the mind impaired.
C2- In that case was the mind sound or impaired ?
A. It was impair^, yet the person was not insane.
Q. Do you find that any such accident to the prisoner produced tbe
oblivious condition?
A. The fiicts show it negatively. I find no particular phydcal calami^
which has changed him.
Q. Who were the ancient people Who were accustomed to cat the liver?
A« My isecoUection does not serve ine upon that point I think I nodced
it in the history of Kome ; it may be Livy, Maver or Goldtaith.
Q. Did they eat the liver in its raw state, or after the process of cooHng ?
A. liyrecollectkm b quite Tague on that point
Q. Do you iiask the prisoner has read Livy, Maver or Gold^th ?
A. I rather think he has heard the expression used, but I don^t think Be
ever read those works.
Q. Tou say you find all Hs mental faculties sane ?
A. I see nothing but the result of moral depravity.
Q. What are your essential faculties, that make up the judgment ?
A. Conception, sensation, ima^nadon and association, are essential h-
culties of the mind, as I have classified them.
Q. What are iSie ikculties that are deranged in insanity ?
A. The voluntary faculties are generally affected.
Q. Ib sensation entirely obliterated or only impaired, in the in^me ?
A. It is generally impaired, but not obliterated.
Q. What evidence do you find that sensation in the prisoner is in regolir
operation ?
A. That he sees wefl, hears, and manifests sensation in various ways.
Q. Do you pronounce every man who sees well and hears, sane, or do
joa only say fStuA seeing and hearing is an indication of sanity ?
A. I say that steihg and hearing, so far as they go, are indications of
unity*
Q. Do you kiiow of a lunatic who does not se6 as well as the prisoner?
A. Ldnatids generttlly see as Irell ks the ^rnoiier.
Q. Do you not know a vast number of lunatics who have no illusions of
i«ht?
A. In the efanmio fl»ntt \oif ittsanity, the Hhision orludlucination would
IfPAUK JWHMAH. M8
1m affected by^e-ai^^ti yot thejr av^ a more paitioiiltfr ajBptom^of acote
luaam^.
Q. Is sensatioii delicate in the priaoner?
A* His hearing is rather obtese; the otlWiflenaeaaraikataraL licnow
of nothing, ej;cept a taste for ardent spirits,, ahpinng that«igan viliated. It,
however, is not impaired, nor is his smelL< I see Db impaiimanl of bia sen-
sation.
Q. Bo« in ngacd to tbe nneafinesa^fpain ?
A. The iqtnowFallQV; said the prisoner rvranted a doctor; I;d<m't
think him a stoic. His notcompMunivg 4jd not ah^w that hedid liotleel
pain.
(^ Dc{ ypg not ^d in the? prisoner,, eiAer gneat Sasenaibility to pain or
an absence of symptoms ? . ■ < ■ l
A. IJndxmblii^y. Apj m^
pain, be feels. 1 4o not io^r from tl|is» howeirori tbut ht is a btnt^ for
bmtes manifest pain.
Q. What Mwmfeirtirfiirins of the-poineg of oOn»Bptioo d6 y6a fiad ?
JL XncaUiogupiheconpeptionjofbisboyhooditl^the^fN^
and of ooqinrK^x^oea in the prison.
Q. Canyon vefer me to any.oaae of VMnia, inirhicb4iii6re waa-amt^
feeble power of conception ?
A. I don't know. Conception is gptwAUy.qoifik ill )BMDiaeB,'bnt not in
demented peijKHpai.
Q. Didyon evet know a maniao <lr denented pemm vfao minifeMed
]«B imagination ?
A. I cannot oaU «p any paHicidar case.
Q. Is not his snrprisingly iowand fbebld?
A. It is not below that of many san^ m^n. Like mv»y of hfis oth^ ia-
Ottlties, It is doU^ as it is ;i^ to bein nnedncMod mea«
Q. Do yon know of any instance where he has exercised any imigmation
ataU? •
A. I'have stated about the ancient castom of liver Mting* ai^d the inci-
dents of his boyhood- *
Q. Didhe add or color l^ the imaginatioH ?
A. I cannot analyze the work of imagi&atioti^ but a man eatifitot Jtelale
apy occnitence without imaginatifm.
Q. Wherein has he shown one work of inaginatJon?
A. In what he told -about his boyhood, and abotii the prison.
Q. Did yon ever know an insane man trho had Ita im^ginal&dn than the
-prisoner?
A. I can only say, that they generally have mote.
Q. Is we»kiMi»Qfkuigittationthe«1rideBeeofinsani^*i^
A. It is one of the evaieno^
Q. Do yon suppose there is a etontce of sdasatiott in the body ?
864 MainuL<>#
A. I roppose there is. But on my table it u otiy h^rpoAeticaL
Q. Where do you find the evidences of this distribntion of the mind into
these various faculties ?
A« The evidence is found in oar own consciousness that those £umlties
exist There are thirty-six in alL
Q. What is the litde brain?
A. The little brain lies in the back part of the head.
Q. Suppose a thought to start here, at justice, what is its course ?
A. Conscience and will are avoided in the thoughts of the insane. [Here
the chart is explained to the jnry.] An insane man does not exercise con-
science or wilL
Q. If, whilst pasang through an insane hospital, an insane man Bhoold
knock yon down, would he exercise the will ?
A* It would be an irregular or invduntary exercise of it.
Q. Is not the will always exercised involuntarily, when not under tlie
influence of .reason ?
A. There is always a distinction to be observed between volitaon and wilL
One is the influence of muscular action, the other is not; yet we can hardlj
separate them. Faculties of the nund cannot be described like materiil
things. In sleep, exeept in Bonmamlmlism, the mind has no power over tbe
body.
<^ What is waking somnambalism?
A. It is a figurative expression for feigned somnambuliBm.
Q> If a man fivrty^hree yexn old shoidd be asked his age, and he sboold
4mswer twenty-six, should you regard that as evidence of lanity or insanity ?
A. I should infer neither, from that alone ; but if a man of forty-three
should say he was twenty-«ix, I should infer igmirance.
Q. If he wera, asked whether he had business with two persons, with
whom he had busineM, and should say he did not know them, what would
yoit xnfisr ?
A. I should not infer that it was evidence of sanity or insanity.
Q. If he should be asked if he acknowledged the execution of a deed,
shown him, and which he had signed, and he should say he did nolunie^
stand it, would you regard that as evidence of real or feigned insanity?
A. Why, I shonkl think he told the truth.
Q. If he should be told that he had acknowledged it, already, before a
notary public, and he should say, ^ It is possible," how then ?
A. It wonld need to be connected with other facts before I would infer
in respect to the question of sanity.
Q. If asked why he tore up a note, and should say, '* I don't recollect,"
what would that be evidence of?
A. It might, in certain cases, when connected with other facts, be some
evidence of either insanity or feigned insanity, but taken by itself it would
not be evidence of one more than the otbesi
Q. Suppose he nuB^x^ ^ £Mlier for hia-iDoliier ?
A« I should infer that he was insane^ or meaut lo misrepriaseDt
(^ Suppose the prisoner, when asked to point out the persons who were
his keepers in the State Prison, should say, ^' I don^ know/* would that be
evidence of insanity ?
A« There would be « no ^Mcial evidence about ]t*-either of insam^ or
feigned insanity.
Q. Suppose that when Mr. Lynch asked the prisoner if his (Lynches)
wife had whipped him, he had said, ^ I don't remember T'
A, The answer would haye been rational
Q. Suppose the prisoner stated that he went by Gato to Schroeppel,
when in fact he went-by Syracuse ?
A. It might be eyidence of forgetfulness or deception, but not of insanity.
Q^ S^{^pQse when aaked who he killed first, who secondly, and so ou in
order, he said, '' I don't know ?"
A. The same.
Q. If he had been asked if he bought a knife of the witness Hyatt, and
he had said he did not buy it theve, what inference would you have drawn
fron^that?
A. That he Ued, or might have fbi)gotten*
Q. Did you hear the evidence, that in both the shops where he went ibr
the knives, he was weU known by those 11^ vfvnked there ?
A« I nndeistood that some were strangers, and that some knew him.
Q. Da y^tt, think that your table w31 tad the jury in oomiiqp to a oondii-
skm as to the prisoner's sanity ?
A. Whether the jury wiU profit by it will depend very mnch upon my '
success in making it, and upon the fact whether they understand iL
Q. Did you state, as one of the evidences of the prisoner's sanity, that he
went among strangers ?
A. I don't recollect I believe he went to the De Puys', who turned him
away.
Q^ Do you regard that fact as evidence either of sanity or insanity ?
A. It would not majke much more on one side than upon the other. It
might l»ear a trifle the most on the side of insanity.
Q. What is the best exercise of coharenoe?
A. It is best exemplified by relating occurrences in order, as they aie
understood by mankind in generaL
Q. If the prisoner had narrated the tragedy in the order in which each
act occurred, would not ^i have manifested coherence ? ' ^
A. It is manifested in that way to a high degree. That, however, would
depend on the man's ability.
Q. If you find a person in whose memory all the facta are stored,. and
who is yet unable to narrate them without being prompted, is that evidence
of an inferior degree of €oherenii;e» than if he J^lated without prompting?
866 tn^MH^^M
A. That wodM depend oil obitiimcy or ddltfeii^ If lie were ivilfiiig; bot
did not, it would Aqw ehttiAuej cft dnUneiSi
Q. Can yon lopppve ii flM&^ ordmary intelligent who toold not aamte
the incidents of tUa nnurder ?
A. I do not suppose it impossible.
Q. DHA yon ever isee a sane Bian who eenld not doit ?
A. There is a deal of difficnltj in many sane minds in getting vp asCory
as irell as th^ prisoner does;
Q. Do 70a find evidenoe of ooheretiee^ or BMBioiy oid^, m aaswering
leading questions?
A. IfindoTidenceoflTbth.
Q. Would you expect an insane man to depart from Hie ^qtiestiona, or to
answer thein coneetly ?
A. I shoidd ejq>eot him to depart from tiie qiiestiotts. In some of tfae^
chronic forms of insanity they will go on an^ tell, aft one time, but at another
they cannot
Q. Tina, if there had been a departure from the questioii^ how woaU'
yoa diilingiiish between> an insane man and one f«gnmg insanity t
A. A man feigning insanity would wander. If you spoke of a horse, he
would answer of a dog. We must 4isti]q(liish by a careful examination vM -
the aymptomsbf each.
Q. IsyourplanofthirtyHdzftcnlliieaapeif^trab^yiflitnri^
A. Idividedtliefaedtiesi^hthirtyHdx; bnttheehaHisnotperib^ H
is sack an analysiB as comports wiOi common names. Thkre are oflkers, bat '
I have not been called upon to make out the additkmd list
Q. How many^ other volitifnis are thete under No. 28, on your map.
A. I don't feel called upon to answer*
Q. Aa aide of conseieace, you say you find lihe' intontoediale fhcnkiM of
joy and sorrow for human weal and woe ?
A* I hitTB teBtified,.genendly, iStailliie prisoner had IbdBng) of sorvoir
and of sympathy ; but they are at a low ebb. His fiwnilties are all dull, but
they arcinnchhig^r'diaa those of a brute.
Q. Do you reooUeot your evidence as to his fistingidshhig tight fronr
wnmg?
A. I cannot repeat it, but I recollM/ of staling sereral facts ^biting upon'
that point
Q. What idea did you get from the witness to whomr he said; <* Well do
whalfs^i£^t about it*'?
A« It was the expression of a man knowing right from inong, I see in
that nothnig ineonsistentwith the idea of sanity, as he seetitied to appreciate
right from wrong.
(^ How did tiw prisoner apply hiaknoirledge?
A* He applied it to dw sul^ectupon wluch ^ey ivere conTeming. Imay
aswelLsayJimythatllihfaik thet«i^ mind. Hedont
gel al<mg without uttering an acowioDal «bflurdiljf He b a bundle of ab-
surdities. The idea advanced by him was not a very bright one, but sO far
as it went it was no evidence of insani^.
Q. What faculty is the ioiaginary centre, reined to on your map, or what
£M;ulty did you describe as such ?
A. The imaipnary centre of all the faculties is the place where^they all
combine. I did not describe any £M;ulty as the centre. I said the centre
of the whole united by the hand of Onmipotence..
Q. Do you mean to say that the will is not the imaginary centre ?
A« I mean that all the faculties of the mind are that imaginary centre.
Q^ Which is excited first, the thoughts or will ?
A* They are excited simultaneously.
Q. What did you mean, then, by saying Hiat fitvt sensation; then thought,
and then the will were excited ?
A« Because that is the order, as near as we can get at them*
Q. If a husband is jealous Qf his wife, wi|h sufficient cause, :is that n delu-
uon?
A. Jealousy with a sufficient eause is not a delusaon^irithoat.n suffix
cient cause it may be, depending upon qirounuitancet.
Q. Where do you locate conception ?
A. It IS a mere hypothesis. It is situated in the fbrepttt.of the head.
Q, What hospital of the insane did yon vjnt in Z^ondon, and who had
chai|;eofit?
A. I visited the large hospital near Charing Crosf, on the aonth aide of
the Thames. I don't recollect the superintendent's name^
Q. Whatkind of ahospital wasit, and, hpw many patients did it contain?..
A. It was a hospital for the. insane.. Idon't jreooUect the nmnbes of.
patients that it contained. •
Q. How long were you there ?
A. I don't recollect of being there more than one day.
Q. What asylum for the insane did you vint in Paris ?
A. I visited a large number of hospitals. I sti^yed ^ere four nonths^ ,
Q. Can yon name any of them?,
A« I cannot now.
Q. Which side of the Seine were they?
A. I cannot now tell.
Q. Can you not name one of them ?
A. I cannot They were charily hospitals.
Q. Were there any insane persons in them ?
A There are insane persons in all the hospitals in Paris.
Q. But did you see any insane person^ there ?
A. I think Uiere were some there.
Q. Did you discover that the insa^iet^persons were hungty ?
868 dtt noAL o^
A. I did not daecorer tiiat Uiey were more 00 &ai tiie citizens of Paris
generally.
Q. Did you Tisit the hospital in Edinbnrgh ?
A. I did, bat not the hospital for the insane. I did not visit any hospital
for the insane, out of London.
Q. What asylums for the insane, in this country, have yon vi^ted ?
A. In America I hare Tisited the Hartford, and Utica, and Ohio Asy-
lums. I remember no other.
Q. Have you ever seen a deranged person who prodded for, andsus-
tdned lumself by his labor ?
A. I don't now recollect an instance of having seen a man deranged who
was a laboring man.
Q. Do you think tiie prisoner is a provident, prudent person, in hii
affairs?
A. The story about his board is evidence of economy. His drunkenness
is the reverse. I cannot say that I have seen evidence that he is a proTi-
dent person.
Q. If he had thirty-eeven and a half cents only, one week before the
murder, and laid out one half of that amount in buying a knife to murder i
&mily with, three cents in mending a jack knife, and six cents for a pound
<^ soap, should you think him a provident person ?
A. In that I shouki not think him especisfiy provident or improvident
There is not, however, in that, the evidence of that extravagant impron-
dence which we find in the insane.
Q. Has the fact of his greasing his boots the day of the murder any, and
if any, what influence on your mind, in reference to his sanity ?
A. I don't see any evidence of insanity in that
Q. What evidence of design or plan of escape do you find in the prisoner,
before the murders were conunitted ?
A. I don't remember of any particular &ct occurring before the murder,
that was evidence of it
^ere the testimony on both ndes closed.
Mb. Sewabd, then addressed the jury in behalf of the prisoner, in sub-
stance, as fdlowB :
Mat it Pleasb thb CovB,T,—OerUlemen of the Jury :
" Thou bhalt not Kill," and, " Whoso sheddeth Max's blood bt
Man shall his blood be shed," are laws found in the code of that
people who, although dispersed and distracted, trace their history to the
creation; a history which records that murder was the first of Human
Crimes.
The first of these precepts constitates a tenth part of the Jurispro-
dence which God saw fit to establish, at an eariy period, for the government
of all mankind, throughout all generations. The latter, of less universal
WiLUAM FRXEHAN. 869
obligation, is still retained in our systesii, although other states, as intelli-
gent and refined, as secure and peaceful, have substituted for it the more
benign principle that Good shall be returned for Evil. I yield implicit
submusion to this law, and acknowledge the justice of its penalty, and the
duty of courts and juries to give it effect
In this case, if the Prisoner be guilty of Murder, I do not ask remission
of punishment If he be guilty, never was Murderer more guilty. He has
murdered not only Johx G. Van Nest, but his hands are reeking with the
blood of other, and numerous, and even more pitiable victims. The slaying
of Van Nest, if a crime at all, waft the cowardly crime of assassination.
John G. Van Nest was a just, upright, virtuous man, of middle age, of
grave and modest demeanor, distinguished by especial marks of the respect
and esteem of his fellow citizens. On his arm leaned a confiding wife, and
they supported, on the one side, children to whom they had given being,
and, on the other, aged and ven'erable parents, from whom they had deriv^
existence. The assassination of such a man was an atrocious crime, but the
Murderer, with more dian savage refinement, immolated on the same altar,
in the same hour, a venerable and virtuous matron of more than three-score
years, and her daughter, the wife of Yax Nest, mother of an unborn infitnt
Nor was this all Providence, which, for its own mysterious purposes, per-
mitted these dreadful crimes, in mercy suffered the same arm to be raised
against the sleeping orphan child of the butchered parents, and received it
into Heaven. A whole family, just, gentle and pure, were thus, in their
own house, in the night time, without any provocation, without one mo-
ment's warning, sent by the Murderer to join the Assemby of the Just ; and
even the laboring man, sojourning within their gates, received the fatal
blade into his breast, and survives through the mercy, not of the Murderer,
but of God.
For William Freeman, as a Murderer, I have no commission to speak. If
he had silver and gold accumulated with the frugality of Croesns, and should
pour it all at my feet, I would not stand an hour between him and the
Avenger. But for the Innocent, it is my right, my duty to speak. If this
sea of blood was innocently shed, then it is my duty to stand beside him
until his steps lose their hold upon the scaffold. ^
^ Thou shalt not kill," is a commandment addressed not to him alone, but
to me, to you, to the Court, and to the whole community. There are no
exceptions from that commandment, at least in civil life, save ihose of self-
defence, and capital punishment for crimes, in the due and just administra-
tion of the law. There is not only a question, then, whether the Prisoner has
shed the blood of his fellow man, but the question, whether we shall un-
lawfully shed his blood. I should be guilty of Murder if, in my present
relation, I saw the executioner waiting for an insane man, and failed to say,
or failed to do in his behalf, all that my ability allowed. I think it has been
proved of the Prisoner at the bar, that, during all this long and tedious
24
S70 THl TRIAL OV
trial, he has had no sleepless nights, and that even in the day time, when
Jie retires from these halls to his lonely cell, he sinks \o rest like a wearied
child, on the stone floor, and quietly slumbers till roused by the constable
with his staff, to appear again before the Jury. His Counsel enjoy no such
repose. Their thoughts by day and their dreams by night are filled with
oppressive apprehensions that, through their inability or neglect, he may be
condemned.
I am arraigned before yon for undue manifestations of zeal and excite-
ment My answer to all such charges shall be brief. When this cause rixall
have been dommitted to you, I shall be happy, indeed, if it shall appear that
my only error has been, that I have felt too much, thought too intensely, or
acted too fmthfully.
K my error would thus be criminal, how great would yours be if yoa
should render aoi unjust verdict I Only four months have elapsed since
an outraged People, distrustful of judicial redress, doomed the Prisoner
10 immediate death. Some of you have confessed that you approved that
lawless sentence. All men now rejoice that the Prisoner was saved for
this solemn trial. But this trial would be as criminal as that precipitate
aentence, if through any wilful fault or prejudice of yours, it should proTS
but a mockery of justice. If any prejudice of witnesses, or the imagina-
,tion of Counsel, or any iU-timed jest shall at any time have diverted yoar
attention, or if any prejudgment which you may have brought into the Jury
Box, or any cowardly fear of pq)ular opinion shall have operated to cause
yott to deny to the Prisoner that dispassionate consideration of his case
which the laws of God and man exact of you, and if, owing to such an error,
this wretched man fall from among the living, what will be your crime?
You will have violated the commandment, *^ Thou shalt not kilL" It is not
the fiann or letter of the trial by jury that authorizes you to send your fel-
low man to his dread account,' but it is the spirit that sanctifies that glorions
institution; and if, through pride, passion, timidity, weakness, or any cause^
. you deny the Prisoner one iota of all the defence to which he is entitled by
, the law of the land, you yourselves, whatever his guilt may be, will have
broken the commandment, ** Thou shalt do no Murder."
There is not a corrupt or prejudiced witness — ^there is not a thoughtless
or heedless witness, who has testified what was not true in spirit, or what
was not wholly true, or who has suppressed any truth, who has not offended
against the same injunction.
Nor is the Court itself above th^ commandment If these Judges have
been influenced by the excitement which has brought this vast assemblage
here, and under such influence, or under any other influence, have com-
mitted voluntary error, and have denied to the Prisoner or shall hereafler
deny to him the benefit of any fact or any principle of law, then this Coart
will have to answer for the deep transgression, at that bar at which we all
shall meet again. When we appear there, none of us can plead that we
wiLUfUf Fsimuiu 871
woro insane and knew not what we did ; and by just so mucli as our abilit^r
and knowledge exceed tlioee of this wretch, whom the world regards as a
fiend in human shape, will our guilt exceed his, if we be guilty.
I plead not for a Murderer. I have no inducement, no motiye to do so.
I haTO addressed my fellow citizens in many various relations, when re-
wards of wealth and fame awaited me. I have been cheered on other
occasions by manifestadons of popular approbation and sympathy; and
where there was no such encouragement, I had at least the gratitude of him
whose cause I defended. But I speak now in the hearing of a people who
have prejudged the Prisoner, and condemned me for pleading in his behalf.
He b a convict, a pauper, a negro, without intellect, sense, or emotion.
My child, with an affectionate smile, dieanns my care-worn face of its frown
. whenever I cross my threshold. The beggar in the street obliges me to
give, because he says " God bless you," as I pass. My dog caresses me with
fondness if I will but smile on him. My horse recognizes me when I fill his
manger. But what reward, what gratitude, what sympathy and aflfection
can I expect here ? There the Prisoner sits. Look at him. Look at the
assemblage around you. Listen to their ill-suppressed censures and their
excitod fears, and tell me where among my neighbors or my fellow men,
where even in his heart, I can expect to find the sentiment, the thought,
not to say of reward or of acknowledgment, but even of recognition. I sat
here two weeks during the preliminary trial. I stood here between the
Prisoner and the Jury nine hours, and pleaded for the wretch that he was
insane and did not even know he was on trial : and when all was done, the
Jury thought, at least eleven of them thought, that I had been deceiving
them, or was self-deceived. They read signs of intelligence in his idiotic
smile, and of cunning and malice in his stolid insensibility. They rendered
a verdict that he was sane enough to be tried — a contemptible compromise
verdict in a ciapital case ; and then they looked on, with what emotions Grod
and they only know, upon his arraignment The District Attorney, speaking
in his adder ear, bade him rise, and reading to him one indictment, asked
him whether he wanted a txial, and the poor fool answered. No. Have yon
Counsel ? Na And they went through the aame mockery, the Prisoner
giving the same answers, until a third indictment was thundered in his ears,
and he stood before the court, silent, motionless, and bewildered. Gende-
men, you may think of this evidence what you please, bring in what verdict
you can, but I asseverate bofore Heaven and you, that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, the Prisoner at the bar does not at'this moment know
why it is that my shadow falls on you instead of his own.
I speak with all sincerity and earnestness ; not because I expect my opin-
ion to have weight, but I would disarm the injurious impression that I am
speaking merely as a lawyer speaks for his client I am not the Prisonei^s
lawyer. I am indeed a volunteer in his behalf; but Society and Mankind
have the deepest interests at stake. I am the lawyer for Societyi for Man-
872 TKBTKLiLOV
kind, shocked, beyond tlie power of expression, at the scene I have witnessed
here of trying a maniac as a malefactor. In this, almost the first of such
caases I have ever seen, the la:3t I hope that I shaU ever see, I wish that I
could perform my duty with more effect If I suffered myself to look at the
volumes of testimony through which I have to pass, to remember my entire
want of preparation, the pressure of lime, and my wasted strength and en-
ergies, I should despair of acquitting myself as you and all good men will
hereafter desire that I should have performed so sacred a duty. But in the
cause of humanity we are encouraged to hope for Divine assistance wheie
human powers are weak. As you all know, I provided for my way through
these trials, neither gold nor silver in my purse, nor scrip ; and when I
could not think beforehand what I should say, I remembered that it was
said to those who had a beneficent commission, that they should take no
thought 'what they should say when brought before the magistrate, for in
that same hour it should be given them what they should say, and it should
not be they who should speak, but the spirit of their Father speaking in
them.
You have promised, gentleman, to be impartial. You will find it mofe
difficult than you have supposed. Our minds are liable to be swayed by
temporary influences, and above all, by the influences of masses around as.
At every stage of this trial, your attention has been diverted, as it will be
hereafter, from the only question which it involves, by the eloquence of the
Counsel for the People, reminding you of the slaughter of that helpless and
innocent family, and of the danger to which society is exposed by relaxing
the rigor of the laws. Indignation against crime, and apprehensions of its
recurrence, are elements on which public justice relies for the execution of
the law. You inust indulge that indignation. You cannot dismiss such
apprehensions. You will in common with your fellow citizens deplore the
destruction of so many precious lives, and sympathize with mourning rek*
tions and friends. Such sentiments cannot be censured when operating
upon the community at large, but they are deeply to be deplored when the/
are manifested in the Jury Box.
Then, again, a portion of this issue has been tried, imperfectly tried, un-
justly tried, already. A Jury of twelve men, you are told, have alreadjr
rendered their verdict that the Prisoner is now sane. The deference
which right minded men yield to the opinions of others, the timidity which
weak men feel in dissenting from others, may tempt you to surrender
your own independence. I warn you that that verdict is a reed which
will pierce you through and through. That Jury was selected without
peremptory challenge. Many of the Jurors Entered the panel with settled
opinions that the Prisoner was not only guilty of the homicide, but sane,
and all might have entertained such opinions for all that the Prisoner
could do. It was a verdict founded on such evidence as could be hastily
collected in a community where it required moral courage to testify for die
wiLUAM rsEmAN. 873
accused. Testimony was excluded upon frivolous and unjust pretences.
The cause was submitted to the Jury on the Fourth of July, and under
circumstances calculated to convey a malicious and unjust spirit into the
Jury Box. It was a strange celebration. The dawn of the Day of Indepen-
dence was not greeted with cannon or bells. No lengthened procession was
seen in our streets, nor were the voices of orators heard in our public halls.
An intense excitement brought a vast multitude here, complaining of the
delay and the expense of what was deemed an unnecessary trial, and de-
manding the sacrifice of a victim, who had been spared too long already.
For hours that assemblage was roused and excited by denunciations of the
Prisoner, and ridicule of his deafness, his ignorance, and his imbecility. Be-
fore the Jury retired, the Court was informed that they were ready to render
the verdict required. One Juror, however, hesitated. The next day was
the Sabbath. The Jury were called and the Court remonstrated with the
dissentient, and pressed the necessity.of a verdict That Juror gave way at
last, and the bell 'which summoned our citizens to church for the evening
service, was the signal for the discharge of the Jury, because they had agreed. ,
Even thus a legal verdict could not be extorted. The eleven Jurors, doubt-
less under an intimation from the Court, compromised with the twelflh, and
a verdict was rendered, not in the language of the law, that the Prisoner
was '* not insane," but that he was '^ sufficiently sane, in mind and memory,
to distinguish between right and wrong ;" . a verdict which implied that the
Prisoner was at least partiaUy insane, was diseased in other faculties beside
the memory, and partially diseased in that, and that, although he had mind
and memory to distinguish between right and wrong in the abstract, he had
not reason and understanding and will to regulate his conduct according to
that distinction ; in short, a verdict by whicH the Jury unworthily evaded
the question submitted to them, and cast upon the Court a responsibility
which it had no right to assume, but which it did nevertheless assume, in
violation of the law. That twelfth Juror was afterwards drawn as a Juror in
this cause, and was challenged by the Counsel for the People for partiality
to the Prisoner, and the challenge was sustained by the Court, because,
although he had, as the court say, pronounced by his verdict that the Pris-
oner was sane, he then declared that he believed the Prisoner insane, and
would die in the Jury Box before he would render a verdict that he was
sane. Last and chief of all objections to that verdict now, it has been
neither pleaded nor proved here, and therefore is not in evidence before
you. I trust, then, that you will dismiss to the contempt of mankind that
Jury and their verdict, thus equivocating upon Law and Science, Healtli
and Disease, Crime and Innocence.
Again. An inferior standard of intelligence has been set up here as the
standard of the Negro race, and a false one as the standard of the Asiatic
race. This Prisoner traces a divided lineage. On the paternal side his an-
cestry is lost among the tiger hunters on the Gold Coast of Africa, while lut
374 THE.TRIAL OF
mother constitutes a portion of the small remnant of tbe Narragansett tribe.
Hence it U held that the Prisoner's intellect is to be compared with the depre-
ciating standard of the African, and his passions with the violent and feroeiom
character erroneously imputed to the Aborigines. Indications of manifest de-
rangement, or at least of imbecility, approaching to Idiocy, are, therefore, set
aside, on the ground that they harmonize with the legitimate but degraded
characteristics of the races from which he is descended. Ton, gentlemen,
have, or ought to have, lifted up your souls above the bondage of prejudicef
90 narrow and so mean as these. The color of the Prisoner's ^in, and the
form of his features, are not impressed upon the spiritual, intunortal mind
which works beneath. In spite of human pride, he is still your brother, and
mine, in form and color accepted and approved by his Father, and yours,
and mine, and bears equally with us the proudest inheritance of our race —
the image of our Maker. Hold him then to be a Man. Exact of him all
the responsibilities which should be exacted under like circumstances if he
belonged to the Anglo-Saxon race, and make for him 4ll the allowance!
which, under like circumstances, you would expect for yourselves.
The Prisoner was obliged — nof his Counsel were obliged, by law, to accept
the plea of Not Guilty , which the Court directed to be entered in his behalf.
Thai plea denies the homicide. If the law had allowed it, we would gladfy
have admitted all the Murders of which the Prisoner was accused, and have
admitted them to be as unpi^voked as they were cruel, and have gone dh
rectly before you on the only defence upon which we have insisted, or shall
insist, or could insist — that he is irresponsible, because he was and is insane.
We labor not only under these difficulties, but under the further embar
rassment that the plea of Insanity is universally suspected. It is the last sub-
terfuge of the guilty, and so is too often abused. But however obnoxious to
suspicion this defence is, there have been cases where it was true ; and when
true, it is of all pleas the most perfect and complete defence that can be of-
fered in any human tribunal. Our Savior forgave his Judges because " they
knew not what they did." The insane man who has committed a crime,
knew not what he did. If this being, dyed with human blood, be insane^
you and I, and even the children of our affections, are not more guiltles
than he.
Is there reason to indulge a suspicion of fraud here ? Look at this stupid,
senseless fool, almost as inanimate as the day moulded in the brick-yard, and
say, if you dare, that you are afraid of being deceived by hhn. Look at me.
Ton all know me. Am I a man to engage in a conspiracy to deceive yoo,
and defraud justice ? Look on us all, for although I began the defence of
this cause alone, thanks to the generosity, to the magnanimity of an enlight-
ened profession, I come out strong in the assistance of Counsel never before
attached to me in any relation, but strongly grappled to me now, by these
new and endearing ties. Is any one of us a man to be suspected ? The tes-
timony is closed. Look through it alL Can suspicion or malice find in it
WILLIAM nxSMAS. 375
anj ground to accuse us of a plot to set np a false and fabricated defence ?
I will give yon, gentlemen, a key to every case where Insanity has been
wrongfully, and yet successfully maintidncd. Grold, influence, popular favor,
popular sympathy, raise that defence, and make it impregnable. But yon
have never seen a poor, worthless, spiritless, degraded negro like ^u, ac-
quitted wrongfully. I wish this trial may prove that such an one can be ac-
quitted rightfully. The danger lies here. There is not a whitb man or
WBiTE woman who would not have been dismissed long since from the perils
of such a prosecution, if it had only been proved that the offender was sa
ignorant and so brutalized as not to understand that the defence of insanity
had been interposed.
If he feign, who has trained the idiot to perform this highest and most dif*
ficult of all intellectual achievements ? Is it I ? Shakspeare and Cervantes,
only, of all mankind, have conceived and perfected a connterfeit of insanity.
Is it I ? Why is not the imposition exposed, to my discomfiture and the
Prisoner's ruin ? Where was it done ? Was it in public, here ? Was it
in secret, in the jail ? His deafeiied ears could not hear me there, unless 1
Were overheard by other prisoners, by jailers, constables, the Sheriff, and %
cloud of witnesses. Who has the keys of \he jail ? Havel? You have
had Sheriff, Jailer, and the whole Police upon the stand. Could none of these
witnesses reveal our plot ? Were there none to watch and report the
abuse ? When they tell yon, or insinuate, gentlemen, that this man has been
taught to feign insanity, they discredit themseltes, as did the Roman senti-
nels, who, appointed to guard the sepulchre of our Savior, said, in excuse of
the broken seal, that while they slept men came and rolled away the stone*
I advance towards the merits of the cause. The law which it invohres will
be found in the case of Eleim, tried for murder in 1844, before Jndge Ed-
monds, of the First Circuit, in the city of New York, reported in the Journal
of Insanity for January, 1846, at page 261. I read from the report of liie
Judge's charge :
^ He told the Jury that there was no doubt that Kleimhad beeA guilty of
the killing hnputed to him, and that under circumstances of atrocity and
deliberation which were calculated to excite in their minds strong feelings
of indignation against him. Bat they must beware how they penmlted
such feelings to influence their judgment They must bear in mind that
the object of punishment was not vengeance, but reformation ; not to ex*
tort from a man an atonement for the life which he cannot give, but by
the terror of the example, to deter others from the like offences, and that
nothing was so likely to destroy the public confidence in the administratioil
of criminal justice, as the infliction of its pains upon one whom Heaven has
already afllicted with the awful malady of Insanity."
These words deserve to be written in letters of gold upon tablets of marble.
Their reason and philosophy are apparent If you send the lunatic to the gd-
876 Tin TRIAL OF
lowB, society will be shocked by yoar inhumamtj, and the advocates for the
abolition of capital punishment will find their most effective argument in the
fact that a Jury of the country, through ignorance, or passion, or prejudice,
have mistaken a madman for a criminal
The report of Judge Edmonds' charge proceeds : " It was true that the
plea of insanity was sometimes adopted as a cloak for crime, yet it was un-
fortunately equally true, that many more persons were unjustly convicted,
to whom their unquestioned insanity ought to have been an unfailing pro-
tection.''
This judicial answer to the argument that Jurors are too likely to be swayed
by the plea of insanity, is perfect and complete.
Judge Edmonds further charged the Jur}-, " that it was by no means an
easy matter to discover or define the line of demarkation where sanity end-
ed and insanity began," and that it was often " difficult for those most ex-
pert in the disease to detect or explain its beginning, extent, or duration ;*
« that the classifications of the disease were in a great measure arbitrary, and
the Jury were not obliged to bring the case of the Prisoner within any one of
the classes, because the symptoms of the different kinds were continnaUy
mingling with each other."
The application of this rule will render the present case perfectly clear, be-
eaase it appears from the evidence that the Prisoner is laboring under a com-
bination of mania or excited madness, with dementia or decay of the mind.
Judge Edmonds furnishes you with a bahince to weigh the testimony in
the case, in these words :
<^It was important that the Jury should understand how much weight was
to be given to the opinions of medical witnesses. The opinions of men who
bad devoted themselves to the study of insanity as a distinct department of
medical science, and studied recent improvements and discoveries, esped-
ally when to that knowledge they added the experience of personal can
of the insane, could never be safely disregarded by Courts and Juries;
And on the other hand, the opinions of physicians who had not devoted their ■
particular attention to the disease, were not of any more value than the
opinions of common persons."
This charge of Judge Edmonds furnishes a lamp to guide .your feet, and
throws a blazing light on your path. He acknowledges, in the first place,
with distinguished independence for a Judge and a: Lawyer, that *^ the law, in
its slow and cautious progress, still lags far behind the advance of true know-
ledge." " An insane person is one who, at the time of commitdng the act,
labored under such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality
of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, did not know^fae was doing
what was wnmg ; and the question is not whether the accused knew the dif-
ference between right and wrong generally, but whether he knew the di^
ference between right and wrong in regard to the very act with which he is
WILLIAM FREEMAN. 877
charged." " If some controlling disease was, in trutb, the acting power with-
in him, which he could not resist, or if he had not a sufficient use of his rear
son to control the passions which prompted him, he is not responsible. But
it must be an absolute dispossession of the free and natural agency of the
mind. In the glowing but just language of Erskine, it is not necessary that
Reason should be hurled from her seat ; it is enough that Distraction sits down
beside her, holds her trembling in her place, and frightens her from her pro-
priety."
Judge Edmonds proceeded : " And it must be borne in mind that the
moral as well as inteliectual faculties may be so disordered by the disease as
to deprive the nund of its controlling and directing power.
" In order then to establish a crime, a man must have memory and intelli-
gence to know that the act he is about to commit is wrong ; to remember and
understand, that if he commit the act, he will be subject to punishment ; and
reason and will to enable him to compare and choose between the supposed
advantage or gratification to be obtained by the criminal act, and the immunity
from punishment which he will secure by abstaining from it
" If, on the other hand, he have not intelligence enough to have a criminal
intent and purpose ; and if his moral or intellectual powers are either so
deficient that he has not suflicient will, conscience, or controlling mental
power; or if through the overwhelming violence of mental disease his
intellectual power is for th6 time obliterated, he is not a responsible moral
agent"^
The learned Judge recommended to the Jury, " as aids to a just conclu-
sion, to consider the extraordinary and unaccountable alteration in the
Prisoner's whole mode of life; the inadequacy between the slightness of the
cause and the magnitude of the oficnc^ ; the recluse and ascetic life which
he had led ; his invincible repugnance to all intercourse with his fellow
creatures ; his behavior and conduct at the time the act was done, and sub-
sequently tluring his confinement ; and the stolid indifference which he alone
had manifested during the whole progress of a trial upon which his life or
death depended."
Eleim was acquitted and sent, according to law, to the State Lunatic
Asylum at Utica. The superintendent of the Asylum, in a note to this re-
port, states that Eleim is uniformly mild and pleasant ; has not asked a
question, or spoken or learned the name of any one ; seems very imperfectly
to recollect the Murder or the trial ; says he was put in prison ; does not
know what for ; and was taken to the Court, but had no trial ; that his bodily
health is good, but that his mind is nearly gone — quite demented.
You cannot fail, gentlemen of the Jury, to remark the extraordinary sim-
ilarity between the case of Eleim, as indicated in the charge of Judge Ed-
monds, and that of the Prisoner at the bar. If I were sure you would
receive such a charge, and be guided by it, I might rest here, and defy the
eloquence of the Attorney General The proof of insanity in this case is of
378 TBS tkuja of
the same nature, and the disease in the same form as in the case of Eleim.
The only difference is, that the. evidence here is a thousand times more con-
cluaive. But Judge Edmonds does not preside here. Kleim was a white
man, Freeman is a Negro. Kleim set fire to a house, to burn only a poor
obscure woman and her child. Here the madman destroyed a whole family,
rich, powerful, honored, respected and beloved. Kleim was tried in the
city of New York ; and the community engaged in their multiplied avoca-
tions, and heedless of a crime not infrequent there, and occurring in humble
life, did not overawe and intimidate the Court, the Jury, or the witnesses.
Here a panic has paralyzed humanity. No man or woman feels safe until
the maniac shall be extirpated from the face of the earth. Eleim had the
fljympathies of men and women, willing witnesses, advocates sustained and
encouraged by popular favor, and an impartial Jury. Freeman is already
condemned by the tribunal of public opinion, and has reluctant and timor-
ous witnessei^ Counsel laboring under embarrassments plainly to be seen,
and a Jury whose impartiality is yet to be proved.
The might that slumbered in this maniac's arm was exhausted in the par-
oxysm which impelled him to his dreadful deeds. Yet an excited com-
munity, whose terror has not yet culminated, declare,, that whether sane or
insane, he must be executed, to give safety to your dwellings and theirs. I
must needs then tell you the law, which will disarm such cowardly fear. If
you acquit the Prisoner, he cannot go at large,, but must be conunitted to
jail, to be tried by another Jury, for a second Murder. Your dwellings
therefore will be sde. If such a Jury find him sane, he will then be sent to
his fearful account, and your dwellings will be safe. If acquitted, he will
be remanded to jail, to await a third trial, and your dwellings will be safe.
If that Jury convict, he will then be executed, and your dwellings will be
safe. If they acquit, he will still b^ detained, to answer a fourth Murder,
and your dwellings will be safe. Whether the fourth Jury acquit or convict,
your dwellings will still be safe ; for if they convict, he will then be cut off,
and if they acquit, he must, according to the law of the land, be sent to the
Lunatic Asylum, there to be confined for life. You may not slay him then,
for the public security, because t||e public security does not demand the
sacrifice. No security for home or hearth can be obtained by Judicial Mui^
der. God will abandon him, who, through cowardly fear, becomes such t
Murderer. / also stand for the security of the homes and hearths of my
fellow citizens, and have as deep an interest, and as deep a stake as any one
of thenL There are my home and hearth, exposed to every danger that
can threaten theirs ; but I know that security cannot exist for any, if feeble
man undertakes to correct the decrees of Providence.
The Counsel for the People admit in the abstract that insanity excuses
crime, but they insist on rules for the regulation of insanity, to which that
disease can never conform itself. Dr. Fosgate testified that the Prisoner
was insane. He was asked by the Attorney General, " What if the law, net-
wiLum naamM- 379
erthelesfl, hold to be criminal that same state of mind which yon pronounce
insanity 7" He answered with high inteliigence and great moral firmness,
** The law cannot alter the constitution of man as it was given him by his
Maker."
Insanity, such as the Counsel for the People would tolerate, never did and
neTer will exist. They bring its definition from Coke, Blackstone and
Hale, and it requires that by reason either of natural infirmity or of disease,
the wretched subject shall be unable to count twenty, shall not know his
fltther or mother, and shall have no more reason or thought than a brute
According to the testimony of Dr. Spicnceb, and the claim of the At-
torney General, an individual is not insane if yon find any traces or glim-
merings of the several faculties of the human mind, or of the more important
ones. Dr. Spekcer has found in the Prisoner, memory of his wrongs and
sufferings, choice between bread and animal food, hunger to be appeased,
thint to be quenched, love of combat, imperfect knowledge of money, anger
and malice. AH of Dr. Spemcbr's questions to the accused show, that in
looking fi>r insanity, he demands an entire obliteration of all conception,
attention, imagination, association, memory, understanding and reason, and
every thing else. There never was an idiot so low, never a diseased man
•0 demented.
Yon might as well expect to. find a man bom without eyes, ears, nose,
mouth, hands and feet, or deprived oi them all by disease, and yet surviving,
as to find such an idiot, or such a lunatic, as the Counsel for the People
would hold irresponsible. The reason is, that the human mind is not capar
ble, while life remains, of such complete obliteration. What is the human
mind ? It is immaterial, spiritual, inu^rtal ; an emanation of the divine
intelligence, and if the frame in whicmt dwells had preserved its just and
natural proportions, and perfect adaptation, it would be a pure and heavenly
existence. But that frame is marred and disordered in its best estate. The
spirit has conununication with the world without, and acquires imperfect
knowledge only through the half-opened gates of Uie senses. If, from origi-
nal defects, or from accidental causes, the structure be such as to cramp or
restrain the mind, it becomes or appears to be weak, diseased, vicious and
wicked. I know one who was bom without sight, without hearing, and
without speech, retaining the faculties of feeling and smell. That child was,
and would have continued to be an idiot, incapable of receiving or commu-
nicating thoughts, feelings, or affections ; but tenderness unexampled, and
•kill and assiduity unparalleled, have opened avenues to the benighted mind
of Laura Bridgman, and developed it into a perfect and complete human
epirit, consciously allied to all its kindred, and aspiring to Heaven. Such is
tiie mind of every idiot, and of eveiy lunatic, if you can only open the gates.
Mod restore the avenues of the senses ; and such is the human soul when
880 TBM TBIAL OT
deranged and disordered by disease, imprisoned, oonfounded, benighted.
That disease is insanity.
Doth not the idiot eat ? Doth not the idiot drink ? Doth not the idiot
know his father and his mother ? He does all this because he is a man.
Doth he not smile and weep ? and think you he sndles and weeps for noth-
ing ? He smiles and weeps because he is moved by human joys and aat-
rows, and exercises his reason, however imperfectly. Hath not the idiot
anger, rage, revenge ? Take from him his food, and he will stamp his feet
and throw his chains in your face. Think you he doth this for nothing?
He does it all because he is a man, and because, however imperfectly, he
exercises his reason. The lunatic does all this, and, if not quite demented,
all things else that man, in the highest pride of intellect, does or can da
He only does them in a different way. You may pass laws for his govern-
ment Will he conform ? Can he conform ? What cares he for your
laws ? He will not even plead ; he cannot plead his disease in excuse.
Tou must interpose the plea for him, and if you allow it, he, when redeemed
from his mental bondage, will plead for you, when he returns to your Judge
and his. If you deny his plea, he goes all the sooner, freed from impei^c*
tion, and with energies restored, into the presence of that Judge. Yoa
must meet him there, and then, no longer bewildered, stricken and dumb,
he will have become as perfect, clear and bright, as those who reviled him
in his degradation, and triumphed in his ruin.
And now what is Insanity ? Many learned men have defined it for us,
but I prefbr to convey my idea of it in the simplest manner. Insanity is a
disease of the body, and I doubt not of the brain. The world is astonished
to find it so. They thought for almost six thousaind years, that it was an
affection of the mind only. Is it jtaange that the discovery should have
been made so late ? You know tRt it is easier to move a burthen upon
two smooth rails on a level surface, than over the rugged ground. It hai
taken almost six thousand years to learn that But moralists argue that
insanity shall not be admitted as a physical disease, because it would teod
to exempt the sufferer from responsibility, and because it would expose
society to danger. But who shall know, better than the Almighty, the wajs
of human safety, and the bounds of human respondbility ?
And is it strange that the bnun should be diseased ? AYhat organ, men-
ber, bone, muscle, sinew, vessel or nerve is not subject to disease ? What
is physical man, but a frail, perishing body, that begins to decay as soon as
it begins to exist ? What is there of animal existence here on earth, ex-
empt from disease and decay ? Nothing. The world b full of disetse,
and that is the great agent of change, renovation and health.
And what wrong or error can there be in snpponng tliat the nund maybe
so affected by disease of the body as to relieve man from responsibility?
You will answer, it would not be safe. But who has assured yon of safe^?
. wiuiAH ruBWAjr. 881
Ib not the way of life through d^gen larking on every aide, and though yon
escape ten thousand perils, must you not fall at last ? Human life is not
•afe, or intended to be safe, against the elements. Neither is it safe, or in-
tended to be safe, against the moral elements of man's nature. It is not safe
against pestilence, or against war, against the thunderbolt of Ileavcn, or
against the blow of the maniac But comparative safety can be secured, if
you will be wise. You can guard against war, if you will cultivate peace.
You can guard against the lightning if you will learn the laws of electricity,
and raise the protecting rod. You will be safe against the maniac, if you
will watch the causes of madness, and remove them. Yet after all there will
be danger enough from all these causes, to remind you that on earth you are
not immortal.
Although my definition would not perhaps be strictly accurate, I should
pronounce Insanity to be a derangement of the mind, character and conduct,
resulting from bodily disease* I take this word derangement, because it is
one in common every day use. We all understand what is meant when it
is said that any thing is ranged or arranged. The houses on a street arc
ranged, if built upon a straight line. The fences on your farms are ranged.
A tower, if justly built, is ranged ; that is, it is ranged by the plummet 1\
rises in a perpeadicnl^ range from the earth. A file of men marching in a
itralght line are in range. ** Bange yourselves, men," though not exactly
artislical, is not an uncommon word of command. Now what do we mean
when we use the word *^ (/^ranged **? Manifestly that a thing is not ranged,
is not arranged, is out of range. If the houses on the street be built irregn-
burly, they are deranged. If the fences be inclined to the right or left, thej
are deranged. If there be an unequal pressure on either side, the towei
will lean, that is, it will be derangec^^f the file of men become irregnlai
the line is deranged. So if a man^F insane. There was a regular line
which he was pursuing \ not the same line which you or I follow, for al
men pursue different lines, and every sane man has his own peculiar path
All these paths are straight, and all are ranged, though all divci^ent. It ii
easy enough to discover when the street, the fence, the tower, or the mar
tial procession is deranged. But it is quite another thing to determine whex
the course of an individual life has become deranged. We deal not thei
with geometrical or material lines, but with an imaginary line. We have n<
physical objects for land^marks. We trace the line backward by the ligh
. of imperfect and unsatisfactory evidence, which leaves it a matter almost o
speculation whether there has been a departure or not In some cases, in
deed, the task is easy. If the fond mother becomes the murderer of her off
spring, it is easy to see that she is deranged. If the pious man, whose step
were firm and whose pathway led straight to Heaven, sinks without tempts
tion into criminal debasement, it is easy to see that he is deranged. But ii
cases where no natural instinct or elevated principle throws its light upoi
. nunuALor
our researcb, it is often the most difficult and delicate of all hnman inTesti-
gations to determine when a person is deranged.
We have two tests. First, to compare the indtTidual after the snpposed
derangment with himself as he was before. Second^ to compare his cotine
with those ordinary lines of human life which we expect sane perstMiSi of
equal intelligence, and similarly sitnated, to pursue.
If derangement, which is insanity, mean only what we have aanimed, how
absurd is it to be looking to detect whether memory, hope, joy, fear, hunger,
thirst, reason, understanding, wit, and other faculties ^niain ! So long asUie
lasts they never cease to abide with man, whether he pursue hie stnught and
natural way, or the crooked and unnatural course of the lunatic If he be
diseased, his faculties will not cease to act They will only act differently. It
is contended here that the prisoner is not deranged because he performed his
daily task in the State Prison, and his occasional labor afterwards ; becanse
he grinds his knives, fits his weapons, and handles the file, the axe, and tbe
saw, as he was instructed, and as he was wont to do. Now the Lunatic Abj-
lum at Utica has not an idle person in it, except the victims of absolute and
incurable dementia, the last and worst stage of all insanity. Lunatics are al-
\ most the busiest people in the world. They have their prototypes only in
children. One lunatic will make a gaxden, another drive the ^ough, ano-
ther gather flowers. One writes poetry, another essays, another orationi.
In short, lunatics eat, drink, sleep, work, fear, love, hate, laugh, weep, moam,
die. They do all things that sane men do, but do them in some peculiar waj.
It Is said, however, that this prisoner has hatred and anger, that he has remem-
bered his wrongs, and nursed and cherished revenge ; wherefore, ho caaaot
be insane. Cowper, a moralist who had tasted the bitter cap of Insanitj,
reasoned otherwise : ^^
*' But Tiolenee can nerer longer tliecp
Than Human Pasaiong pleaae. In ev'ry bcart
Arc aown tbe cparks tbat kindle llery war ;
Occasion needi but &q them and Ifaey blaxe,
The aeeds of murder in the breuit of man."
Melancholy springs oftenest from recalling and brooding over wrong aod
sofibring. Melancholy is the first stage of madness, and it is only recentlj
that the less accurate name of monomania haa been substituted in the place
of melancholy. Melancholy is the foster-mother of anger and revenge. Un-
til 1880 our statutory definition of lunatics was in the tenns *< disordtrly ptr-
nonsj whoj if left at large, might endanger the lives of others.*' Our lawi
now regard them as merely disorderly and dai^rous, and society acquies-
ces, unless madness rise so high that the madman slay his imi^inary enemy,
and then he is pronounced sane.
The Prisoner lived with Nathaniel Lynch, at the age of eight or nise,
WILLIAM FBIUfAN. 888
And labored occasionally for him during the last winter. Lynch visited bim in
the jail, and asked him it' he remembered him, and remembered liring with
him. The Prisoner answered, Yes. Lynch asked the Prisoner whether he
was whipped while there, and by whom, and why. From his answers it ap-
peared that he had been whipped by his mistress for playing truant, and
^t he climbed a rough board fence in his night clothes and fled to his mo-
ther. Upon this evidence, the learned Professbr from Geneva College, Dr.
Spbxoer, builds an argument that the Prisoner has conception, sensation,
memory, imagination, find association, and is most competent for the scaf-
fold. Now here are some verses to which I would invite the Doctor's atten-
tum:
"Shut op in dreaiy gloom, like convictf ara»
In oompany of murderen I Oh, wntohed iate t
If pity e'er ezteadtd through the frune,
Or aympathy'i iweet cordial toached the heart.
Pity the wretched maxdac who knows no hlame,
Absorbed io sorrow, where darkness, porerty, and erery eorse Impart"
Here is evidence not merely of memory and other faculties, but of what
we call genius. Yet these verses are a sad effusion of Thomas Lloyd, a
man-slaying maniac in Bedlam.
The first questimi of fact here, gentlemen, as in every case where insanity
is gravely insisted upon, is* this :
Is THE Prisoner feigning or counterfeiting Insanitt ?
"What kind of man is he ? A youth of twenty-three, without learning,
. education, or experience. Dr. Spencer raises him just above the brute ;
Br. Bigelow exalts him no higher ; and Dr. Dimon thinks that he has
intellectual capacity not exceeding thut o^ a child of ten years, with the
knowledge of pne of two or three. These are the People's witnesses. All
the witnesses concur in these estimates of his mind.
Can you conceive of such a creature comprehending such a plot, and
standing up in his cell in the jail, hour after hour, day after day, week after
week, and month after month, carrying on such a fraud ; and all the while
pouring freely into the ears of inquisitors curious, inquisitors friendly, and
inquisitors hostile, without discrimination or alarm, or apparent hesitation or
suspicion, with ^ child-like simplicity,*' as our witnesses describe it, and with
♦* entire docility," as it is described by thB witnesses for the People, confes-
sions of crime, which, if they fail to be received as evidence^ of insanity,
must constitute an insurmountable barrier to his acquittal ?
I am ashamed for men who, without evidence of the Prisoner's dissimula-
tion, and in opposition to the unanimous testimony of aU the witnesses, that
he is sincere, still think that this poor fool may deceive them. If he could
feign, and were feigning, would he not want some counsel, some friend, if
not to advise and assist, at least to inform him of the probable success of the
fraud ? And yet no one of his Counsel or witnesses has ever conversed with
t(6i TZOS TRIAL OV
him, but in a crowd of adverse witnesses ; and for myself, I bare not spoken
witb him in almost two months, and during tbe same period bave neTer
looked npon bim elsewhere than bere, in the pres<ence of the Court and the
multitude. •
Would a sane man boM nothing back? admit every thing? to eveiy
body ? afiect no ignorance ? no foi^etfulness ? no bewilderment ? no ccmfu-
sion ? no excitement ? no delirium ?
Db. Ray, in his Treatise on the Medical Jurisprudence oflnsanity, (p. 38 J,)
gives us very diSerent ideas from all this, of those who can feign, and of ihi&
manner of counterfeiting : •
** A person who has not made the insane a subject of study, cannot sioni-
late madness, so as to deceive a physician well acquainted witb tbe disease.
Mb. Haslam declares, that ' to susUun the character of a paroxysm of active
insanity, would require a continuity of exertion beyond the power of a saoe
person.* Dr. Conoixt affirms that he can hardly imagine a case which
would be proof against an efficient system of observation.
** The grand fauH oomraitted by impostors is, that they overdo the cha-
racter they assume.
" The really mad, except in the acute stage of the ^sease, are, generafly
speaking, not readily recognized as such by a stranger, and they retain so
much of the rational as to require an effort to detect the impairment of their
faculties.
" Generally speaking, afler tbe acute stage has passed off, a maniac has no
iSfficulty in remembering bis friends and acquaintances, tbe places he has
been accustomed to frequent, names, dates, and events, and the occurroDces
of his life. The ordinary relations of things are, with some exceptions, ai
easily and clearly perceived as ever, and his discrimination of character seemi
to be marked by his usual shrewdness. • • • ♦A person
simulating mania will frequently deny all knowledge ofmen and things with
whom he has always been familiar.'*
And now, gentlemen, I will give you a proof of the difference betifeea
this real science and the empiricism upon which the Counsel for the People
rely, in this cause. Jean Pierre was brought before the Court of Assizes in
Paris, in 1824, accused of forgery, swindling, and incendiarism. He feigned
insanity. A commission of eminent physicians examined him, and detected
his imposture by his pretended forgetfulness, and confusion in answering in-
terrogatories concerning his life and history. The most prominent of these
questions are set down in the books. {Ray^p, 838.) I submitted these
questions and answers, with a statement of Jrax PiERaE*s case, to Dr.
Spencer, and he, governed by the rules which have controlled him in the
present cause, pronounced the impostor's answers to be evidence of insanity,
because they showed a decay of memory.
Again, gentlemen, look at the various catechisms in which this Prisoner
has been exercised for two months, as a test of his sanity. Would any sane
WILLIAM VSBIXAN. 885
man have propounded a solitary one of all those questions to any person
whom he believed to be of sound mind ? Take an instance. On one occasion,
Dr. WiLLARD, a witness for the People, having exhausted the idiot's store
of knowledge and emotion, expressed a wbh to discover whether the passion
of fear had burned out, and employing Mr. Morgan's voice, addressed the
prisoner thus : " Bill, they're going to take you out to kill you. They're
going to take you out to kill you, BilL" The poor creature answered no-
thing. «* What do you think of it, Bill ?" Answer : " I don't think about
it — ^I don't believe it" " Bill," continues the inquisitor, with louder and
more terrific vociferation, *< they're going to kill you, and the Doctors want
your bones ; what do you think of it. Bill ?" The Prisoner answers : " I don't
think about it — I don't believe it" The Doctor's case was almost complete,
but he thought that perhaps the Prisoner's stupidity might arise from inability
to understand the question. Therefore, lifting his voice still higher, he con-
tinues : *' Did you ever see the Doctors have any bones ? Did you ever see
the^ Doctors have any bones, Bill ?" The fool answers, « I have." " Then
where did you see them. Bill?" "In Dr. Pitney's office." And thus, by
this dialogue, the sanity of the accused is, in the judgment of Dr. Willabd,
completely established. It is no matter that if the Prisoner had believed the
threat, his belief would have proved him sane ; if he had been terrified, his
fears would have sent him to the gallows ; if he had forgotten the fieshless
skeleton he had seen, he would have been convicted of falsehood, and of
course have been sane. Of such staple as this are all the questions which
have been put to t^e Prisoner by all the witn&ises. There is not an inter-
rogatory which any one of you would have put to a child twelve years old.
Does the prisoner feign insanity f One hundred and eight witnesses have
been examined, of whom seventy-two appeared on behalf of the People. No
one of them has expressed a belief that he was simulating. On the contrar}',
every witness to whom the inquiry has been addressed, answers that the sin-
cerity of the Prisoner is beyond question.
Mr. John R. Hopkins says : " I watched him sharply to discover any si-
mulation, but I couldn't There was no deception. If there had been I
should have detected it"
Ethan A. Warden, President of the village of Auburn, with whom the
Prisoner had the most extended conversation, says : " I suppose he thought
he spoke the truth."
Ira Curtis, Esq., testifies : '* It did occur to me whether the Prisoner,
with his appearance of sincerity, was attempting to play off a game of im-
posture. The thought vanished in a moment There was too much before
me. I have no doubt of his sincerity. I don't believe it is iii the power of
sll in this room to teach him to carry on a piece of deception for fifteen min-
utes, because he would forget what he set about"
Dr. Hermancr says: " He spoke with so much sincerity."
The Kev. John M. Austin says : '< He did not dissemble. I shouki sup-
25
386 TEEB TBIAL Of
pose him the shrewdest man in the woiid if he did dissemble. I have not
the slightest doubt that there was no attempt to dissemble."
The tenor of the testimony of all the witnesses for the Prisoner, learned
and unlearned, is the same.
The witnesses for the People, learned and unlearned, concur.
Dr. BiGELOW says : ^ He has betrayed no suspicion of me. He has mani-
fested entire docility to me."
Dr. Spencer describes the manner of the witness in giving all his an-
swers, as " entirely frank."
Dr. Clary concludes the question of sincerity against all doubt He
says : ** It seemed to md that he either thought he was reading or that he
meant to deceive, and I don't think the latter, for he always seemed to he
▼ery frank."
It being thus absolutely settled, gentlemen, that the Prisoner does not
nmulate insanity, I pass to the second proposition in this defence, which is,
that
It is proved that the Prisoner is changed.
I shall first ask you to compare him now with himself in the earlier and
happier period of his life.
Nathaniel Herset, a witness for the People, a colored man, knew the
Prisoner seven years ago, and says : " He was a lively, smart boy, laughed,
played, and was good natured ; understood as well as any body ; could teU
a story right off; talked like other folks.?
This is the testimony of an associate of the Prisoner at.the age of axtees.
John De Puy is a brother-in-law of the accused, and has known him more
than twelve years. This witness says : " The Prisoner was an active, smart
boy, lively as any other you could find, a good boy to work ; set him to work
any where, and he would do it ; sociable and understood himself, and had
some learning ; could read in the spelling book pretty well ; could read off
simple reading lessons in the spelling book, smooth and decent"
David Winner, a colored man, was the friend and companion of the
parents of the Prisoner. He says : " When this boy was twelve or thirteen
years old, he was a pretty sprightly lad, sensible, very lively. I saw no dif-
ference between him and any other boy of sense, at that time."
Nathaniel Lynch, a witness for the People, in whose house the Priso-
ner was an inmate at the age of eight years, says : " He was a lively, play-
ful boy, almost always smiling and laughing, and appeared to be a lively,
laughing, playful boy."
Daniel Andrub, a witness for the People, testified that he employed the
Prisoner eight years agOy and talked with him then as he would with any
other laboring man.
Mary Ann Newark has known the Prisoner from childhood, and sayi:
* He was a lively, smart bby."
Honest Adam G&at was a friend of the Prisoner's parents, and says:
WILLIAM nUOMAN. 387
" He was a smart boy, was very active ; always thought him a pretty cun-
ning kind of a boy."
Dr. Briggs knew him twelve years ago, as '' a lad of ordinary intelli-
gence for boys of his condition."
Robert Freeman was a fellow servant with the Prisoner, at the Ameri-
can Hotel, eight years ago, and though he never entered into any argument
with the Prisoner to find out his mother- wit, he says : " He was playful be-
times, seemed to understand every thing, and very active."
Dr. Van Epps knew the Prisoner in his early infancy, and says : " He
then appeared as bright and intelligent as children generally are at that age."
Thomas F. Munroe, a witness for the People, certainly not partial to
the Prisoner, says : " In his youth he was quick and active, and not much
diflTcrent from other black boys."
A. A. Vanderheydbn, a witness for the People, represents the Prisoner
as " active and intelligent" in his youth.
Aretas a. Sarin, a witness for the People, knew the Prisoner fifleen or
sixteen years ago, and says that he was no more or less playful than other
boys, and that he wept on entering the State Prison at the age of sixteen.
Jefferson Wellington, a hostile witness, testifies that the Prisoner was
sociable and talked freely upon general subjects at the age of sixteen.
Lewis Markham has known the Prisoner from childhood, and declares
that '* he was a smart boy, pretty active, quick, sprightly, shrewd, attentive
and faithful, without any lack of conversational powers."
ErnAN A. Warden received the Prisoner into his family fifteen or six-
teen years ago, '* as a bright boy, and took him for the reason that he was
so," and now declares that ** he was then a lad of good understanding, and
of kind and gentle disposition."
Sallt Freeman, the Prisoner's mother, gives this simple account of him :
'< When he was young, he was a very smart child, before he went to the
State Prison. He was always very playful and good natured. About un-
derstanding things he was the same as other children."
Finally, Deborah De Puy, who is of the same age with the Prisoner, of
the same caste, and moves in the same humble sphere, testifies that she
** knew him before he went to the State Prison, in childhood and youth ;"
that " his manners, action, and mind, were very good — ^as good as other boys f
that she " associated with him ; he was as bright as any body else ; he was
very cheerful ;" she had " been with him to balls and rides ; he acted very
smart on such occasions ;" she ^* had talked with him often, and never disco-
vered any lack of intelligence."
Such, gentlemen, is a complete picture of the childhood and youth of th«
Prisoner at the bar. Its truthfulness and fidelity are unquestioned, for all
the witnesses on both sides have drawn it for you.
Look on that picture, and then on the one I sliall now present, and, since
I must speak of a class lowly and despised,
388 THB TKIAI. Of
"Let not Ambidon mock their useful toil,
Their humble Joya and destiny olMrure :
Nor Gnndeur hear with a disdainful smUe
Th^ short and simple annals ot the poor."
You have seen that the Pruoner wept, as well he might, when be entered
the State Prison at the age of sixteen. It was the last manifestation be has
ever given of a rational mind.
Ethan A. Warden sajrs : " I saw the Prisoner in the State Prison. He
appeared stupid and different from what he used to be, and from what I ex-
pected he would be. I cannot describe the difference, it was so peculiar.
I said to him, ' Bill, are you here ?' and repeated the question two or three
times ; at first he did not understand, but at last sud, * Yes.' He appeared
changed."
John Dk Put saw the Prisoner in the State Prison at five different times,
but was not allowed to speak with him. De Put says the Prisoner " was car-
rying something on his back like a knapsack, and walking back and forth in
the yard. He did not appear as he did before he went to Prison. He ap-
peared stupid, took no notice of any thing. He did not know me, and tqok
no notice of me. I saw him at other times when at work and when idle, and
then thought there was something the matter with him. I thought he was
not in his right mind."
William P. Smith was a foreman in one of the shops in the State Pri-
son during the third year of the Prisoner's confinement there, and had
charge of him. He describes him as " passionate, sullen, and stupid." This
witness relates that the Prisoner had oiled his shoes neatly and set them up-
on a wood-pile, that a convict accidentally disturbed the shoes, and that the
Prisoner struck the convict with a billet of wood with great violence, for
which offence he was punished ; that at anotber time, with as little provoca-
tion, he attacked another convict with great fury, for displacing some yam
on a reel The witness says : '' When I sent him on an errand, he required
repeated and very particular instructions. I considered his intellect at the
time very low indeed. He knew very little, not much more than a brute or
beast"
Theron Green, who was a keeper in the Prison and had charge of
th'e Prisoner, declares that he "had very little mind, was a half-pay man,
was slow, awkward, dull, downcast, and would have frequent freaks of
laughing, without any observable cause of laughter." The witness tried to
instruct him in his cell on Sundays, but he could learn nothing. Mr.
Green says : " He was irritable, malicious, and of bad temper; often viola-
ted rules, for which I did not punish him, because I thought him irrespon-
sible. I think that he had as much capacity as a brute beast I don't know
as he had more. If more, there was none to spare. I remarked when he
lefi the shop, that he ought not to go at large."
Horace Hotchkiss was a teacher in the Sunday School, at the State
WILUAV VREUAN. 889
Prison, ajid says that the Prisoner <' was dismissed from the School because
he could not be taught to read."
Such is the imperfect history of the Prisoner at the bar, while he was
shut up from the observation of men, and deprived by the discipline of the
State Prison of the use of speech and of the privilege of complaint
He was discharged from Poson on the twenlieth of last September.
Alonzo Wood, the new Chaplain of the State Prison, visited him in
his cell there twice during the last month of his confinement, and asked him
questions, which the Prisoner noticed only by inclining his head. The
^Chaplain expressed a hoi>e to him on the day of his discharge that he might
be able to keep out of Prison thereafter, and inquired whether he wanted a
Bible. **I understood him to say," says the witness, " that it would be of no
use — that he couldn't read." At the Clerk's office he received the usual
gratuity of two dollars, for which he was required to sign a voucher. He
answered, " I have been in Prison five years unjustly, and ain't going to
settle so." The officers, including the Reverend Chaplain, laughed heartily
at what they thought gross ignorance.
The Prisoner's faithful brother-in-law, John De Put, was waiting in the
hall to conduct him homeward. His narrative is simple and affecting. ** I
sat down," says De Puy, " on the long chair in the hall. He came out and
passed as if he didn't know me. I went up and touched him, and asked him
if he knew me, and he kind olaughed. We came along to Applegate's,
where I stopped to assist to riuse a new building. He sat down on a pile of
boards. He sat there and acted very stupid and dull, and said nothing."
They asked me what danmed fool I had with me sitting there ?
" He didn't know the value of his money. He had received four half
dollars, and thought they were quarters. We went to the hatter's for a
cap — found one worth half a doUar ; he threw down two halves. I handed
one back to him and told him to come out After he came out, he innsted
that he had paid only half enough for the cap, and that they would make a
fuss about it" All the leisure hours of that day and the next were spent
by the Prisoner, according to De Put's account, in giving relations of the
injustice and cruelty he had suffered in the Prison. He was very deaf, and
assigned as the cause of it, that Tyler, one of the keepers in the Prison, had
struck him across the ears with a board, and had knocked his hearing off^
he couldn't hear, and his hearing had never come back. ^ I asked him,"
says the witness, " if they had done tfliy thing for his deafness." He sud,
" Yes, they put salt in my ear, but it didn't do any good, for my hearing
was gone and all knocked off."
Again. The Prisoner told De Puy that while eating, he had broken his
dinner knife in the Prison, and the keepers had threatened to put him back
five yean for that; and says De Puy, <* he asked me if they could do if
He complained to De Puy, as we shall have occasion to see hereafter, that
890 TU TRIAL OF
he had been wrongfully imprisoned, and wanted to find the people who had
done him such injustice, for the purpose of getting pay from them.
Such was the change which had come over the Prisoner. The bright,
lively, social, active youth of sixteen, had become a drivelling, simple fooL
The Prisoner remained with De Put some two or three months. He
asked for Esquires, to get warrants for the people who put him in the State
Prison ; at one time said the justices refused to give him warrants ; at an-
other time, that ** he had got it all fixed," and he wanted De Put to go
down and see that he got his pay right ; at another, said that *^ he couldn't
do nothi]|g with them — they cheated him all the time, and he couldn't live
80." He followed De Put seven miles, to Skaneateles, and brought him
back to Auburn, to help the Prisoner in a dispute with Mr. Conklin, the
harness-maker, about sawing some wood, for which he claimed thirty-seven
and a half cents, and Conklin refused to pay him more than twenty-five
cents. De Put, dealing with the Prisoner as Dr. Brigham would, made
peace by paying him the difference, and settled in the same way a differ^
ence between the Prisoner and Mr. Murfey, the merchant
The Prisoner's mind was very unsteady during the winter. De Put
continues : ^ He did not know half the time what he was doing ; he would
go up the street, then turn and run violently in the other direction. He
never commenced any conversation with any body; never asked a question;
smiled without cause ; got up out of his bed at night many times, some times
two or three times in the same night, and on such occasions wonld sing ir-
regularly, dance and spar, as if with a combatant ; saying sometimes : * By
God ! ril see you out ,** sometimes he would take a book and mumble words
as if reading, but there was no sense in the words. When asked aflerwards
what he got up nights for, he answered that he didn't know." The Prisoner
never talked with any body after coming out of Prison unless to answer, in
the simplest way, questions put to him.
Many persons remember the Negro, with his saw, deaf, sad and sullen,
seeking occupation about the wood-yards, during the half year of his en-
largement Few stopped to converse with him, but the reports of all con-
firm what has been testified by De Put. Those who knew the Pri^cHier at
all, were chiefly persons of his own caste.
'Mart Ann Newark says that she saw him after he came out of Prison,
and he resided with her several days before the homicide. He did not
recognize her in the street " He sat still and silent when in the house,
asked no questions, and answered quick and short-like. His manner of
acting was queer-like ; he never mentioned any name or spoke of any body."
Nathaniel Herset, the Prisoner's old friend, found him changed, had
to speak loud to him, " he appeared to be quite stupid." Herskt asked
him what ailed him ; << he said he was deaf, that they rapped him over the
head at the Prison."
WILUAM m£EMAK. 891
Robert Freeman discovered that he appeared downcast when he first
came out of Prison. He spoke to the Prisoner, who took no notice. Robert
took hold of his hand and asked him how he did. The witness says ^^ he
Appeared more dull and downcast, and I could not tell what the matter was ;
could never establish any communication with him.'*
Old Abam Gray, who knew him as a " pretty cunning kind of a boy,"
testifies : *^ I think there is a change in him. It doesn't seem to me that he
knows as much as he did before he went to Prison. He doesn't seem to talk
as much, to have so much life, nor does he seem so sensible. Last winter he
boarded with me two months. He would get up nights, take his saw and go
out as if he was going to work, and come back again and go to bed. On
such occasions ho would try to sing, but I couldn't understand what he said.
He made a noise appearing as if he was dancing."
Some three weeks before the homicide, the Prisoner was boarding at
Laura Willard's. The truthful and simple-minded David Winner, seems
to have been led by Providence to visit the house at that time. He says,
" I saw him first at his uncle Luke Freeman's. He then appeared to be a
foolish man. I asked if that was Sally's son. I did not know him. They
told me it was. I said, he b very much altered. They said, he has just
come out of State Prison. He had altered very much in his looks and be-
havior. He was sitting down in a chair in the comer, snivelling, snickering
and laughing, and having a kind of simple look. I spoke to him ; he didn't
speak ; I saw nothing for him to laugh at I staid three days and three
nights at Laura Willard's, and slept with William in the same bed. At
night he got up and talked to himself; I couldn't understand what he said.
He appeared to be foolish. I gave him a dollar to go down to Bartlett's to
get a quarter of a pound of tea and two pounds of sugar, and to the market
and get a beef steak. He went to market and got it aU in a beef steak.
He got a dollar's worth of beef steal^. When I asked what that was for, he
said nothing, but laughed at me. He got up nights two or three times, and
I felt cold and told Laura I wouldn't sleep with him any more, and I went
and slept in the other room. I got afraid of him, and I wouldn't sleep with
*him any more. He sung when ho got up nights, but you couldn't under-
stand what he sung. There was no meaning in what he sung."
Deborah De Put says, " After he came out of Prison, there was a
change. If I talked to him very loud he would talk ; say very little only to
answer me. He didn't act cheerful, but very stupid ; never said any thing
until I talked to him. He never talked to me as he did before he went to
Prison. He had a strange smile. He would laugh ver}*^ hearty without any
thing to laugh at He wouldn't know what he was kughing at He would
knock at the door, and I would let him in, and he would sit down and laugh.
I would ask what he was laughing at ; he sud, he didn't know. When I
asked questions, he would either answer yes, or no, or don't knoWf I asked
S92 THB TBIAL Of
him how his hearmg was hurt He said they struck lum on the head with
a board and it seemed as if the soand went down his throat. I have asked
him why he was so stupid. I don't think he is in his right mind now, nor
that he has been since he came out The reason is that he never used to
act so silly, and sit and laugh so, before he went to Prison."
His mother, Sallt Fbebman, describes the change which hai come
over her child, in language simple and touching : " I never knew he was
foolish or dumpish before he went to Prison. After he came out of Prison,
Le didn't act like the same child. He was changed, and didn't appear to
know any thing. As to being lively after he came out, I didn't see any
cheerfulness about him. He was either sitting or standing when I after-
wards saw him, and when I asked him a question he would answer, but that
if all he would say. He appeared very dull. He never adied me any
questions after he came out, only the first time he saw me he asked me if I
was well. From that time to this he has never asked me a question at tSL
He didn't. come to see me more than half a dozen times. When he came,
perhaps he would Bsk. me how I did, and then sit down and laugh. What
he laughed at was more than I could tell. He laughed as he does now.
There was no reason ivhy he should laugh. He was laughing to himself.
He didn't speak of any thing when he laughed. I never inquired what he
laughed at I didn't think he was hardly right, and he was so deaf I didnt
want to. I asked lum how he got deaf, and he told me his ear had fell
down, or some such foolish answer he gave me. He would stay an hour or
80. He generally sat stilL I went to see him in the Jail after he killed the
Van Nest family, on the first day of the triaL He laughed when I went
in, and said he was yreU, I talked to him. I asked him if he knew what
he had been doing. He stood and laughed. I asked him how he came
there. He didn't say much of any thing, but stood and laughed. When I
went away he didn't bid me good-byq nor ask me to come again. I have
never been to see him since, and have never received any message from
him of any kind since he has been in Jail. I don't know that he noticed
me when I was on examination before. I don't think he is in his right
mind, or that he has been since he came out of Prison. The reason is that
he acts very foolish, and don't seem as though he had any senses."
You will remember that we have seen the Prisoner a smart, bright, lively,
cheerful, and playful youth, attending Deborah De Puy at balls, parties,
and rides ; for Negroes enjoy such festivities as «iuch and even more than
white men. Deborah says he no longer attends. But from the testimony
of John Di( Put we find him at a dance in the house of Laura Willard, on
the night before the slaughter of the Vax Nest family. The scene was the
same as before. There was music, and gallantry, and revebry, ai^d merri-
ment, and laughing, and dancing. But while all others were thus occupied,
where wy the Prisoner, and how was he engaged 7 He was leaning against
WILUAM TBSUAN. 398
tiie wall, snllen, g]oom7, silenty moroBe ; pressing viiih his hand the knife
concealed in his bosom, and waiting his opportunity to strike to the heart
his brother-in-law and benefactor.
This is the change which had come orer the Prisoner when he emerged
fit>m the State Prison, as observed by the few of his kindred and caste, who
had known him intimately before. How many white men who knew him.
in his better days, have we heard confirm this testimony, by saying that they
lost sight of him when he went to Prison ; that they met lum in the street
afterwards, downcast and sullen, with his saw in his hand, seeking casual
occupation ; that they spoke to him but he did not hear or did not answer,
and they passed on ! Only two or three such persons stopped to enquire
concerning his misfortunes, or to sympathise with him.
William P. Smith says : " llie first time I saw him after he came out
of Prison, was in November. I asked him how he did. He made no an-
swer. A little black boy with him told me he was deaf. I spoke to him to
try and induce conversation, and finally gave it up ; I couldn't make him un«
derstand. He appeared different from what I had known him before ;
appeared dumpish ; didn't say much, and seemed to stand around. I met
him once or twice in the street — ^merely met him — he noticed nothing."
Doctor Hermance did not know him before he went to Prison. His
peculiarities attracted the Doctor's attention, and he enquired the cause.
The Prisoner answered that he had been five years in the State Prison, and
he wasn't guilty, and they wouldn't pay him. The Doctor says : ** I discov-
ered that he was very deaf, and inquired the cause of his deafness. He
stated that his ears dropped. I thought his manners very singular and
strange ; and what he said about pay very singular and strange. He spoke
in a very gloomy, despondent state of mind. There appeared to be a sin-
cerity in his manner. The tone of his voice was a dull and monotonous tone.
I thought at the time that he was deranged.*'
To complete this demonstration of the change, I have only to give you
the character of the Negro now, as he is described by several of the wit-
nesses, as well on the part of the People as of the Prisoner, who have seen
him in Prison, and as he is admitted to be.
Warrex T. Worden, Esq., an astute and experienced member of the
bar, visited him in his cell in the Jail, and says : ** I formed im opinion then,
that he knew nothing, and I expressed it. I do not believe him sane. I
don't believe he understands what is going on around him. He would laugh
upon the gallows as readily and as freely as he did in his celL He would
probably know as much as a dumb beast who was taken to the slaughter
house, as to what was to be done with him. J£ that state of mind and
knowledge constitutes insanity, then he is insane."
Doctor FosoATE, one of the soundest and most enlightened men in our
community, who was his physician in the Jail, and dressed his* wounded
hand, describes him as ** insensible to pain, ignorant of his condition, and of
894 THE TBIAL OV
course indifferent to his fate ; grinning constantly idiotic smiles, without any
perceptible cause, and rapidly sinking into idiocy."
Ira Curtis, who knew him in his youth, and has now carefuDy examined
him in the Jail, says : *^ He is incapable of understanding ; he is part fool,
bordering on idiocy ; crazy and idiot both, and crazv and insane both. If
all the Doctors in the world should si^y he was not a fool, I shouldn't beliere
them."
Doctor Brioos, who, it will be recollected, knew him at the age of eight
or nine, examined him in the Jail, and says : " My opinion is and was, that
he has less mind than when I knew him before — ^that his mind has become
impaired."
William P. Smith, who knew him before he went to the State Prison
and while there, patiently examined him in the Jail, and says : " There was
a change, a sensible change in the man. He didn't appear to know as much,
to have as many ideas about him, as many looks of intelligence. I don't
know as I could describe it yery well. There was a slowness, a dullness ; I
thought what little intellect he had seemed to sink lower down, from some
cause or other. His physical strength and vigor were good in the Prison.
He appeared active, strong and energetic. Now, his manner appears more
dull, stupid and inattentive."
Dr. Van Epp9 says : " Now he appears to have the intellect of a child
five years old."
Ethan A. Warden, the Prisoner's earliest and fastest friend, says : " I
look at him now and when he lived with me. He appears different I could
not get any thing that appeared like sorrow for what he had done, or feel-
ing for the crime. I don't think him much above a brute."
John R. Hopkins says : " I think him in intelligence but little above the
brute."
I need not pursue the parallel further. There is no dispute as to his pre-
sent ignorance and debasement
Dr. DiMON, a witness for the' People, although he pronounces the Priso-
ner sane, says he should think " he has not as much intellect as a child of
fourteen years of age ; is in some respects hardly equal to a child of three or
four," and in regard to knowledge compares him with " a child two or three
years old, who knows his A, B, C, and can't count twenty-eight."
Dr. BiGELOW, a leading "vntness for the People, declares ; " I believe him
to be a dull, stupid, moody, morose, depraved, degraded negro, but not in-
sane ;" and Dr. Spencer, swearing to the same conclusion, says : " He is
but little above the brute, yet not insane."
I submit to you, gentlemen of the Jury, th&t by comparing the Prisoner
with himself, as he was in his earlier, and as he is in his later history, I have
proved to you conclusively that he is visibly changed and altered in mind,
manner, conversation and action, and that all his faculties have become dis-
turbed, impaired, degraded and debased. I submit also, that it is proved,
WILUAM FBBUAN. 395
First, that this change occurred between the sixteenth and the eighteenth
years of his life, in the State Prison, and that therefore the change, thus pal-
pable, was not, as the Attorney General contends, effected by mere lapse of
time and increase of years, nor by the natural development of latent dispo-
sitions ; Secondly f that inasmuch as the convicts in the State Prison are ab-
solutely abstemious from intoxicating drinks, the change was not, as the At-
torney Greneral supposes, produced by intemperance.
I have thus arrived at the third proposition in tins case, which is, that
The Prisoner at the Bar is Insane.
This I shall demonstrate. First, by the fact already so fully established, that
the Prisoner is changed ; Secondly, by referring to the predisposing causes
which might be expected to produce Insanity ; Thirdly, by the incoherence
and extravagance of the Prisoner's conduct and conversation, and the delu-
sions under which he has labored.
And now as to predisposing causes. The Prisoner was bom in this vil-
lage, twenty-three years ago, of parents recently emerged from slavery. His
mother was a woman of violent passions, severe discipline, and addicted to
intemperance. His father died of delirium tremens, leaving his children to
the neglect of the world, from which he had learned nothing but its vices.
Hereditary insanity was added to the Prisoner's misfortunes, already suffi-
ciently complicated. His aunt, Jane Brown, died a lunatic. His uncle,
Sidney Freeman, is an acknowledged lunatic.
All writers agree, what it needs not writers to teach, that neglect of edu-
cation is a fruitful cause of Crime. 1£ neglect of education produces crime,
it equally produces Insanity. Here was a bright, cheerful, happy child, des-
tined to become a member of the social state, entitled by the principles of
our Government to equal advantages for perfecting himself in intelligence,
and even in political rights, with each of the three millions of our citizens,
and blessed by our religion with equal hopes. Without his being taught to
read, his mother, who lives by menial service, sends him forth at the age of
eight or nine years to like employment. Reproaches are cast on his mo-
ther, on Mr. Warden, and on Mr. Lynch, for not sending him to school, but
these reproaches are aU unjust How could she, poor degraded Negress and
Indian as she was, send her child to school ? And where was the school to
which Warden and Lynch should have sent him ? There was no school for
him. His few and wretched years date back to the beginning of my ac*
quaintance here, and during all that time, with unimportant exceptions, there
has been no school here for children of his caste. A school for colored chil-
dren was never established here, and all the common schools were closed
against them. Money would always procure instruction for my children,
and relieve mo from the responsibility. But the colored children, who have
from time to time been confided to my chaige, have been cast upon my own
care for education. When I sent them to school with my own children, they
were sent back to me with a message that they must be withdrawn, because
896 THB TBIAL OV
the/ were black, or die school would cease. Here are the fruits of this un-
manly and criminal prejudice. A whole family is cut off in the midst of
usefulness and honors by the hand of an assasnn. You may arenge the
crime, but whether the Prisoner be insane or criminali there is a tribunal
where this neglect will plead powerfully in his excuse, and trumpet-tongued
against the " deep daBmation" of his " taking off."
Again. The Prisoner was subjected, in tender years, to severe and unde-
served oppression. Whipped at Lynch's ; severely and unlawfully beolen
by Wellington, for the venial offence of forgetting to return a borrowed um-
brella ; hunted by the Police on charges of petty offences, of which he was
proved innocent ; finally, convicted, upon constructive and probably per-
jured evidence, of a crime, of which it is now universally admitted he was
guiltiess, he was plunged into the State Prison at the age of sixteen, instead
• of being committed to a House of Refuge.
Mere imprisonment is often a cause of Insanity. Four insane persons have,
on tins trial, been mentioned as residing among us, all of whom became in-
sane in the State Prison. Authentic statbtics show that there are never
less than thirty insane persons in each of our two great penitentiaries. In
the State Prison the Prisoner was subjected to severe corporeal punishment,
by jLeepers who mistook a decay of mind and morbid melancholy, for idle-
ness, obstinacy and malice. Beaten, as he was, until the organs of his hear-
ing ceased to perform their functions, who shall say that other and more im-
portant organs connected with the action of his mind, did not become dis-
eased through sympathy ? Such a life, so filled with neglect, injustice and
severity, with anxiety, pain, disappointment, solicitude and grief, would have
its fitting conclusion in a mad-house. If it be true, as the wisest of inspired
writers hath said, " Verily oppression maketh a wise man mad," what may
we not expect it to do with a foolish, ignorant, illiterate man ! Thus it is
explained why, when he came out of Prison, he was so dull, stupid, morose ;
excited to anger by petty troubles, small in our view, but mountains in his
way ; filled in his waking hours with moody recollections, and rising at mid-
night to sing incoherent songs, dance without mnric, read unintelligible jar-
gon, and combat with imaginary enemies.
How otherwise than on the score of madness can you explain the stupid-
ity which caused him to be taken for a fool at Applegate's, cm his way from
the Prison to his home ? How else, the ignorance which made him incapa-
ble of distinguishing the coin which he offered at the hatter's shop ? How
dlse, his ludicrous apprehensions of being re-committed to the State Prison
for &Ye years, for the offence of breaking his dinner knife ? How else, his
odd and strange manner of accounting for his deafness, by expressions, all
absurd and senseless, and varying with each interrogator : as to John Ds
Put, " that Tyler struck him across the ears with a plank, and knocked his
hearing off, and that it never came back ; that they put salt in his ear, but
it didn't do any good, for his hearing was gone — all knocked off;" to the Bev.
WILUAM VREBMAK. 897
John M. Austin, " tlie stones dropped down my ears, or the stones of my
ears dropped down ;" to Ethak A. Warden, « got stone in my ear ; got it
out ; thought I heard better when I got it out ;" to Dr. Herm axce, ** that
his ears dropped ;" and to the same witness on another occasion, " that the
hearing of his ears fell down;** to his mother, " that his ear had fell down ;"
to Deborah De Put, " that Tyler struck him on the head with a board, and
it seemed as if the sound went down his throat ;** to Dr. Brigham, " that
he was hurt when young, it made him deaf in the right ear;" also, " that in
the Prison he was struck with a board by a man, which made him deaf;**
and also, ** that a stone was knocked into, or out of his ear" ?
It is now perfectly certain, from the testimony of Mr. Van Arsdale and
Helen Holihes, that the Prisoner first stabbed Mrs. Yan Nest, in the
back yard, and then entered the house and stabbed Mr. Van Nest, who
fell lifeless at the instant of the blow. And yet, sincerely trying to giye an
account of the dreadful scenes, exactly as they passed, the Prisoner has in-
variably stated, in his answers to every witness, that he entered the house,
stabbed Van Nest, went into the yatd, and then, and not before, killed Mrs.
Van Nest. It was in this order that he related the transaction to War- .
REN T. WoRDEN, to JoHN M. AusTiN, to Ira Curtm, to Ethan A.
Warden, to William P. Smith, to Dr. Van Epps, to James H. Bost-
WICK, to Dr. Brigham, to Nathaniel Lynch, to Dr. Willard, to Dr.
BiGELOtv, and to Dr. Spencer. How else than on the score of madness
can you explain this confusion of memory ? and if the Prisoner was sane,
and telling a falsehood, what was the motive ?
How else than on the score of a demented mind will you explain the fact,
that he is without human curiosity; that he has never, since he came out of
Prison, learned a fact, or asked a question ? He has been visited by hun-
dreds in his cell, by faces become familiar, and by strangers, by fellow pri-
soners, by Jailers, by Sheriff, by Counsel, by Physician, by friends, by ene-
mies, and by relations, and they unanimously bear witness that he has ne-
ver asked a question. The oyster, shut up within its limestone walls, is as
inquisitive as he.
How else will you explain the mystery that he, who seven years ago had
the capacity to relate connectively any narrative, however extended, and
however complex in its details, is now unable to continue any relation of the
most recent events, without the prompting of perpetual interrogatories, al-
ways leading him by known land-marks; and that when under such disci-
pline he answers, he employs generally the easiest forms, " Yes," " No,**
"Don't know"?
Then mark the confusion of his memory, manifested by contradictory re-
plies to the same question. Warren T. Worden asked him : ** Did you
go in at the front door ? Yes. Did you go in at the back door ? Yes.
Were you in the hall when your hand was cut ? Yes. Was your hand cut
at the gate ? Yes. Did you stab Mrs. Wyckoff in the hall ? Yes. Did
898 . THB TBIAL Of
70a Stab Mrs. Wyckoff at the gate ? Yes. Did you go out at the back
door ? Yes. Did you go out at the front door ? Yes."
Ethan A. Warden asked him, " What made you kill the chUd ?" " Don't
know any thing about that" At another time he answered, ''I don't think
about it ; I didn't know it was a child." And again, on another occasion,
** Thought — ^fecl it more ;" and to Dr. Bigelow, and other witnesses, who
put the question, whether he was not sorry he killed the child, he replied,
" It did look hard — I rather it was bigger." When the ignorance, simpHcity
and sincerity of the prisoner are admitted, how otherwise than on the ground
of insanity, can you explain such inconsistencies as these ?
The testimony of Van Arsdale and Helen Holmes, proves that no
wor^s could have passed between the Prisoner and Van Nest, except these,
" What do you want here in the house ?" spoken by Van Nest, before the
fatal blow was struck. Yet when inquired of by Wabben T. Wordkn
what Van Nest said to him when he entered the house, the Prisoner said,
after being pressed for an answer, that Van Nest said to him, " If you eat
my liver, I'll eat yours :" and he at vaifous times repeated to the witne&s the
same absurd expression. To the Rev. John M. Austin he made the same
statement, that Van Nest said, ^^ If you eat my liver, I'll eat your liver;*
to Ira Curtis the same ; to Ethan A. Warden the same ; to Lansinoh
B^iGGS the same ; and the same to almost every other witness. An ex-
pression so absurd under the circumstances, could never have been made by
the victim. How otherwise can it be explained than as the vagary of a mind
shattered and crazed ?
The Prosecution, confounded with this evidence, appealed to Dr. Speh-
CEi for relief. He, in the plentitude of his learning, says, that he has read
of an ancient and barbarous people, who used to feast upon the livers of
their enemies, that the Prisoner has not imagination enough to have invent-
ed such an idea, and that he must somewhere have heard the tradition. But
when did this demented wretch, who reads " woman" for '^ admirable," and
'* cook" for «**Thompson," read Livy or Tytler, and in what classical circle
has he learned the customs of the ancients ? Or, what perhaps is more per-
tinent, who were that ancient and barbarous People, and who was their His-
•torian?
Consider now the Prisoner's earnest and well-attested sincerity in belie-
ving that he could read, when either he never had acquired, or else had lost,
the power of reading. The Rev. Mr. Austin visit^ him in Jail, at an early
day, asked him whether he could read, and being answered that he could,
gave him a Testament In frequent visits aflerwards, when the Prisoner
was asked whether he had read his Testament, he answered, ** Yes," and it
was not until afler the lapse of two months that it was discovered that be
was unable to spell a monosyllable.
Ira Curtis says : ^'l asked him if he could read ; he said, ' Yes,' and
commenced reading, that is he pretended to, but he didn't read what was
WILLIAM FRUMAN. 399
there. He read, * Oh ! Lord — mercy — Moses* — and other words mixed up
in that way. The words were not in the place where he seemed to be read-
ing, and it was no reading at all, and some words he had over I had neyer
heard before. I took the book from him, saying, * You don't read right'
He said, * Yes, I do.' I said, ' William, you can't read.' He said, * I can.'
I gave him a paper, pointed him to the word, ' admirable' — he pronounced
it * woman.' I pointed to the word ' Thompson' — he read it * cook.' He
knew his letters, and called them accurately, but could not combine them.
I asked him to count He commenced and counted from one up to twenty,
hesitated there some time, and finally counted up to twenty-eight, and then
jumped to eight)'-. Then I started him at twenty, and he said *■ one.' I told
him to say * twenty-one ;' but he seemed to have difficulty in saying * twen-
ty-one.' He tried to go on. He did count up to twenty regularly, by hesi-
tating ; but never went higher than twenty-eight correctly. I asked him
how much two dmes four was, — ^he said * eighty.' How much two times three
was — he said * sixty or sixty-four.' " Many other witnesses on both sides of
this cause, Mr. Austin, Mr. Hopkixs, Mr. Hotchkiss, Mr. WoRDEN,Mr.
Smith, Dr. Van Epps, Dr. Brioham, Dr. Mc Call, Dr. Coventry, Dr.
WiLLARD, Dr. BiOELOW, Dr. Clary and Dr. Spencer, have with varied
ingenuity, sought to detect a fraud in this extreme ignorance and simplicity,
and have unanimously testified to you that the simpleton sincerely believes
he reads accurately, and as honestly thinks he counts above twenty-eight
correctly, while in truth he cannot advance beyond that number in count*
ing, and cannot read at alL Yet he must, at least, have learned in the Sun-
day School that he could not read, and the keepers of the Prison show that
he put up his daily manufacture of rings and of skeins of thread, in quanti-
ties accurately counted, to the number of several dozen.
I think you will agree with Doctor Hun, that there is not a sane man
twenty-three years ot age, brought up in this country, who does not know
whether he can read, and who cannot count twenty-nine.
Mark his indifference and stupidity as to his situation. Ethan A. War-
den asked him, " Do you expect to be hung ? * Don't think about it' Do
you like to be in Jail ? * Pretty well.' Is it a good place ? * Yes.* Do you
sleep well ? * Yes.' Do you think of what you've done ? * No.' "
William P. Smith asked him in the Jail if he knew whether he was
in Jail or in the Prison. He hesitated some time, and finally thought he
was in the Jail, but wasn't sure. ^' Do you know what you are confined
here for?" "No."
Dr. Van Epps asked him what he was put in Jail for. "Don't know.*
Afterwards he seemed to recollect himself and smd, ." horse**
Dr. Brig HAM says, "I tried in various ways to ascertain if he knew what
he was to be tried for. I tried repeatedly and never could get a distinct
answer. It was often * I don't know/ and sometimes ' a horse.* I asked him
400 THB TBIAL Of
at one time, what his defence would be. Shall we say that 70a did not loll ?
He answered yery quickly, looking up, ' No/ But may we not say so ?
' No, that would be wrong ; I did do it' Some one asked him when othen
were there, May we say you are crazy ? * I can't go so far as that' I asked
him if he had employed any body to defend him, and said, Mr. Seward is '
now here, you had better employ him and tell him what to say. Here is Mr.
Seward, ask him. He said, ii a reading tone, ' Goyemor Seward, I want
you to defend me,' repeating the words I had told him to use."
When on trial 'for stealing a horse, six years ago, he had Counsel of his
own choice, and was treated and tried as a man who understood and knew
his rights, as indeed it is proTcd that he did. Here his life is at stake. He
does not know even the name of a witness for or against him, although his
memory recalls the names of those who testified against him on his trial for
stealing the horse, and the rery effect of their testimony.
Dr. Bbioham says, " I asked him what he could prove in his defence.
Ho replied, * The Jury can prove that I was in Prison five years for stealing
a horse, and didn't steal it' "
When asked if he is not sorry for crimes so atrocious, he answers always,
either, " No," or " Don't know."
On the very day when he was to be arraigned, he had no Counsel ; and,
as Mr. Austin testifies, was made to understand, with difiUculty, enough to
repeat like a parrot a consent that I should defend him. The Attorney
General says, the Prisoner " knew he was guilty, and that Counsel could do
nothing for him. If he was as wise and as intelligent as Bacon himself, he
could give no instructions to Counsel that would help him." Aye, but is he
as wise and as intelligent as Bacon ? No, gentlemen, no man ever heard of
a sane Murderer in whose bosom the love of life and the fear of death were
alike extinguished.
The accused sat here in Court, and saw Dr. Bigelow on the stand
swearing away his life, upon confessions already taken. Dr. Bigelow,
followed him from the Court to his cell, and there the Prisoner, with child-
like meekness, sat down on his bench and confessed further for hours, all
the while holding the lamp by whose light Dr. Bigelow recorded the testi-
mony, obtained for the purpose of sealing his fate beyond a possible delive-
rance.
He was asked about the Judges here, was ignorant where they sat, and
could only remember that there was a good looking man on the elevated
stage, which he was told was the bench. He was asked what they say in
Court, and he says, " They talk, but I hear nothing;" what or whom they
are talking about, and he says, « Don't know ;" whom he has seen here, and
he recalls not his Judges, the Jury, the witnesses or the Counsel, but only
the man who gave him tobacco.
From his answers to Mr. Hopkins, Mr. AuaxiN, Mr. Smith, and others,
M wen aa from the mo^ rdliAbler testimony of his mother, of his brothei^iii-
Uw, of Mr. Lynch, Mr. Wardsk, llr. HotcHlri^, ftnd others, we lea»
that in his childhood, and in State Prison, Tie attended Sanday School aiid
Divine Worship. Yet we find him at the age of twenty- three, afler repeated
religions instructions, having no other idea of a Supreme Being and of a
future state, than that Heaven was a placd above, and God was above, but
that God was no more than a man or an animal. And when asked hj Mr.
HoFKiKS what he knew about Jesus Christ, he answered that he came to
Sunday School in the State Prison. What did he do there? <<Doii1
know." Did he take a class there ? "Don't know.* Did he preach?
" Don't know." Did he talk ? " Don't know.** The Prisoner gavd the
same answers to the Rev. Mr. Austin, to Mr. Hotchkibs, his Sondi^
School teacher, and to Dr. Brioham.
Mr. Horace HoTCHKisd says : *' I asked him id Jait, if yon shaD bci
convicted and executed, what vrill become of yon ? He answered, * Go fof
Heaven.' I asked him why, and he replied, ' Because I am good.' " Df . .
Brigham inquired : " Do you know any thing of Jesus Christ V ** I saw
him once." " Did you kill him at Van IJeST's ?" The poor fool (asf if
laboring with some confused and inexplicable idea) said, " Don't know.** I
think, gentlemen, that you will agree with Df. Htm, Dr. Brioham, and
the other intelligent witnesses, who say that, in theur opinion, there is nd
sane man of the age of twenty-three, who has beeti brought up id chu^h-
going families, and been sent to Sunday School, whose religious sentinMiiiti
would, under such circumstances, be so confused and so absurd as thesft.
To the Rev. Mr. Austin, he said afler his arrest, *< if they wUl let me ^
this time, I will try and do better." And well did that witness remark, thai
such a statement evinced a want of all rational appreciation of the natiM
and enormity of his acts, for no man twenty-three years old, possessing a
sound mind, and guilty of four-fold Murders, could suppose that he wonU
be allowed to escape all punishment by simply promising, like a petnhmt
child, that he would " do better."
Mark his insensibility to corporeal pain and suffering. In the conffiet
with Mrs. Wtkoff, he received a blow which divided a sinew in his wrist,
and penetrated to the bone. The Physicians found him in the Jail with his
wound, hb' legs chained, and heavy irons depending unequally from his
knees. Tet he manifested absolute insensibility. Insane men are generally
very insensible to pain. The reason is, that the nervbus system is diseased,
and the senses do not convey to the mind accurate ideas of injuries sustained.
Nevertheless, this passes for nothing with Dr. Spenckr, because there was
an ancient sect of Philosophers who triumphed, or affected to triumph, over
the weakness of our common nature, and because there are modem herbei
who die without a groan on the field of battle. But in what school of Phi-
losophy, or in what army, or In what battle-ship was this Idiot trained, tha^
he has become insenable to pain, and leckless of death f
402 zHxnuALOf
I proposed, gcntlexncn, at the close of the .testimony, that 70a should es-
amine, the Prisoner for yourselves. I regret that the offer was rejected.
You can obtain only very imperfect knowledge from testimony in which the
answers of the Prisoner are given with the freedom and volubility of the
interrogators. We often judge more justly from tlie tone, manner and
spirit of those with whom we converse, than from the language they use.
All the witnesses agree that the Prisoner's tone and modulation are slow,
indistinct, and monotonous. His utterance, in fact, is that of. an idiot, hot
on paper it is as distinct as that of Cicero.
I have thus shown you, gentlemen, the difficulties which attended you in
this investigation, the law concerning insanity, the nature and character-
istics of that disease, the great change which the Prisoner has undergone,
and some of those marked extravagances which denote lunacy. More con-
clusive evidence yet remains ; and firsts the delusion by which the Prisoner
was overpowered, and under whose fearful spell his crimes were committed.
Delusion does not always attend insanity, but when found, it is the
most unequivocal of all proofs. I have already observed that melancholy is
the first stage of madness, and long furnished the name for insanity. In the
case of Hatfield, who fired at the King in Drury-Lane Tlicatre, Lord
Erskine, his Counsel, demonstrated that insanity did not consist in the ab-
•ence of any of the intellectual faculties, but in delusion ; and that an offen-
der was irresponsible, if his criminal acts were the immediate, unqualified
offspring of such delusion. Erskine there defined a c/e/uWon to consist in
deductions from the immaoable assumption of the matters as recditieSy either
without any foundation whatever, or so distorted and disfigured by fancy as
to be nearly the same thii^ as their creation.
The learned men here have given us many illustrations of such delusions ;
as that of the man who believes that his legs are of glass, and therefore re-
fuses to move, for fear they will break ; of the man who fancies himself the
King of the French ; or of him who confides to you the precious secret, that
he is Emperor of the world. These are palpable delusions, but there
are others equally, or even more fatal in their effects, which have their
foundation in some original fact, and are thus described by Dr. Ray, at page
210 of his work :
*' In another class of cases, the exciting cause of homicidal insanity is of
a moral nature, operating upon some peculiar physical predisposition, and
•omctimes followed by more or less physical disturbance. Instead of being
urged ly a sudden imperious impulse to kill, the subjects of this form of the
afifection, after sufiering for a certain period much gloom of mind and de-
pression of spirits, feel as if bound by a sense of necessity to destroy life,
and proceed to the fulfilment of their destiny, with the utmost calmness and
deliberation. So reluctant have Courts and Juries usually been to receive
the plea of insanity in defence of crime, deliberately planned and executed
by a mind in which no derangement of intellect has ever been perceived,
WILLIAM fRXBIflK. 403
thftt it is of the greatest importance that the nature of these cases should not
be misunderstood."
Our learned witnesses have given us various definitions of a delusion.
Dr. Hun's is perhaps as clear and accurate as any : "It is a cherished opin-
ion opposed by the sense and judgment of all mankind.** In simple speech,
it is what is called the predominance of one idea, by which reason is sub-
verted. I shall bow show you such a predominance of one idea, as will
elucidate the progress of this Maniac from the first disturbance of his mind,
to the dreadful catastrophe on the shores of the Owasco Lake. That delu-
sion is a star to guide your judgments to an infallible conclusion, that the
Prisoner is insane. If you mistake its course, and consign him to a scafibld,
it will rest over his grave, indicating him as a martyr, and you as crriug or
unjust Judges.
In April, 1840, Mrs. Godfrey, who resides in the town of Sennett, on
the middle road, four miles northeast of Auburn, lost a horse. One Jack
Furman, a hardened offender, stole the horise. For some purpose, not now
known, he put him in the care of the Prisoner, who was seen with "him.
Both Furman and Freeman were arrested. The former was the real thief
and Freeman constructively guilty. Freeman was arrested by Vauderhey-
den, taken into an upper chamber, and there declared his innocence of the
crime* He was nevertheless committed to Jail. All the Police, and the
most prejudiced of the witnesses for the People, have testified their entire
conviction that the Prisoner was innocent. Furman was selected by favor
as a witness for the People. Freeman, • while in Jail, comprehending his
danger, and conscious of his innocence, dwelt upon the injustice, until, hav-
ing no other hope, he broke Prison and escaped. Being re-taken, he assigned
as the reason for his flight, that Jack Furman stole the horse, and was going
to swear him into the State Prison. The result was as he apprehended.
He was convicted by the perjury of Furman, and sentenced to the State
Prison for five years. This was the first act in the awful tragedy, of which
he is the hero. Let Judges and Jurors take warning from its faUil conse-
quences. How deeply this injustice sank into his mind, may be seen from
the tc:;timony of Aretas A.Sabin, the keeper, who said to him on the
day he entered the Prison, ** I am sorry to see you come here so young."
^ The Prisoner wept Well would it have been, if this, the last occasion on
which the Prisoner yielded to that infirmity, had, ominous as it was of such
fatal mischief, been understood and heeded.
A year passed away, and he b found in the Prison, neglecting his allotted
labor, sullen, and morose^
James £. Tyler, the keeper, says: "I had talked to him, and found it
did no good. I called him up to punish him — told him I was going to pun-
ish him for not doing more work, and should do so repeatedly until he
should do more work. When I talked with him about doing more work, he
gave OS an excuse, * that he was there wrongfvUy^ and ought not to tcorL* "
404 - XHS TRIAL Of
The excnae aggravated Uie seTeriij of his castigaftion. Such was Peniteo-
taary cure for incipient insanity.
Yam Kbuben, a foreman in one of the shops at the Prison, represents the
Prisoner as sullen, intractable, and insolent. He caused him to be punished^
although he then discovered, on all occasions, the idiotic laugh, withoul
cause or motive, which marks the maniac.
Silas £. Baker remarked the same idiotic laugh when the Prisoner
was at his work, in his cell, and in the ChapeL
William P. Smith, a foreman in the Prison, remarked his pecoliarilieB,
but unfortunately was not then led to their true cause.
Thbron Green, as has been ahready seen, discovered the same peeo^
liarities, divined their cause, held him irresponsible, and gave an unheeded
warning against his enlargement
The discipline of the Prison forbids conversation between convict and
convict, and between keepers and prisoners. The iron that had entered
the Prisoner's soul was necessarily concealed, but De Put, and Wardeh,
and Green, who thought him changed then, as well as Smith, Yak Kmjh
REN, Baker, and Tyleb, who regarded him only as ignorant and obstinate;
give conclusive evidence that the ruin of his mind was betrayed, in a visible
change of his appearance, conduct and character.
The time at length arrived, when the secret could no longer be suppressed.
The new Chaplain, the Bev. Alonzo Wood, was in the ikgent's oflke
when the Prisoner was discharged. Two dollars, the usual gratui^, was
offered him, and he was asked to sig^ a receipt *' / aint going to teiUe so."
For five years, until it became the ruling thought of his life, the idea had
been impressed upon his mind, that he had been imprisoned wrongfully, and
would, therefore, be entitled to payment, on his liberation. This idea ww
ppposed *' bjf the judgment and sense of all mankind.*' The Court that con-
victed him, pronounced him guilty, and spoke the '* sense and judgment of
mankind." But still he remained unconvinced. The keepers who flogged
him, pronounced his claim unjust and unfounded, and they were exponents
of the '^ sense and judgment of all mankind." But imprisonment, bonds aa4
stripes, could not remove the one inflexible idea. The Agent, the keepen^
the Clerk, the spectators, and even the Reverend Chaplain laughed at the
simplicity and absurdity of the claim of the discharged convict,, when he
said, ^* Pve worked Jioe years for the State^ and aint going to settle so." Alas I
little did they know that they were deriding the delusion of a Maniac Had
they been wise, they would have known that
'*8o fival ft sk/ clean not wltfaoat s itonn."
The peak of their laughter were the warning voice of Nature, for the
safety of the family of Van Nb3T.
Thus closes the second act of the sad drama.
WILLIAM VBBIMAII. 405
The Haniflc reaches his home, sinks sallenly to his seat, and hour ^ifler
-hour, relates to John De Put the story of his wrongAil imprisonment, and
of the cruel and inhuman treatment which he had suffered, enquires for
the persons who h^d caused him to be unjustly convicted, learns their names,
and goes about drooping, melancholy and sad, dwelling continually upon
luB wrongs, and studying intensely in his bewildered mind how to obtsn
redress. Many passed him, marking his altered countenance and carriage,
without stopping to enquire the cause. Dr. Hbrmance alone sought an ex-
planation: ^I met him about the first of December last; I thought htf
manner very singular and strange. I enquired the cause. He told me thai
he had been in the Prison for five years, and that he wasnt guilty, and thai
they wouldn't pay him. I met hun afterwards in the street, again remarked
his peculiarities, and enquired the cause. He answered as befbre, that he
had been in State Prison five years wrongfully, and they wouldn't pay lum*
The one idea disturbs him in his dreams and forces him from his bed ; he
eomplains that he can make no gain and can't live so; he dances to his own
irild music, and encounters visionary combatants.
Time passes until February. He visits Mrs. GtODFret at her house in
8ennett He enters the house, deaf, and stands mute. "I gave him a
chair,** says Mrs. Godfrey, "he sat down. I asked which way he was
trayelling. He wanted to know if that was the place where a woman had a
horse stole, fire years before. I told him it was. He said he had been to
Prison fbr stealing the horse, and didn't steal it neither. I told him I knew
nothing about that, whether it was he, or not He said he'd been to Prison
fbr stealing a horse, and didn*t steal it, and he wanted a settlement John-
son, who was there, asked him if he should know the horse if he should see
It *Ka' 'Do you want the horse?* 'No. Are you the man who took
me np ? Where is the man who kept the tayem across the way and helped
catch me ?* * He is gone/ I asked him if he was hungiy. He said, he
didn't know but he was. I gave him some cakes, and he sat and ate them.'*
Here were exhibited at once l^e wildness of the maniac, and the imbecil-
ity of the demented man. His delusion was opposed to " the sense and
Judgment of all mankind.** Mrs. Godfrey and Mr. Johnson exposed its
fallacy. But still the one idea remained, unconquered and unconquerable.
The maniac who came to demand pay for five years unjust imprisonment, was
appeased with a morsel of cake.
He was next seen at Mr. Seward's office, a week or ten days before the
murder. He asked if that was a 'Squire's office, and said he wanted a war-
rant Mr. Parsons, the Clerk, says: *'I didn't understand, until he had
asked once or twice. I asked him what he wanted a warrant for. He said,
for the man who had been getting him into Prison, and he wanted to get
damages. I told him the Justices' offices were up street, and he went
away.**
Next we fiiid him at the office of Lymait Pauoe, Esq., Justice, on tiie
406 THB TRIAL Of
Saturday preceding the death of Van Nest. Mr. Paink says: *'He
opened the door, came in a few feet, and stood nearly a minute with his
head down, so. He looked up and said : ' Sir, I want a warrant' * What for.'
He stood a little time, and then said again : * Sir^ I want a warrant* ' What
4o you want a warrant for ?' He stood a minute, started and came up close
to me, and spoke very loud : * Sir, I want a warrant. I am very deaf and
can't hear very well' I asked him in a louder voice, what he wanted it for.
* For a man who put me to State Priiwn.* * What is your name V ^ Wil-
liam Freeman ; and I want a warrant for the man who put me to Prison.*
I said : * If you've been to Prison, you have undoubtedly been tried for
scnne offence.' * I have ; it was for stealing a horse, but I didn't steal it
Pve been there five years.' I asked who he wanted a warrant for. He
told some name — I think it was Mr. Doty." (You well remember, gentle-
men, that Mr. Doty, Mr. Hall, and Mrs. Godfrey, all of Sennett, and Jack
Furman, of this town, were the witnesses against him.) ** I told him if he
wanted a warrant, it must be for perjury — he must give me the facts and I
would see. He stood two or three minutes and then said : * Sir, I want a
warrant.* I asked further information. He stood a little while longer, took
out a quarter of a dollar, threw it on the table, and said : * Sir, I demand a
toarran/'— appeared in a passion, and soon after went out He returned in
the afternoon, said he would have a warrant, and gave the names of Mr.
Doty and Mrs. Godfrey."
Mr. Paine saw, in all this, evidence of stupidity, ignorance, and malice,
only, but not of Insanity. But, gentlemen, if he could have looked back to
the origin of the Prisoner's infatuation, and forward to the dreadful catas*
trophe on the shore of the Owasco Lake, as we now see it, who can doubt
that he would then have pronounced the Prisoner a maniac, and have
granted, not the warrant he asked, but an order for his commitment to the
County Jail, or to the Lunatic Asylum ?
Denied the process to which he thought himself entitled, he proceeded a
day or two later to the office of James H. Bostwick, Esq. another Justice.
** I saw him," says this witness, " a day or two before the murder. He came^
and said he wanted a warrant I asked for whom. He replied ; '/or those
that got me to Prison. I was sent wrongfully. I want pay* I asked him
who the persons were. He mentioned a widow and two men. He men-
tioned Mrs. Godfrey as the widow woman, Jack Furman and David W.
Simpson as the two men." (Simpson was the constable by whom he was
arrested the second time for stealing the horse.) Mr. Bostwick declined
issuing the warrant, and informed him there was no remedy, and again ex-
pounded to him the " sense and judgment of all mankind," in opposition to
his delusion.
According to the testimony of John De Put, the Prisoner was agitated
by alternate hope and despair in regard to his redress. At one time he told
Db Put, that he had got it all fixed, and wanted him to go down to the
WILUAM FKUHAK. 40T
Justice's office and see ihat be was paid right At another, be told De Put
that the " 'Squires wouldn't do nothing about it; that be could get no war-
rant, nor pay, and he couldn't live so"
Then it was that the one idea completely overthrew what remained of
mind, conscience and reason. If you believe Hbrbey, Freeman, about a
week before the Murder, showed him several butcher knives ; told him he
meant to kill De Poy, his brother-in-law, for trivial reasons, which he as-
signed, and said that he had found the folks that put him in Prison, and
meant to kill them. Herset says: ^'I asked him who they were. He
said, they were Mr, Van Nest^ and said no more about them. He didn't say
where they lived, and nothing about any other man, woman or widow."
This witness admits that he suppressed this fact on the preliminary exami-
nation.
If you reject this testimony, then there is no evidence that he ever had
any forethought of slaying Van Nest. If you receive it, it proves the
complete subversion of his understanding ; for John G. Van Nest, and all
the persons slain, resided not in Sennett, nor in Auburn, but four milei
south of the latter place, and eight miles from^the house of Mrs. Godfrey.
The Prisoner, within a week before the crime, named to the magistrates
every person who was concerned in his previous conviction. We have
shown that neither John G. Van Nest, nor any of his family or kindred^
nor any person connected v^ith him, was, or could have been, a party, a
magistrate, a witness, a constable, a sheriff, a grand Juror, Attorney, petit
Juror, or Judge in that prosecution, or ever knew or hc^rd of the prosecu-
tion, or ever heard or knew that any sbch larceny had been committed, or
that such a being as the Prisoner existed. Mrs. Godfrey and the wit-
nesses on the former occasion, became known to the remaining family and
relatives of Van Nest, here in Court, for the first time, during these trials.
You will remember that Erskine'j test of a delusion that takes away re-
sponsibility, is — that the criminal act must be the immediatef unqualijied off-
spring of the delusion. I shall now proceed to show that such is the fact' in
the present case.
The first witness to whom the Prisoner spoke concerning the deeds which
he had committed, was George B. Parker. This" was at Phoenix, Oswe-
go county, immediately afler his arrest, within twenty hours after the perpe-
tration of the crime. " I pushed very hard for the reasons," says .the wit-
ness; " what he had against Van Nest. ^T suppose you know Fve been in
State Prison /ice years* he replied. *I was put there innocently; Pve been
whipped, and knocked, and abused, and made deaf, and there won't any body
pay me for it' "
Vanderheyden arrived soon afterwards. He says : " I called the Pri-
soner aside, and said to him ; * Now wer'e alone, and you may as well tell
me how you came to commit this.* He says to me : * You know there is no
ff03 ZDSnUALQt
1^ far me' I aaked him what he meimt b/ tfya ' no 2at&' Hes^d, 'thict
WQUT TO FAT MB.* "
Ethan A. Warden followed him into (ub cell in the Jail, and asked hiq&,
" W^en you started from home, what did you go np there for? '/mtisr
09* Why must you go ? ' / mmt begin v^y wqrk* What made you do it?
« Th^y brought me tip so: Who brought you up so? • The Slate: Th^y
didn't tell you to kill, did they ? * Don't knp/w— won't pay me: Did yon
know these folks before you went to Prison ? * No: Was you there a few
days before, to get wprk ? ^ Yes: Did they say any thing to offend you or
make you angry ? ^ No: What made you kill them ; what did you do it
for ? * / must begin my vjorL' Didn't you expect to be killed ? * Didn't
b¥tw but I should: If yon expected to be killed what made you go ; did
yon go to get money ? * No: Did you expect to get money ? ' No: Did
you intend to get the horse ? * No: How did you come to take him ?
* Broke my things, (meaning knives) — hand teas cut — came into my mind—
ioike the horse — go-^-and—get so—could do more work: If you had not broke
jQiir things, what would you have done ? ' Kept to work: Did you meap
to keep right on ? ' / meant to keep to work: Would you have kiUed me
if you had met me ? ^ 'Spose I should: What made you begin at that house 7
* popped two or three places, thought it wasn't far out enough to begin: Are
yon not sorry yon killed 00 many ? * Don't think any thing about iL'
The Prisoner has invariably given similar answers to every person who
jhn^ asked him the motive for his crime.
l^ARREN T. WoBDEN, £sq., says, ** I aaked him why he took the horse?
He answered, ' My hand was hurt, ^and I couldn't kill any more: I asked
him why he killed them ? and he answered, ' Why did they send me to Stqtf
Prison when I wasn't guilty: And in making this reply he trembled, and I
thought he was going to weep. J told him they would hang him now ; he
showed no feeling."
Dr. F030ATE says that Dr. Hurd asked hi|n what he killed tboee folki
for ? He replied, " They put me in Prison."
John R. Hopkins says, "I turned his attention to the idea of pay— if he
had got his pay for his time in Prison ? That question raised him up and
he looked comparatively intelligent, and brightened up his whole counte*
nance. He said, * No: Who ought to pay you 7 ^ All of them: Ought
I ? He looked up with a flash of inteUigence, said nothing, but looked in-
tently at me, and the answer was conveyed by the look. I asked if this man«
(pointing to Hotchkiss) ought to pay him. He looked at him, as at me, and
ftid, * Do wha^s right; or * we'll do wholes right: We then spoke about hi|
trial, and he was stupid and dull again."
The Bev. J. AL Austin says : " I put questions to find his motive for
kilting that family. His answers were very broken and incoherent, but in-
v|riably referred to his. being in Prison innocently. Had the persons yon
kiflfid any thing to do with putting yoa into Priaon ? < Ab.' Did you know
tbwnam^? 'iVb/ Why did you kill that particulftr family? *No diraol
answer, but something about being put in Priaon wrongfully. Do you think
it right to kill people who had no hand in putting you into Prison ? Ha
gaTO an incoherent reply. I gatkered, ^shaU do something to get my pa^!
How much pay ought yoa to have ? ' DonH know,* Was it right to kiH
Ihoae innocent persons for what hfA been d<Hie by others ? * They put mg
M Priion: Who did— the Van Nest family ? 'No/ Why then did yon
kill them ? Did yoa think it right to kill Uiat innocent child ? I under*
stood from his gestures in reply, that he was in a labyrinth, from which he
was incapable of extricating himself. How did yon happen to go that par>
ticnlar night? < The time had come.' Why did yon enter that particular
house ? ' / went along out and thought I might begin there' I asked if ha
ever called on Mrs. Godfrey. He said, * / went to Mrs. Godfrey to get pay,
a»d she wouldn't pay me. I went to Esquires Bostwick and Paine and they
wouldn't do nothing about iL**
Mr. Ira Cubtis, says : " I asked him how he came up there. * / tMiH
sip south a piece.' How far ? * Stopped at the house beyond there.' What
£»: ? * To get a drink of water: What did you go into Van Nest's housa
Ibr ? ' Dont know.' Did you 90 in to murder or kill them ? < Don't know.'
Was it for money ? ' Didn't know as they had any.' Did you kill the child T
< They said 1 killed one, but I didn't.' What did you kill them for ? < Yom
know I had my work to do.' Had yoa any thing against these people ? * Dont
know.' Why didn't yoa commence at the other place ? ' Thought it wasnH
time yet: He said ' they wouldn't pay him. He had been imprisoned and they
wouldn't pay him:"
Dr. Hermancb says : " Dr. Pitnbt asked him how he happened to go
np. ' It rained and I thought it would be a good time: . Why did you go to
Van Nest's, and not to some oUier family ? No answer. Why didnt yon
aome and kill me ? He smiled, but gave no answer. Don't you think you
ought to be hung for killing Van Nest and his family ? The same questioB
was repeated authoritatiTely, and he replied : * Sent to Prison for nothing —
aught I to be hung V Suppose you had found some other person, would yon
haye killed any other as wdl as Van Nest? * Yes: I asked, why did yoo
kill Van Nest and his family ? * For that horse: What do yon mean by
kiUing ^for th€U horse P ' They sent me to Prison and they won't pay me:
Had Van Nest any thing to do with sending you to Prison ? < No: "
Dr. Briogs says : ** When I repeated the question, why did you kill Van
Vast ? ho replied, * Why was I put in Prison Jive years ?' **
William P. Smith, asked: ** Why did you kill those people? ^Pve
been to Prison wrongfully Jive years. They wouldn't pay me: Who ?
* The people, so I thought Pd kill somebody: Did you mean to kill one mora
I another? *No: Why did you go so far out of town ? < Stopped at
e place this side ; wouldn't go in ; couldn't see to fight ; 'twas dark ; looked
410 THE TBIiX Of
tqf ttreet ; saw a light in next house ; thottght Pd go there ; could see to fight!
Don't you know you've done wrong ? * No! Don't you think 'twas wrong
to kill the child? After some hesitation he said, * Tfe// — that looks kind
c^h-a-r-d! Why did you think it was right ? * I've been in Prison five yean
for stealing a horse, and I didn't do it ; and the people won't pay me ; made
vp my mind J ought to kill somebody! Are you not sorry ? ' No! How much
pay do you want ? * Don't know ; good d^aV If I connt yottout a hundred
dollars, would that be enough ? He thought it wouldn't. How much would
be right ? * Don't know! He brightened up, and finally said he thought
* about a thousand dollars would be about right! **
It would be tedious to gather all the evidence of similar import Let it
•office, that the witnesses who have conversed with the Prisoner, as well
those for the People as those for him, concur fully in the same statement of
iacts, as to his reasons and motives for the murders. We have thus not
merely establbhed the existence of an insane delusion, but have traced di>
rectly to that overpowering delusion, the crimes which the Prisoner has com>
mitted.
How powerful that delusion must have been, may be inferred from the
&ct that the Pri:<oner, when disabled, desisted from his work, and made his
retreat to his friends in Oswego county, not to escape from punishment for
the murders, but as he told Mr. £. A. Warden, to wait till his wounded
hand should be restored, that he might resume hb dreadful butchery ; and,
as he told Dr. Bioelow, because he counldn't '* handle his hand." The in-
tenseness of this delusion exceeds that under which Hatfield assailed the
King ; that which compelled Hexriette Cornier to dissever the head of
the child entrusted to her care ; and that of Rabello, the Portuguese, who
cut to pieces with his axe, the child who trod upon his feet
The next feature in the cause, which will claim your attention, gentlemen
of the Jury, is the manner and circumstances of the act itself.
In Ray's Medical Jurisprudence, at page 224, are given several tests by
which to distinguish between the homicidal Maniac and the Murderer.
We shall best consider the present case by comparing it with those tests:
I. " There is the irresistible, motiveless impulse to destroy life." Kever was
homicide more motiveless, or the impulse more completely irresistible, than in
the present case, as we have learned from the testimony already cited.
n. ** In nearly all cases the criminal act has been preceded, either by come
well marked disturbance of the health, or by an irritable, gloomy, dejected,
or melancholy state ; in short, by many of the symptoms of the incubation of
mania.** How truly does this language describe the condition of the Priso-
ner during the brief period of his enlargement !
HI. '* The impulse to destroy is powerfully excited by the sight of mnTde^
0U8 weapons — by favorable opportunities of accomplishing the act — by con-
tradiction, disgust, or some other equally trivial and even imaginary circom*
itance."
WILLIAM VRXKXAN. 411
While we learn from Hbr8Ky*s testimony, that the Prisoner kept a store
of knives fit for such a deed, we find in the denial of his demands for settle-
ment, for pay, and for process, by Mrs. Godfrey and the magistrates, the
contradiction and causes of disgust here described.
lY. ** The victims of the homicidal monomaniac are either entirely unr
known or indifferent to him, or they are amongst his most loved and cher-
ished objects.*'
Freeman passed by his supposed oppressors and persecutors, and fell up-
on a family absolutely indifferent, and almost unknown to him, while he re-
served the final stroke for his nearest and best friend, and brother-in-law.
y. *' The monomaniac sometimes diligently conceals and sometimes avows
his purpose, and forms schemes for putting it into execution, testifying no
ienliment of grief."
The Prisoner concealed his purpose from all but Hsrset. He purchased
the knife which he used, in open day, at a blacksmith's shop, in the presence
of persons to whom he was well known, and ground it to its double edge be-
fore unsuspecting witnesses, as coolly and deliberately as if it were to be
employed in the shambles. He applied at another blacksmith's shop where
he was equally well known, to have another instrument made. He shaped
the pattern in a carpenter's shop, carried it to the smith, disagreed about the
price, and lef^ the pattern upon the fox^e, in open sight, never thinking to
reclaim it, and it lay there until it was taken by the smith before the coro-
ner's inquest, as an evidence of his design. So strange was lus conduct, and
so mysterious the form of the knife which he required, that Morris, the
smith, suspected him, and told Lim that he was going to kill somebody; to
which he answered with the nonchalance of tho butcher, ** that's nothing
to you if you get your pay for the knife." On the two days immediately pre-
ceding the murder, he is found sharpening and adjusting his knives at a tur-
ner's shop, next door to his own dwelling, in the presence of persons to whom
he is well known, manifesting no apprehension, and affecting no conceal-
ment.
The trivial concerns of his finance and occupation are as carefully atten-
ded to, as if the murder he was contemplating had been an ordinary and
lawful transaction. Hyatt demands three shillings for the knife.* The Pri-
soner cheapens until the price is reduced to eighteen pence, with the fur-
ther advantage that it should be sharpened, and fitted to a handle. Hyatt
demands six pence for putting a rivet into his knife. He compromises, and
agrees to divide the labor and pay half the price. He deliberately takes
out his wallet and lays down three cents for Simpson, the turner, for the use
of the grindstone. On the very day of the murder, he begs some grease at
the Soap Factory to soften his shoes, and tells Aaron Demun thut he it
going into the country to live in peace. At four o'clock in the aflcrnoon he
bays soap at the merchant's for Mart Ann Newark, the poor woman at
whose house he lived. He then goes cautiously to his room, takes the knives
412 TBE TBlUi OV
from the place of their concealment under hk bed, tbxovs them out of the
window, to avoid exposure to her observation, and when the night has coma,
and the bells are ringing for church, and all is ready, he stops to aak the wooyn
whether there is any chore to be done. She tells him, none, but to fill the tab
with snow. He does it as carefully as if there were no commotion in hb
mind, and then sallies forth, takes up his instruments, and proceeds on Im
errand of death. He reconnoiters the house on the north of Van Ne8T%
Van Nest's house, and Brooks' house on the south, and finally decides
upon the middle one as the place of assault It does not afi*ect his puipoR
that he meets Mr. Cox and Mr. Patten, under a broad, bright moonlight
He waits his opportunity, until Williamson, the visitor, has departed, and
Van Arsdale, the laboring man, has retired to rest With an energy and
boldness that no sane man, with such a purpose, could possess, he mortally
■tabs four persons, and dangerously wounds a fiftti, in the incredibly short
apace of five minutes. Disabled, and therefore desisting from further de-
atruction, he enters the stable, takes the first horse he finds, mounts )am
without a saddle, and guiding him by a halter, dashes towards the town.
He overtakes and passes Williamson, the visitor, within the distance ef
three-fourths of a mile from the house whidi he had left in supposed secu-
rity. Pressing on, the jaded beast, worn out with age, stumbles and brin^
Um to the ground. He plunges his knife into the In^eaat of the horse, abaii-
^ns him, scours forward through the town, across the bridge and on tha
middle road to Burrinoton's ; there seizes another horse, mounts him, aB4
orges fi}rward, until he arrives among his relations, the Dk Pots, at Schroep>
pel, thirty miles distant They, suspecting him to have stolen the horse,
refuse to entertain him. He proceeds to the adjoining village, rests from
his ^ht, offers the horse for sde, and when his title to the horse is qne^
tioned, announces his true name and residence, and refers to the De Puts,
who had just cast him off, for proof of his good character and condaei
When arrested and charged with the murder, he denies the act
Now the sixth test given by Ray, is, that '* while most maniacs having
gratified their propensity to kill, voluntarily confess the act, and quietly give
themselves up to the proper authorities, a very few, only, and those to an
intelligent observer show the strongest indications of insanity, fiy, and pe^
oat in denying the act*'
VlL ** Murder is never criminally committed ^thout some motive ade-
quate to the purpose in the mind that is actuated by it., while the insant
man commits the crime without any motive whatever, strictly deserving Ihs
name."
VUl. " The criminal never sheds more blood than is necessary for tht
•ttainment of his object The monomaniac often sacrifices all within his
reach, to the cravings of his murderous propensity."
IX. *' The ctiminal either denitt or confesses his guih ; if the latter, be
nea for mercy, or glories in his Crimea. On the contrary, the manimc^ after
WILfiEAM VBSUAV. 418
({tadfying his hioodj deanfi testifies ndUier i^mone, repentance, nor satis-
&ction/'
X. *^Tke erimmal has accomplices; th6 maniac has none.'*
XL " The murderer never conceives a deugn to murder without project
ing a plan for concealing his victim, effecting his escape, and baffling pur-
suit The maniac prepares the means of committing the crime, with cahn-
ness and deliberation, but never dreams of the necessi^ of concealing it
when done^ or of eaeape, nntil his victim lies at his feet"
Dr. BiasLOW and others state that the Prisoner told them, as obviouslj
was the case^ that he sought no plunder; that he thought not of escape or
flight, until his things were broken, and his hand was cut, so that he could
net continne his work. He seized the nearest and the most worthless horse
in the stable, leaving two fle^ animals remaining in their staUs. He thought
onlj of taking Burrington*s horse when the first failed : all he cared for was
to get out of the county, diere to rest, until his hand was cured, so that he
conld come back and do more work. He rested from flight within thirty^
miles from the seat of his crimes, and, in selling his horse, was depriving
himself of the only means of making his escape successfuL When the per-
son of Yam Nest was examined, hb watch, pocket-b6ok, money and trin-
kets were found all undisturbed. Kot an article in the house had been re*
metved; and when the Prisoner was searched upon his arrest, there was
found in his pockets nothing but one copper coin, the hundredth part of a
dollar.
Without further detail, the parallel between the Prisoner and the tests of
madness established by Medical Jurisprudence, is complete.
It remains, gentlemen, to conclude the demonstration of the Prisonerli
insanity, by referring to the testimony of the witnesses who have given their
OQiaion on that question. Coenblius Yak Absdajle and Hsuen Holukb,
the survivors of that ^-eadfol scene at Yan Nest's house, did not think the
Prisoner insane. The latter had only seen the Prisoner for a moment, du-
ring the previous week« ^en he called there and asked for work. The
fonner had never seen him before that fatal night Both saw him there»
only for a moment, and under oircumstances exhibiting him as a ruthleai
Murderer*
WiixiAMBOH thinks he was not insane, but he saw the Prisoner only
when he swept past him, fleeing from his crime.
jAums Amos, Alohso Tatlor, Georob BuRRcraTosr, and GEORaB
B. Parkbr, say they> read no indications of insanity in his conduct when
arrested ; but neither of them ever saw him before, or has seen him since.
BoBBRT SmpsoK, the turner, Georgb W. Htatt and Joseph Mor^
Ria, the blacksmithsi did not suspect him to be insane, when he purchased
and sharpened his knivcsi Neither of them ever knew him before, or has
known Ida 1
414 THE TBIAL Of
Kathakiel Lynch, though he famishes abanduit CYidence of the Pris-
oners insanity, is himself unconvinced.
Aaron Demun, a colored man, does not think him insane, but standi
alone, of all who knew him in his youth.
Israel G. Wood and Stephen S. Austin do not think him insane.
They Tvere his Jailers six years ago, but they have not examined him since
his arrest
Vakderheyden and Munroe think him sane, but each testifies under
feelings which disqualify him for impartiality.
Jonas Brown thinks him not insane, but never saw him, except whea
he was buying a pound of soap at his store.
John P. Hulbert and Benjamin F. Hall had brief conversatsoin
with htm, in the Jail, ailer his arrest, but made*tao examination concerning
his delusion.
Lewis Markhau and Daniel Andbus think him not insane, but they
have made no examination of the subject ; while both give evidence that he
was once as bright, active and cheerful, as he is now stupid, senseless and
imbecile.
Benjamin Van Reuben, Aretas A. Sabin, Silas E. Bakeb and
James E. Tyler, all keepers in the State Prison, and Alonzo Wood, the
Chaplain, did not suspect him of insanity in the State Prison. Their con-
duct towards him while there, proves their sincerity ; but his history under
their treatment, will enable you to correct their erroneous judgments. It
was their business, not to detect and cure insanity, but to prescribe his daily
task, and to compel him by stripes to perform it in silence.
Michael S. Myers, the former District Attorney, who prosecuted the
Prisoner for stealing the horse, looks at him now, and can see no change in
his personal appearance ; hut he has never thought the subject worthy of
an examination, and has not, in six years, spoken with or thought of the ac-
cused.
Lyman Paine and James H. Bostwick, to whom he applied for pro-
cess, continue now as well convinced of the Prisoner's sanity, as they were
when he applied to them for warr^ts, which it was absurd for him to a^
Neither of them has examined him since his arrest, or stopped to compare
his conduct in the Murder with his application for a warrant, or with tht
strange delusion which brought him before them.
Such and so feeble b the testimony as to the Prisoner's sanity, given by
others than the medical witnesses. Nor is the testimony of the medical wit-
nesses on the part of the People entitled to more respect
Dr. Gilmore pronounces a confident opinion that the Prisoner is sajkt\
but the witness is without experience, or any considerable learning on thst
subject, and his opinion is grounded upon the fact that the accused had in-
tellect enough to prepare for his crime, and sense enough to escape, in ths
WILUAM IBZEMAK. 415
manner so oflcn described. I read to tlie Doctor the accounts of several
cases in Bedlam, and without exception he pronounced the sufi'erers sane
criminals.
Dr. Hyde visited the Prisoner twice in hb cell, perhaps thirty minutes
each time, and as the result of those visits, says he was rather of the opinion
that he was sane. Dr. Hyde expressly disavows any learning or experi-
ence on the subject of insanity, and does not give the details of his exam-
ination.
Dr. David Dimon visited the Prisoner several times in Jail, but could
not discover any thing that he could call insanity. He thinks thci'e can be
no insane delusion in this case, because he thinks that an insane delusion is
the thorough conviction of the reality of a thing, which is opposed by the
evidence of the sufferer's senses. The Doctor claims neither study nor ex- *
perience ; pronounces the Prisoner to be of a grade of intellect rather small
for a Negro ; thinks he has not aa much intellect as a child of fourteen
years of age, and in regard to knowledge, would compare him with a child
two or three years old, who knows hb A, B, C, but cannot count twenty-
eight Those who seek the extreme vengeance of the law, will, if successful,
need all the consolation to be derived from the sanity of the accused, if, at
the age uf twenty-three, he be thus imbecile in mind and barren in know-
ledge.
Dr. Jedediah Darrow has read nothing on the subject of insanity for
forty years, and has never had any ex perience. He declares that his conclusiofl.
b not to be regarded as a professional opinion. He talked with the Priso-
ner once in Juil, to ascertain hb sanity, and thought it important to avoid ail
aUusion to the crimes he had committed ^ their motives y causes and circumstan"
ces. He now thinks that it would have been wise, where monomania wai
suspected, to examine into the alleged delusion. He contents himself with
saying, he did not discover insanity*
Dr. Joseph Clart visited the Prisoner in Jail: cannot give a deci-
ded opinion; his prevailing impression b, that the Prisoner b not insane,
but he has not had opportunities enough to form a correct opinion. He haa
never seen a case of Demenda, and knows it only from definitions in books,
which he has never tested.
Dr. BiGELOW, Physician to the Prison, discovered nothing in his exami-
nations which led him to suspect insanity. The Doctor has a salary of Five
Hundred Dollars per annum ; hb chief labor in regard to insanity b to
detect counterfeits in the Prison ; and although he admits that the Prisoner
has answered him freely, and unsuspectingly, and fully, he accounts for the
condition of his mind, by saying tha^ he regards him " as an ignorant^ duU^
stupid, degraded, debased, and morose, hut not insane person**
Dr. Sylvester Willard, without particular experience or learning in
thb branch, concurs in these opinions.
Dr. TuoMAS Spencer, Professor in the Medical College at Geneva,
416 CHS TUAL OV
brings up the rear of the People's witaeMei. I oomplain of hit testimony,
that it was corered by a masked battel/. The District Attorney c^ned ths
case with denunciations of scientific men, said that too much learning made
men mad, and warned yon therefore against the educated men who m^t
leatify for the Prisoner. I thought at the time that these were eztramrdinaiy
opinions. I had read,
**AUtU« learniaf it a dangeroos tbing^
Drink deep or tute not the Pierian Sprinf ; •
Thete afa allow drauglita Intoxicate the briiik,
B«% drinking largely tbWra «* a|iili."
What was my surprise to find that all these denuBciatioiia against lean*
lag end experience, made by the Ceunsel for the People, were only a covsr
fot Dr. Spencsb.
He heralds himself as accustomed to teaeh^ and inlbrms us that he hatf
Tittted the principal Hospitals for the Insane in London, Paris, and othar
Eun^an capitals. How unfortunate it was that on his cross examination,
he oould not give the name or location of any Asylum in either of those ci-
ties 1 Even the nameaand locations of the «* Chafenton''and**Bieetre''had
esc^»ed his memory.
But it is no matter. The Doctor overwhefans us with learning, nniyenil
aad incomprehensible. Here is his map* of the mental filculties, in whkh
twen^-eight sepumte poweis of mind ere described in odd and OTon nmn*
The arrows show Ihe oonrM of ideas through the mind. They begin with
the motives in the region of the highest odd numbers in the sontfi-west ter>
ner of the mindi marked A, and go perpendienlariy northward, thiouj^
Thirst and Hunger to Sensation, marked B; then turn to the right, andga
eastward, through Conception, to Attention, raaiked C, and then desoeed
•outhward, through Perception, Memory, Understanding, Comparison, Coair
bination. Reason, Intention, and Judgment ; wheel to the left under the
Willi marked D, and pass through Conscience, and then to V, the unascer-
tained center of Sensation, Volition^ and WilL This ia the natural tnmpfte
road for the ideas when we are awake and sane. But here ia anopenshne-
pike^ X, Y, Zf on which Ideas, when we are asleep or intone, sisrt off and
pass by Conscimce, and so avoid paying toll to that inflexiUe gate-keeper.
Now all this ia very well, but I call on the Doctor to show how tifd fogitive
idea reached the Will at D, after going to the end of the shnn-pike. It ap>
peared there was no other way but to dart back again, over the ahne-pike,
or else to go cringing, at last, through th^ iron gate of Consdenoe.
-Then there was another difflonlfy. The Doetoe Ibrgpt the most impOT'
tant point on his own m^, and oould nol teDr from memory, wheie he hid
loeaied '* the fuiascerUwud eenin,^
^eMfeffaM
WILUAM VBUIIAN. ' 417
The Doctor pronounces the Prisoner sane because he has the chief intel-
lectual faculties, Sensation, Conception, Attention, Imagination, and Associ-
ation. Now here is a delicate piece of wooden cutlery, fabricated by an in-
mate of the Lunatic Asylum at Utica, who was acquitted of murder on the
ground of Insanity. He who fabricated it evinced in the manufacture, Con-
ception, Perception, Memory,. Comparison, Attention, Adaptation, Co-ord^
nation. Kindness, Gratitude, Mechanical Skill, Invention, and Pride. It is
well for him that Dr. Spencer did not testify on his trial.
Opposed to these vague and unsatisfactory opinions is the evidence of
Sallt Freeman, the Prisoner's mother, who knew him better than any
other one ; of John De Puy, his brother-in-law and intimate friend ; of
Ethan A. Warden, his employer in early youth ; of Deborah De Puy,
his associate in happier days ; of Adam Grat, who knew him in childhood,
and sheltered him on his discharge from the State Prison ; of Ira Curtis,
in whose family he resided seven years ago ; of David Winner, the friend
of his parents ; of Robert Freeman, his ancient fellow servant at the
.American Hotel ; of John B. Hopkins, an intelligent and practical man
who examined him in jail; of Theron Green, who discovered his insanity
in the State Prison; of the Rev. John M. Austin, the one good Samaritan
who deemed it a pastoral duty to visit even a supposed Murderer in Prison ;
of William P. Smith, who has corrected now the error of his judgment
while in the State Prison; of Philo H. Perrt, a candid and enlightened
observer; and of Warren T* Worden, Esq., a Lawyer of great shrewd-
ness and sagacity.
Then there is an overwhelming preponderance of medical testimony. The
witnesses are. Dr. Van Epps, who has followed the accused from his cradle
to the present hour, with the interest of a humane and sincere friend ; Dr.
Fosgate, who attended him in the Jail, for the cure of his disabled limb ;
Dr. Brioqs, equal in public honors to Dr. Bioelow, and greatly his supe-
rior in candor as well as learning, and who compares the Prisoner now with
what he was in better days ; Dr. McNauqhton, of Albany, and Dr. HuK,
of the same place, gentlemen known throughout the whole country for emi-
nence in their profession ; Dr. McCall, of Utica, President of the Medical
Society Of the State of New York ; Dr. Coventry, Professor of Medical
Jurisprudence in Geneva College, and one of the Managers of the State
Lunatic Asylum at Utica; and Dr. Brigham, the experienced and dlMin-
gnished Superintendent of that Institution. This last gentleman, after re-
viewing the whole case, declares that he has no doubt that the Prisoner is
now insane, and was so when his crimes were committed ; that he should
have received him as a patient then, on the evidence given here, indepen-
dently of the crime, and should now receive him upon aU th^ evidence which
has been submitted to you. i
Dr. Brigham pronounces the Prisoner to be a Monamaniae laboring un-
der the overwhelnung progress of the delusion I have described, which hid
27
418 ma tbul or
its paroxysm in the Murders of which he is accused; aad declares that since
that time he has snnk into a deep and incurable Dementia, the coonter-pait
of Idiocy. In these opinions, and in the reasons for them, so luminously as-
signed hy him, all ihe other medical gentiemen concur.
You may be told, gentlemen, that Dr. Hun and Dr. McNauohtox testi-
fied from mere obserration of the Prisoner without personal examination.
Yes I I will thank the Attorney General for saying so. It will recall the
strangest passages of all, in this the strangest of all trials. This is a trial for
MxnetDER. A verdict of guilty will draw after it a sentence of death. The
only defence is Insanity. Insanity b to be tested by examining the Priso-
ner as he now is, and comparing him with what he tocu when the crime was
committed, and during all the intervening period, and through all his preri-
ous fife. Dr. Hun and Dr. McNaughton were served with subpoenas, re-
quiring them to attend here. They came, proceeded to the Jail, and exam-
ined the Prisoner on Wednesday night during the triaL Early on Than*
day morning they proceeded again to the Jul to resume their examination,
and were then denied access. Jt is proved that the Attorney General in-
structed the Sheriff to close the doors agunst them, and the Attorney Gene-
ral admits it Dr. Hun and Dr. McNauohtox are called to testify, and
are ready to testify that the examination they did make, satisfied them that
the Prisoner is insane, and that he was insane when be committed the ho-
micide. The Attorney General objects, and the Court overrules the eri-
dence, and decides that these eminent physicians shall testify only from mere
external observation of the Prisoner, in Court, and shall expressly foiget
and lay aade their examinations of the Prisoner, made in Jail, by conversa-
tions with him. Nor was the process by which the Court effected this ex*
elusion less remarkable than the decision itself. The Court had obtained a
verdict on the sixth of July, on the prelinunary issue, that the Prisoner was
sufficiently sane to distinguish right from wrong. That verdict has been
neither pleaded nor proved on this trial, and if it had been, it would have
been of no legal value. Yet the Court founds upon it a Judicial Statute of
Limitations, and denies us all opportunity to prove the Prisoner insane, after
the S|xth of July. I tremble for the Jury that is to respond to the popnUv
damor under such restraints as these. I pray God that these Judges may
never experience the consequences which must follow such an adjudication.
But; gentlemen. Dr. Hun and Dr. McNauqhton bear, nevertheless, the
strongest testimony that the Prisoner is an idiot, as appears by observation,
and that the evidence, as submitted to them, confirms this conviction.
There is proof, gentlemen, stronger than all this. It is silent, yet speak-
ing. It is that idiotic tmUe which plays continually on the face of the Ma-
niac. It took ifli seat there while he was in the State Prison. In his solitaiy
cell, under the pressure of his severe tasks and trials in the work-shop, and
during the solemnities of public worship in the chapel, it appealed, although
in vain, to his task-masters and his teachen. It is a smile, never rising into
WILLXAH VBinUK. ^ 419
laughter, without motive or cause — the smile of yacuitj. His mother saw it
when he came out of Prison, and it broke her heart. • John DePut saw it
and knew his brother was demented. Deborah De Put obserred it and
knew him for a fool. David Winner read in it the ruin of his friend, Sal-
ly's son. It has never forsaken .him in his later trials. He laughed in the fiuse
of Parker, while on confession at Baldwinsville. He laughed involnntariljr
in the faces of Warden, and Curtis, and Worden, and Austin, and
BiGELOW, and Smith, and Brioham, and Spencer. He laughs perpetu-
ally here. Even when Van Arsdale showed the scarred traces of Che
assasnn's knife, and when Helen Holmes related the dreadful story of the
Murder of her patrons and friends, he laughed. He laughs while I am plead-
ing his griefs. He laughs when the Attorney General's bolts would seem
to rive his heart He will laugh when you declare him guilty. When* the
Judge shall proceed to the last fatal ceremony, and demand what he has to
say why the Sentence of the Law should not be pronounced upon him, al-
though there should not be an unmoistened eye in this vast assembly, and
the stem voice addressjing him should tremble with emotion, he will even
then look up in the face of the Court and laugh, from the irresistible emo-
tions of a shattered mind, delighted and lost in the confused memory of ab-
surd and ridiculous associations. Follow him to the scaffold. The execu-
tioner <cannot disturb the calmness of the idiot. He will laugh in the agony
of death. Do yon not know the significance of this strange and unnatural
risibility ? It is a proof that God does not forsake even the poor wretch
whom we pity or despise. There are, in every human memory, a well of
joys and a fountain of sorrows. Disease opens wide the one, and seab np
the other forever.
You have been told, gentlemen, that this smile is hereditary and aoena-
tomed. Do you think that ever ancestor or parent of the Prisoner, or even
the poor idiot himself, was in such straits as these ? How then can yon
think that this smile was ever before recognized by these willing witnesses ?
That chaotic smile is the external derangement which signifies that the
strings of the harp are disordered and broken, the superficial mark which
God has set upon the tabernacle, to signify that its immortal tenant is dis-
turbed by a Divine and mysterious commandment. If you cannot see it,
take heed that the obstruction of your vision be not produced by the mote
in your own eye, which you are commanded to remove before you consider
the beam in your brother's eye. If you are bent on rejecting the testimony
of those who know, by experience and by science, the deep afflictions of the
Prisoner, beware how you misinterpret the hand-writing of the Almighty.
I have waited until now, gentlemen, to notice Bome animadversions of the
Counsel for the People. They say that drunkenness will Explain the ooib-
dact of the Prisoner. It is true that John De Put discovered that those
who retailed poisonous liquors were furnishing the Prisoner with this» the
worst of food for his madneas. But the most laborions investigation has r9-
420 . tBM TllIAL OV
salted in showing, by the testimony of Adam Gray, that he once saw the
Prisoner intoxicated, .and that he, with some other persons, drank spirits in
not immoderate quantity, on the day when Van Nest was slain. There is
no other evidence that the Prisoner was ever intoxicated. John Db Put
and Adam Gray testify that except that one time he was always sober.
David Winner proves he was sober all the time the witness lived at Wil-
l«ARD*s, and Mary Ann Newark, says he was entirely sober when he sal-
lied forth on his fatal enterprise. The only value of the fact of his drunken-
ness, if it existed, would be to account for his disturbed nights at De Put*s,
at Gray's and at Willard's. It is clearly proved that his mind was not
beclouded, nor his frame excited, by any such cause on any of those occt^
sions ; and Doctor Brio ham truly tells you that while the A^aniac goes qui-
et!/ to his bed, and is driven from it by the dreams of a disturbed imagina-
tion, the drunkard completes his revels and his orgies before hQ sinks to rest,
and then lies stupid and besotted until nature restores his wasted energies
with return of day.
Several of the Prisoner's witnessess have fallen under the displeasure of
the Counsel for the People. John De Puy was asked on the trial of the
preliminary issue, whether he had not said, when the Prisoner was arrested,
that he was no more crazy than himself. He answered, that he had not
said " in those words," and asked leave to explain by stating what he had
said. The Court denied him the right and obliged him to answer, Yes or
No, and of course he answered No. On this trial he makes the explana-
tion, that after the Murder of Van Nest, being informed that the Prisoner
had threatened his life, he said, *^ Bill would do well enough if they wouldn't
give him liquor ; he was bad enough at any time, and liquor made him
worse.". By a forced construction, this declaration, which substantially
agrees with what he is proved by other witnesses to have said, is brought in
conflict with his narrow denial, made on the former triaL It has been inti-
mated on thu trial, that the Counsel for the Prosecution would contend that
John Db Puy was an accomplice of the Prisoner and the insUgator of his
crimes. This cruel and unfeeling charge has no ground,, even in imagina-
tion, except that twelve years ago De Puy labored for six weeks on the
farm of the late Mr. Van Nest, then belonging to his father-in-law, Peter
Wyckoff, that a misunderstanding arose between them, which they adjusted
by arbitration, and that they were friends always afterwards. The elder Mr.
Wyckoff died six years aga It does not appear that the late Mr. Van
Nest was even married at that time. John Ds Puy b a colored man, of
vigorous frame, and strong mind, with good education. His testimony, con-
elusive in this cause, was intelligently given. He claims your respect as a
representative of his people, rising to that equality to which it is the ten-
dency of our institutions to bring them. I have heard the greatest of Ame-
rican Orators. I have heard Daniel O'Connell and Sir Robert Peel, but
beard John Db Put make a speech excelling them all in eloquence:
WIUJAM F&KSMAir. 421
<* They have made William Freeman what he is, a brute beast ; they don't '
make any thing else of any of our people but brute beasts ; but when we
violate their laws, then they want to punish us as if we were men." I
hope the Attorney General may press his charge ; I like to see persecu-
tion carried to such a length ; for the strongest bow, when bent too far, will
break.
Deborah De Put is also assailed as unworthy of credit She colls her-
self the ^1^ of Hiram De Puy, with whom she has lived ostensibly in that
relation for seven years, in, I believe, unquestioned fidelity to him and her
children. But it appears that she has not been married with the proper le-
gal solemnities. If she were a white woman, I should regard her testimony
with caution, but the securities of marriage are denied to the African race
over more than half this country. It is within our own memory that the
master's cupidity could divorce husband and wife within this State, and sell
their children into perpetual bondage. Since the Act of Emancipation here,
what has been done by the white man to lift up the race from the debase-
ment into which he had plunged it ? Let us impart to Negroes the knowledge
and spirit of Christianity, and share with them the privileges, dignity and
hopes of citizens and Christians, before we expect of them purity and self
respect
But, gentlemen, even in a slave State, the testimony of this witness
would receive credit in such a cause, for Negroes may be witnesses there,
for and against persons of their own caste. It is only when the life, liberty
or property of the white man is invaded, that the Negro is disqualified.
Let us not be too severe. There was once upon the earth a Divine Teacher
who shall come again to judge the world in righteousness. They brought to
him a woman taken in adultery, and said to him that the law of Moses di-
rected that such should be stoned to death, and he answered : ^' Let him
that is without sin cast the first stone."
The testimony of Sally Freeman, the mother of the Prisoner, is ques-
tioned. She utters the voice of nature. She is the guardian whom God
assigned to study, to watch, to learn, to know what the Prisoner was, and
. is, and to cherish the memory of it forever. She could not forget it if she
would. There b not a blemish on the person of any one of us, bom with
us or coming from disease or accident, nor have wo committed a right or
wrong action, that has not been treasured up in the memory of a mother
Juror 1 roll up the sleeve from your manly arm, and you will find a scar
there of which you know nothing. Your pother will give you the detail of
^y^ry day's progress of the preventive disease. Sally Freeman has the
mingled blood of the African and Indfan races. She is nevertheless a wo-
man, and a ipother, and nature bears witness in every climate and every
country, to the singleness and uniformity of those characters. I have
known and proved them in the hovel of the slave, and in the wigwam of the
Chippewa. But Sally Freeman has been intemperate. The white man
422 THE TIUAL OV
enslaved her ancestors of the one race, exiled and destroyed those of the
other, and debased them all by corrupting their natural and healthful ap-
petites. She conies honestly by her only vice. Yet when she comes here
to testify for a life that is dearer to her than her own, to say she knows her
own son, the white man says she is a drunkard ! May Hearen forgive the
white man for adding this last, this cruel injury to the wrongs of such a
mother I Fortunately, gentlemen, her character and conduct are before
yon. No woman has ever appeared with more decency, modesty, %d propri-
ety than she has exhibited here. No witness has dared to say or think that
Sallt Freeman is not a woman of truth. Dr. Clabt, a witness for the
prosecution, who knows her well, says, that with all her infirmities of temper
and of habit, Sally ** was always a truthful woman." The Boman Cornelia
could not have claimed more. Let then the stricken mother testily for her
•on.
** I a«k not, I care not— if guilt's in that heart;
I know that I lore thee, whatever thoa art"
The learned gentlemen who conduct this prosecution have attempted to
show that the Prisoner attended the trial of Henry Wyatt, whom I defended
against an indictment for Murder, in this Court, in February last ; that he
listened to me on that occasion, in regard to the impunity of crime, and that
he went out a ripe and complete scholar. So far as these reflections affert
me alone, they are unworthy of an answer. I pleaded for Wyatt then, a
it was my right and my duty to do. Let the Counsel for the People prove
the words I spoke, before they charge me with Freeman's crimes. I am
not unwilling those words should be recalled. I am not unwilling that any
words I ever spoke in any responsible relation, should be remembered
Since they will not recall those words, I will do so for them. They were
words like those I speak now, demanding cautious and impartial justice ;
words appealing to the reason, to the consciences, to the humanity of my
fellow men ; words calculated to make mankind know and love each other
better, and adopt the benign principles of Christianity, instead of the long
cherished maxims of retaliation and revenge. The creed of Mahomet was
promulgated at a time when paper was of inestimable value, and the Koran
teaches that every scrap of paper which the believer has saved during his
life, will gather itself under his feet, to protect them from the burning iron
which he must pass over, while entering into Paradise. Regardless as I
have been of the unkind construction of my words and actions by my co-
temporaries, I can say in all humility of spirit, that they are freely left to
the ultimate, impartial consideration of mankind. But, gentlemen, how
gross is the credulity implied by this charge ! This stupid idiot, who cannot
take into his ears, deaf as death, the words which I am speaking to yon,
though I stand within three feet of him, and who even now is exchanging
smiles with his and my accusers, regardless of the deep anxiety depicted in
WILLtm VBBMAN. 428
yonr coanten&nces, was standing at yonder post, sixty feet distant from me,
when he was here, if he was here at all, on the trial of Henry Wyatt The
▼oice of the District Attorney reverberates through this dome, while mine
is lost almost within the circle of the bar. It does not appear that it was
not that Yoice that beguiled the maniac, instead of mine ; and certain it is,
that since the Prisoner does not comprehend the object of his. attendance
here now, he could not have understood any tiling that occurred on the trial
of Wyatt
Gentlemen, my responsibilities in this cause are discharged. In the
earnestness and seriousness with which I have pleaded, you will find the
reason for the firmness with which I have resisted the popular passions
around me. I am in some degree responsible, like CTcry other citixen, for
the conduct of the community in which I live. They may not inflict on a
Maniac the punishment of a Malefactor, without inrolving me in blame, if I do
not remonstrate. I cannot afford to be in error, abroad and in future times.
If I were capable of a sentiment so cruel and so base, I ought to hope for
the conviction of the accused ; for then the vindictire passicms, now so hi^ly
excited, would subside, the consciences of the wise and the humane would
be awakened, and in a few months, the inrectiTes which hare so long pur>
sued me, would be hurled against the Jury and the Court
You have now the fate of this Lunatic in your hands. To him as to n^,
so far as we can judge, it is comparatively indifferent what be the issue.
The wisest of modem men has leA us a saying, that '^ the hour of death is
more fortunate than the hour of birth," a saying which he signalized by be-
stowing a gratuity twice as great upon the place where he died as upon the
hamlet where he was bom. For ought that we can judge, the Prisoner is
unconscious of danger and would be insensible to suffering, let it come when
it might A verdict can only hasten, by a few months or years, the time
when his bruised, diseased, wandering and benighted spirit shall return to
Him who sent it forth on its sad and dreary pilgrimage.
The circumstances under which this trial closes are peculiar. I have .seen
capital cases where the parents, brothers, sisters, friends of the accused sur-
rounded him, eagerly hanging upon the lips of his advocate, and watching
in the countenances of the Court and Jury, every smile and frown which
might seem to indicate his fate. But there is no such scene here. The
Prisoner, though in the greenness of youth, is withered, decayed, senseless,
almost lifeless. He has no father here. The descendant of slaves, that father
died a victim to the vices of a superior race. There is no mother here, for
her child is stained and polluted with the blood of mothers and of a sleeping
infant; and ^* he looks and laughs so that she cannot bear to look upon
him.*' There is no brother, or sister, or friend here. Popular rage against
the accused has driven them hence, and scattered his kindred and people.
On the other side I notice the aged and venerable parents of Van Ne3T,
and hb surviving children, and all around are mourning and sympathizing
424 THS TBIAL OV
friends. I know not at whose instance they haYe come. I dare not aaj
they ought not to be here. But I must say to you that we live in a Chris-
tian and not in a SaVage State, and that the affliction which has fallen upon
these mourners and us, was sent to teach them and us mercy and not retal-
iation; that although we may send this Jianiac to. the scaffold, it will not
recall to life the manly form of Van Nest, nor reanimate the exhausted
frame of. that aged matron, nor restore to life, and grace, and beauty, the
murdered mother, nor call back the infant boy from the arms of his Savior.
Such a verdict can do no good to the living, and carry no joy to the dead.
If your judgment shall be swayed at all by sympathies so wrong, although
so natural, you will find the saddest hour of your life to be that in which
you will look down upon the grave of your victim, and " mourn with com-
punctious sorrow" that you should have done so great injustice to the '* poor
handful of earth that will lie mouldering before you."
I have been long and tedious. I remember that it is the harvest moon,
and that every hour is precious while you arc detained from your yellow
fields. But if yon shall have bestowed patient attention throughout this
deeply interesting investigation, and shall in the end have discharged your
duties in the fear of God and in the love of truth justly and independently,
you will have laid up a store of blessed recollections for all your future days,
imperishable and inexhaustible.
Mr. Van Burek, (the Attorney General) then addressed the Jury in
substance as follows :
If the Court Please, — Gentlemen of the Jury :
It did not need the very able argument that has been submitted to you
by the prisoner's counsel, to remind the prosecution of the great disadvan-
tage the people have labored under in conducting this case. The learned
gentleman who has just addressed you, has not only brought to the task his
usually great ability, but throughout the trial, as well as in his closing argu-
ment^ has seemed to believe, and I fear has impressed the Jury with the
belief, that his own character and position, rather than those of the prisoner,
are involved in your decision. I beg you to dismiss any such idea. That
distinguished citizen has spent the larger portion of his life amongst you ;
he is your neighbor and friend ; and if he were upon trial, it would better
become a stranger like me, and be more agreeable to my inclinations, to en-
ter a nolle prosequi, than press for a conviction.
It is a gratifying feature in our institutions, that an ignorant and degraded
criminal like the prisoner, who has spent a lai^e portion of his life in prison ;
vicious and intemperate in his habits ; of a race socially and politically de-
based ; having confessedly slaughtered a husband, wife, son and mother-in-
law, composing one of the first families in the State ; and arrested with but
one cent in his pocket, can enlist in his defence the most eminent counsel
in the country, bring upon the witness* stand Professors of the highest dis-
tinction in their departments of science, members and trustees of churches,
WIUJAM VRXEMAN. 425
and even pious divines. It is particularly gratifying to those whose official
duty requires them to participate in this prosecution, 'because it assures them
tAiat there is no danger that the slighest injustice can be done to the prisoner
from an inability to secure friends and testimony, at any distance or at any cost
It is also gratifying to those who desire to see an impartial administration of
justice, that the prisoner has been able to select a jury under circumstances
that so clearly forbid the idea that his rights are endangered by passion or
prejudice. Three of the jurors have been selected from a panel which were
present during the whole preliminary proceedings in this case, and which
was exhausted without the exercise of a single peremptory chaUenge ,** and
from the thirty talesmen who had been then summoned, the requisite num-
ber to complete the panel have been chosen, using only nine out of the
twenty peremptory challenges which the law allows him. Every thing thus
indicated that a calm and dispassionate examination would be given to a
case which had once deeply and naturally excited the community ; that
at all events, however imperfectly the rights of the people might be pro-
tected or presented, the strong public sympathy which always turns its b^k
upon the dead and its face towards the living, and the sturdy independence
which stands by the weak and helps the helpless, had attracted to the pris-
oner and enlisted in his cause an unsurpassed combination of kind feeling,
rare intellect, extensive learning, and vast acquirements.
That the prisoner at the bar slew John 6. Van Nest at the time and in
the manner chained in the indictment, is not now (said Mr. V. B.) a fact
&D dispute. His defence is made to rest on the ground of insanity. And there
is to me something so repulsive in the idea of trying an insane man^-so
horrid is it to contemplate the possibility of holding a man responsible for
the commission of an act which ho could not understand or avert — that I
gladly availed myself of the request of Mr. Seward, to visit the prisoner with
him before the preliminary enquiry, that I might at least be satisfied of the
propriety of my own conduct. I did so with the hope of feeling authorized
to postpone this trial ; and in a short intercourse, I became perfectly con-
vinced that at that time the prisoner at the bar was sane. I did say, as has
00 often been repeated, that if I believed I could not detect or suspect in-
sanity in an individual when apprised of it beforehand, at liberty to con-
verse freely with him, and having my attention drawn to the peculiarity of
his derangement, I would resign the office I hold. I repeat the assertion
now ; and I wUl only add, that nothing in the course of this trial has in any
degree weakened my conviction of the prisoner's sanity. And that he was
sane on the 12th of March, when the murder was committed, is not only es-
tablished by the testimony, but laying out of view the murder itself, there
is not a particle of evidence of any act or declaration on his part for several
weeks before the tragedy, jduring its commission, or for several days subse-
quent, oh which a suspicion of insanity could be raised. His minute history
has been furnished by the defence from nursing childhood to the sixth of
426 TBI TBIAL OT
this month — the history of a well known man, bom and brought ap here,
where he is on trial. But the history is silent when it approaches the date
of this fearful transaction. It glides almost without touching, over the days
of preparatfon and the sad night of performance ; it carefully avoids the
darkness and day of flight ; it does not indulge us with the interview with
the De Pays in Oswego, friends and connections though they be of the pris-
oner; it skips from the perjured John DePuy in December, and the
friendly black Adam Gray in January, over to the theological and scientific
conversations in the jail after the arrest, when the defence of insanity was
interposed or dctemuned on. What means this great chasm ? Why is the
tes6mony so barren while the delirium must have been most intense ? Why
is not Mrs. Willard called, with whom the prisoner lived afler he quit Adam
Gray's? Why has not Mary Ann Newark, with whom he lived at the tune
of the murder, and for ten days before, been able to state some careless re-
mark, some odd gesture, some unwillingness or inability 'to sleep, arisiiig
from insanity, ill health, or intemperance ? Why has not some witness been
called by the defence, who spoke with the prisoner within ten days d the
crime ? Where are the Oswego De Puys, to whom Freeman fled, with wham
he sought refuge the day afler the murder, and who turned him out of the
house suspecting he had stolen the horse ? [Testimony of Amos, p. S05.]
This vacuum has been supplied by the prosecution, and a future recurrence
to it will show that it all tends with unerring certainty to one point— the
guilt of the prisoner.
The preliminary proceedings in the case have established nothing except
that the prisoner should be tried. It is not correct to call the interpositkm
by the prisoner's counsel of the objection of insanity, a plea of inani^.
The prisoner had not then been arraigned, and the objection taken was not
to the indictment, but to a trial. We have, therefore, consumed a fortni^
in determining whether the prisoner shall be tried ; in the course of which
nearly all the testimony we now have, has been detailed to another' jury to
satisfy them that the prisoner was insane, when they were called on to de-
termine the state of his mind. They were not able to come to such a conclu-
sion. He has since been arraigned, plead not g uiltt, the evidence again de-
tailed before you, and the defence inasted on, that he was insane on the 12di
of March last, when the murder was committed. The extraordinary doc-
trines put forth upon the subject of insanity in the course of this trial ; the
wonderful effort made to procure the acquittal of thb prisoner ; the extreme
length to which the proceedings have been protracted — all conspire to ex-
cite the public mind, and to render the result to which you shall c<mie, a
matter of immense moment The defence of insanity differs from all oth-
ers in this — ^that the declarations and acts of the prisoner constitute this de-
fence. In every other criminal case they are not even admismble in evi-
dence. And the peculiarity of this case is, that the testimony on which insan-
ity is predicated, so far as it comes from scientific or credible witnesses,
WIUJAH WKtMMAS. 427
consists of the acts and declarations of ihe prisoner after the first Mondaj
of Jihie last, when he had been arrested for this crime, identified by Van
Aradale, (who, being alive, must secure his conviction,) and had interp^^d
the defence of insanity I
William Freeman was bom and brought up in Anbum. . For five years
prior to last September he was in the Auburn State Prison. The medical
gentlemen who are his witnesses testify that he has dementia^ which ie a form
of -insanity gradual in its approaches. John De Puy swears he was crazy in
prison. He resided in Auburn nearly Ids entire life. How then does it hap-
pen that every important fact on which the jury are asked to believe that he
was insane on the 12th of March last, should have occurred since the first
Monday of June, and under the circumstances I have stateid ? I ask you,
without seeking to cast the slightest suspicion on the counsel for the prisoner,
whether these considerations do not require you to scrutinize strictly a de-
fence which can always be manufactured easily, and which comes to you in
this instance under such extraordinary circumstances ? An atrocious slaugh-
ter has been perpetrated ; the instrument by which it was efl*ected is in your
hands, to be disposed of, and it is imnecessary for ipe to say to*you that your
own safety, public justice, the* existence even of law and government, may
be affected by your action.
Was the Pbisoneb Insane on the 12th of March last ?
Insanity, as constituting legal incompetency or irresponmbility, must be
within the comprehension of any ordinary man of fair capacity. I deny
and resist the theory of the Professors, who have made insanity their pecu-
liar study, that an ordinary man can't comprehend it — a theory which sub-
stitutes the testimony of a physician, as to legal responsibility, for the law of
the land — expels the Judge from the bench and the Jury from the box — over*
turns the government, and places the Property, Liberty, and Life of any
citizen in the hands of the Trustees and Superintendents of Lunatic Asylums.
No legal act can be done by a person of unsound mind. Does
an individual execute a deed ? his legal capacity is disputed, and medical
gentlemen deny it Does he nuike a will ? his dissatisfied' connections seek
to set it aside. Every peculiarity that he ever manifested, every odd remark,
thoughtless act, singular gesture, is appealed to, to establish his incompe-
tency ; and medical gentlemen not only pronounce their opinion of the state
of his mind, but they insist that' ordinary observers are incapable of forming
an opinion upon it. An individual commits a crime. If he is not of sound
mind, he is irresponsible ; and medical men in all these cases claim to render
the verdict and pronounce the judgment The jury thus see the infinite
extent to which a surrender of their individual judgments might lead, and
the absolute control of Property, Liberty, and Life, that might thus be trans-
ferred to men of scientific pursuits. The security of all these great interests
rests on the trial by jury, and our institutions are founded on the capacity
of jurors to determine intelligently every question presented to them.
428 TSX.TBIALOV
Criminal irresponsibility is a question of law, not of medicine. Were it oth-
erwise— did the detection of offenders or the prevention of crime depend upon
medfcal skill, our police should be composed of Physicians and Nurses. The
moral insanity which is induced by a predominance of the passions, and
which irresistibly impels to the commission of crime, such as P3rTomaniay
Cleptom'ania, Erotomania, Nymphomania, Homicidalmonomania, must be de-
tected by the tongue and the pulse. Our families cannot walk the streets
in safety till they have been swept by a squadron of Doctors ; and if tlie
punishment of crime is to be determined by medical rules, the Professors
should sit upon the bench and fill the jury box. This prosecution is un-
suitably conducted. The Executive of the State should have sent the Sur-
geon General instead of the Attorney General to assist at this trial. But
no, gentlemen ! the law alldws no such absurdities. You receive tbe testi-
mony of medical men. You receive their opinions and hear the grounds
on which they rest The immense latitude which has been allowed them
on this trial, has given you abundant opportunities of testing their skill,
judgment and information ; and with the aid of these, and with a statement
of the law in regard to responsibility as it has stood for ages, with safety to
the people and security to the rights of the 'criminal, ycrn determine for
yourselves the guilt or innocence of this prisoner. And now, after all the ef-
forts that have been made to establish the immunity of the prisoner, by call-
ing clergymen to testify that he has no moral sense — thai he is not morally
responsible ; medical professors to prove that he ought not to be punished —
that they consider him diseased with insanity ; lawyers to swear that he
knows no more than a dumb beast, and cannot distinguish between killing
a horse and a man ; and a prison keeper to prove that he did not punish him
because he did not consider him responsible, let us turn to the law to see
what state of facts the prisoner must prove, before you are authorized to
acquit this frightful homicide -of being a wilful murderer. And let me stop a
moment to say that those who claim that vast improvements have been made
in the science of insanity ; that the early tests of insanity were barbarous
and inhuman ; that the law now falls behind science in determining irrespon-
sibility ; and that, therefore, Juries should take the law from the lips of med-
ical witnesses on the stand, in preference to the law-givers of the Consti-
tution, speak, as it seems to me, without examination or reflection, and
without due knowledge of the enlightened wisdom, learning and humanity
they condemn, or of the fearful hazards they propose to encounter.
Who may, and who may not kill, it concerned society to have decided as
far back as the time of Cain and Abel ; and whilst we concede that vast im-
provement has been made in the treatment of the insane, a reference to
the simple and early tests of legal irresponsibility, under which well ordered
communities have existed to this time, will show that no other has ever been
furnished by the successive wisdom of ages or the humanizing, spirit which
has waited on this wisdom and pervaded criminal legblation. Under this
WILLIAM FRBUCAN. 429
test, too, uDifonnly laid down by English and American judges and com-
mentators, prisonert) indicted for the highest crimes have been acquitted.
Hadfieldi who shot at George III in 1800, and was indicted for high treason,
was acquitted. Oxford, who shot at the Queen in 1840, and was indicted
for high treason, was acquitted. • McNaughton, who filled Mr. Drummond,
Secretary to Sir Bobe&t Feel, in 1843, was acquitted. In each case the
defence was insanity. The eloquence, therefore, that inveighs against the
barbarity of our laws ; against the severity of Hale and Blackstone ; the
oppression of our Courts and of those of Great Britain ; and calls upon us to
reject the tried .experience and security of law, and cleave to the subtleties
of the Asylum, does not spring from past evil or danger, and finds no justi-
fication in the history of English jurisprudence. So far from it, a student or
lover of the principles of justice, finds in it every thing to confirm his
preference of the enlightened liberty of the old common law over the vaga-
ries of the new schools.
What, then, is the unsoundness of mind and memory which renders the
subject of it incompetent and irresponsible ? In a criminal case, it is an
INCAPACITY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG IN REGARD
TO THE PARTICULAR ACT COMMITTED, OR AN INABILITY FROM DISEASE
TO RESIST THE COMMISSION OF THE ACT. This is the earliest and latest
definition of insanity, in the legal understanding of the terra, and covers ev-
ery case where a party is excused in law from the responsibility of his acts.
This defence is to be established beyond reasonable doubt by satisfactory
evidence. The law presumes a perron to be sane till his insanity is proved.
Let us advert to the authorities. Kot to Esquirol, Pritchard, Ray, Pinel ;
but to Coke, Hale, Blackstone, Eenyon, Denman, Maule, Tyn-
DALL, Van Nest, Verplanck, and to dther luminaries of the law, under
whose administration and teaching the public peace and happiness have re-
posed securely for centuries. Lord CoKft classifies irresponsible persons as
follows, and Dr. Hun testifies that while the classification might perhaps be
improved, it covers every species of insanity known to modern science.
He says :
*' Nan compos mentis is of four kinds : 1. Idiota, which from his nativity by a
perpetual infirmity is nan compos mends. 2. He that by sickness, grief or
other accident, wholly loses his memory and understanding. 3. A lunatic
that hath sometimes his understanding and sometimes not, and therefore he
is called non compos mentis, so long as he hath not understanding. 4.
Lastly, he that for a time depriveth himself, by his own vicious act, of his
memory and understanding, as he that is drunken." [1 Black. Com. SOS.]
Lord Hale says : ^ But it should be observed that every person at the
age of discretion is presumed sane, unless the contrary is proved ; and if a
lunatic has lucid intervals, the law presumes the offence of such person to
have been committed in a lucid interval, unless it appears to have been
committed in the time of his distemper.'* [1 Hale, S3, 34.]
480 TEn TBiAL or
^ An Idiot is a fool or Buidinan from his nativitj, and one wbo never hm
lacid interyals : and such a one is described as a person tliat cannot number
twenty, tell the days of the week, does not know his own father or mother,
his own age &c. ; but* these are mentioned as instances only, for whether
idiot 6r not, is a question of fact for the jury."
Lord Hale says : [1 Hale, 34.] <* One who is surdua et mutus a natwiiaUf
is in presumption of law an idiot, and the rather because he has no posai-
bility to understand what is forbidden by law to be done, or under what
penalties ; but if it appear that he has the use of understanding, which
many of that condition discover by signs, to a great measure, then he may
be tried and suffer judgment and execution, though great caution should
be used in such a proceeding."
Blackstone says : [4 Black. Com. 24.] " The second cause of deficiency
in will, which excuses from the guilt of crimes, arises, also, from a defect-
ive or vitiated understanding, viz: in an idiot or a lunatic ; for the rule of law
as to the latter, which may be easily adapted, also, to the former, is, that
^furiosus furore solum punitur.* In criminal cases, therefore, idiots and lu-
natics are not chargeable for their own acts, if committed when under
these incapacities, no, not even for treason itself [1 Hale 26.] And
with a careful regard for the rights of prisoners, he says: * Also, if a man
in his sound memory commits a capital offence, and, before arraignment
for it he becomes mad, he ought not to be arraigned for it, because he ii
not able to plead- to it with that advice and caution that he ought And, if,
after he has pleaded, the prisoner becomes mad, he shall not be tried; for
how can he make his defence ? If, after he be tried and found guilty, he
loses his senses before judgment, judgment shall not be pronounced ; and
if, after judgment, he becomes of non-sane memory, execution shall be
stayed : for peradventure, says the humanity of the English law, had the
prisoner been of sound memory, he might have alleged some-
thing in stay of judgment or execution. Indeed, in the bloody reign of
Henry the YHI, a statute was made which enacted, that if a person being
compos mentis f should commit high treason, and, after, fall into madness, he
might be tried in Ids absence, and should suffer death as i£ he were of per-
fect memory.' But this savao^e dan inhuman law was repealed by the Stat-
ute. * [1 & 2. Ph. & M. ch. 10.] « For,' as it is observed by Sir Edward Coke,
* the execution of an offender is for example, u< poena ad paucos, metus ad
amnes perveniat : but so it is not when a mad-man is executed, but should
be a miserable spectacle, both against law, and of extreme inhumanity and
cruelty, and can be of no example to others.' "
In James Hadfield's case, tried in the year 1800, the counsel for the pris-
oner, (the late Lord Erskine,) in his very able address to the jury, put the
case as one of a species of insanity in the nature of a morbid delusion of the
intellect, and admitted it was necessary for them to be satisfied that the act
in question was the immediate, unqualified offspring of the disease.
WIliUAM flUUDLLN. 481
And Lord Kenyon held : " That aa the prisoner was dcranged^immediately
belbre the offence was committed, it was improbable that he had recoyercd
his senses in the interim. And although, were they to run into nicety,
proof might bo demanded of his insanity at the precbe moment when the
act was committed, yet there being no reason for believing him to have
been at that period a rational and accountable being, he ought to be acquit-
ted.** [1 Russ. on Crimes, 13.] Under this charge, Hadfield was acquitted.
In the recent trial, in 1.840, of Oxford for shooting at the Queen, Lord
'Denman, C. J., told the jury : *' Persons prima facie must be taken to be
of sound mind till the contrary is shown. But a person may commit a
criminal act and not be responsible. If some controlling disease ,was in
trath the acting power within him, which he could not resist, then he will
not be responsible. It is not more important than difficult to lay down the
rule by which you are to be governed. On the part of the defence it is
contended that the prisoner was non compos mentis, that is, (it has been said,)
unable to distinguish right from wrong, or, in other words, that from the
effect of a diseteed mind, hb did not know at the timb that the
ACT HE DID WAS WRONG. Something has been said about the power to
contract and to make a will; but I think that those things do not supply
any test The question is, whether the prisoner was laboring under that
species of insanity which satisfies you that he was quite unaware of the
nature, character, and consequences of the act he was committing, or, in
other words, whether he was under the influence of a diseased mind, and
was really unconscious, at the time he was committing the act, that it was
a crime." [King vs. Oxford, 9 Car. & Payne, 525.] And under this
chaorge Oxford was acquitted.
In Alison's principles of die Criminal Law of ScolJand, [p. 654.] (and
there is no difference between the law of England -and the law of Scotland,
with reference to insanity,) it is ^aid : " That to amount to a complete bar of
panishment, either at the time of committing the offence or of the trial, the
insanity must have been of such a kind as to entirely deprive the prisoner
of the use of reason, as applied to the act in question, and the knowledge
that he was doing wrong in committing it If, though somewhat deranged,
he is able to distinguish right from wrong in his own case, and to know
THAT HE WAS DOING WRONG IN THE ACT WHICH HE COMUITTED, he is
liable to the full punishment of his criminal act."
Justice Van Ness sa^ : <* In all cases where the act of a party is sought
to be avoided on the ground of his mental imbecility, the proof of the fact
lies on him who alleges it ; and until tiie contrary appears, sanity is to be pre-
flomed. This is taken (or granted in all the elementary writers, and in all
the adjudged cases, both in law and equity. The rule has its qualifications,
one of which is, that after a general derangement has been shown, it is
then incumbent on the other side to show that the party who did the act was
lane at the very time when the act was performed. To say that sanity k
1
J
432 THE TRIAL Of
not to be presumed until the contrary is proved, is to say tbat insanitj
or fatuity is the natural state of the human mind.** [5 John. R. 158,
Jackson vs. Van Dusen.] See the authorities quoted in this case by Van
Ness, J., in delivering the opinion of the court
The acquittal of Daniel McNaughton for the murder of Mr. Drummond,
on the ground of insanity in March, 1843, gave rise to a discussion in the
House of Lords, and the following questions of law were propounded to the
Judges in relation to the law respecting crimes' committed by persons af-
flicted with insane delusions.
1. What is the law respecting alleged crimes, committed by persons nf-
flicted 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 com-
plained of with the view, under the influence of insane delusion, of redress-
ing or revenging some supposed grievance or injury, or of producing some
supposed public benefit ?
2. What are the proper questions to be submitted to the jury when 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 ?
S. In what terms ought the question to be left to the jury as to the pris-
oner's state of mind when the act was committed ?
4. If a person under an insane delusion as to existing facts, commits an
offence in consequence thereof, is he thereby excused ?
5. Can a medical man, conversant with the disease of insanity, who never
saw the prisoner previously to the trial, but who was present during the whole
trialj and the examination of all the witnesses, be asked his opinion as to the
state of the prisoner's mind at, the time of the commission of the alleged
crime, or whether the prisoner was conscious, at the time of doing the act,
that he was acting contrary to law, or whether he was laboring under any,
and what delusion at the time ?
Mr. Justice Maule, amongst other things, stated;in reply, that, '* to render
a person irresponsible for crime on account of unsoundness of mind, the nn-
soundness should, according to the law as it has long been understood and
held, be such as to render him incapablb of knowing right fbom
WRONG."
Lord Chief Justice Tyndall, in delivering the opinion of all the judges,
with the exception of Mr. Justice Maule, held as follows, and in answer to the
second and third questions, said : ** As these two questions appear to be
more conveniently answered together, we have to submit our opinion to be,
that the jury ought to be told in all cases, that every man is to be presumed
to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for
his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction, and that to es-
tablish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved, that,
wixjJAM mnMAN. 433
at the time of eommitdng the act, the party accused was laboring 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 DOiNO WHAT WAS WRONG. The mode of putting the lat-
ter part of the question to the jury on these occasions, has generally been,
whether the accused, at the time of doing the act, knew the difference he^
iween right and wrong ; which mode, though rarely, if ever, leading to anp
mistake with the jury, is not, as we conceive, so accurate when put generaDy
and in the abstract, as when put with reference to the party's knowledok
OF RIGHT AND WRONG IN RESPECT TO THE VERY ACT WITH WHICH HE
IS CHARGED. If the questiou were to be put as to the knowledge of the
- accused, solely and exclusively with reference to the law of the land, it might
tend to confound the jury, by inducing them to believe that an actual
knowledge of the law of the land was essential in order to lead to a convic-
tion ; whereas, the law is administered upon the principle that every one must
he taken conclusively to know it, without proof that he does know it. If the
accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not to do, and if
that act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punish-
able ; and the usual course, therefore, has been to leave the question to the
jury, whether the party accused had a sufficient degree of reason to know
that he was doing an" act that was wrong ; and this course we think
is correct, accompanied with such observations and explanations as the cir-
cumstances of each particular case may require."
To the fourth question, they replied, that ** the answer must of course de-
pend on the nature of the delusion; but making the same assumption we
did before, namely : that he labors under such partial delusion, only, and
is not in other respects insane, we think he must be considered in the same
situation, as to responsibility, as if the facts with respect to which the deln-
non 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 ex-
empt from punishment. If his delusion was, that the deceased had inflicted
a serious injury to his character and fortune, and he killed him in re-
venge FOR SUCH SUPPOSED INJURY, HE WOULD BE LIABLE TO PUN-
ISHMENT.**
In regard to the testimony of medical men, they say : " We think the
medical man, under the circumstances supposed, cannot in strictness be
asked his opinion in the terms above stated, because each of those ques-
tions involves the determination of the truth of the facts deposed to, which
it is for the jury to decide, and the questions are not mere questions upon
a matter of science, in which case such evidence is admissible ; but where
the facts are admitted or not disputed, and the question becomes substan-
tially one of science, only, it may be convenient to allow the question to
be put in that iraneral form, though the same cannot be insisted on as a
484 THB TBIAL Off
matter of right." [Case reported 47 £ng. Com. Law, 129, Kote to
Beg. vs. Higginson.]
I^et us turn now for a moment to the rule laid down by our own courts to
test the sanity of a testator. In 26th Wendell, 265, the validity of Alice
Lispenard's will came before the Court of Errors on appeaL The Surrogate
of New York, in giving his opinion on the validity of the instrument, thus dea-
cribes her : " It b unnecessary to go back to the infancy of Alice, or to con-
uder her condition before she attained her eighth year. Anterior to
that year, the difference between her and her companions of a similar age,
was not so great and had not yet manifested itself so strongly as it did at a
later period. It is no uncommon thing to see children whose looks in early
life are heavy and indicative of dullness and stupidity, prove afterwards to
be persons of excellent understandings.
" Alice was possessed of the five natural senses which are generally re-
garded as the inlets of knowledge. She had ac(|uired the faculty of speech.
That requires some degree of mind and memory ; and hopes were enter-
tained by her parents that she was capable of improvement, and of re-
ceiving at least the ordinary rudiments of instruction* A teacher in the
house was provided, under whose charge she was placed. The attempt of
instructing her was commenced, and was no doubt anxiously pursued for
some time, when, to the great grief of her parents, the experiment failed ;
and the extraordinary and mortifying fact was disclosed, that Alice was in-
capable of being taught to read, and much less to write. The utmost length
to which she ever progressed, was to spell words of two syllables ; and it is
very remarkable, that when, more than forty years afterwards, the attempt
was renewed by Mrs. Stewart, the result was attended with no better suc-
cess, and the same number of syllables again proved an insuperable barrier—
the ne plus uUra of advancement Her parents, perceiving that all their ef-
forts to impart instruction were unavailing, and only had the effect of ren-
dering her unhappy, were finally compelled to abandon the attempt as alto-
gether hopeless. From the school in the house, she went with her sister a
quarter or two to a school in Dutch street, more, probably, with a view of
accompanying her sister and accustoming her to female society, than with
any expectation of being instructed.
<< At this epoch of her life, her mental defects becataie apparent and stri-
king ; and she passed from adolescence to womanhood, possessing the body
of an adult and the mind of a child. Mrs. Satterthwaite, who had frequent
opportunities of seeing her, and who, being older, was capable of observing
and judging, describes Alice, when between twelve and fifteen years of age, as
having a vacant expression of countenance ; a foolish manner of holding her
head ; dribbling at the mouth ; a silly laugh when spoken to, and generally
answering in monosyllables \ requiring a person to attend her ; unable to
take care of herself, and washed and put to bed like a child \ inci4>able of
WILLIAM FEErafAN. 485
being instracted, and never joining with the rest of her children in their
sports and amusements.
" William Baldwin, who lived with her father ten years, and who during
thb period saw Alice every day, confirms this description, and adds, that
she knew nothing of the value of money ; had seen the experiment tried,
when she preferred a sixpence to a dollar, and that, too, when she was be-
tween sixteen and eighteen years of age. She was generally. crying, and
was voracious and immoderate in her eating and dnnking.
*' Mrs. Elizabeth Stanton, who was a companion of the oldest daughter,
Helen, and who was about twelve years older than Alice, represents her ap-
pearance as that of an idiot;' and that, as she grew up, she was difierent
from other children, never joining them in their little plays and diversions ;
was of a sullen and quarrelsome disposition ; would get angr}' and cry for
the slightest cause ; and, whether pleased or the contrary, exhibiting pretty
much the same expression of countenance."
Yet the will executed by this person was upheld by the Court of Errors.
The accomplished Yerplanck, one of the first writers and scholars of our
country, in delivering his opinion in favor of sustaining the will, and in de-
claring the standard of a sound mind which the law had fixed, said :
" Again, taking mankind such as observation shows us human nature to
be, can any other than this be a safe, prudent, just or politic rule ? When
we observe the strange incongruities of human nature ; the astonishing mix-
ture of sagacity and weakness in the same mind ; ■ the ' fears of the brave and
the follies of the wise ;' when literary biography shows us the discoverers of
truth and the teachers of wisdom, like Newton and Pascal, sufiering under
the variable weather of the mind, the flying vapors of incipient lunacy ; .
when in ordinary life it oflen happens that the most sagacious and prudent
in many of the affairs of business, are yet, in some points of domestic con-
duct or some one matter of opinion or action, guilty Of absurdities such as
the feeblest minds could not commit ; one might almost adopt the startling
conclusion of Dr. Haslam, who, after years of professional observation of
the phenomena of mental disease, when examined in the remarkable case of
Miss Bagster, in answer to the customary question — *Was Miss B., of
sound mind ?' — replied : ' I never knew any human being who was of sound
mind.' So, again, if we look around our own circle of acquaintances, every
one must have known aged, blind or infirm persons, unfitted, by the state of
their minds or of their senses, for the management of any affairs, and from
their necessary seclusion from the concerns of life, entertaining false notions
and mixing up the past with the present Yet these, and such as these,
may, by the aid of their friends and families, upon whom jthey have a right
to rely, and with a general understanding of their own intent and the effect
of their acts, make wills, conveyances and other dispositions of property,
which could not be set aside without gross and manifest hardship and injns-
486 THl TRIAL Of
tiee. To estabKsli any standard of intellect or information beyond the po»-
■eflsion of reason in its lowest degree, as in itself essential to legal capacity,
would create endleft uncertainty, difficulty and litigation; would shake the
security of property, and wrest from the aged and infirm that authority arer
Uieir earnings or savings, which is often their best security against injury and
neglect. If you throw a^de the old common law test of capacity, then proofi
of wild speculations, or extravagant and peculiar opinions, or of the forget-
fulness or the prejudices of old age, might be sufficient to shake the fairest
conveyance or impeach the most equitable will. The law, therefore, in fix-
ing the standard of positive legal competency, has taken a low standard of
capacity ; but it is a clear and definite one, sind therefore wise and safe. It
holds (in the language of the latest English commentator) that * weak minds
differ from strong ones only in the extent and power of their faculties : but
unless they betray a total loss of understanding, or idiocy or delusion, they
cannot properly be considered unsound.' " [Shclford on Lunacy, p. 89.]
Such is the language of Senator Yerplanck in this celebrated case ; and
he precedes it by an elaborate review of English and American cases which,
he claims, confirm his views. But it is with responsibility for criminal aeti
that you have to do ; and it will not be denied that an individual who may
be incompetent to perform a legal act, may yet be responsible for the com-
mission of Crime.
What then is the inquiry that this review of adjudged cases, and reference
to established authorities, calls upon you to make in this case ? The simple
qucistion for you to determine is, had the prisoner, when he killed
John G. Van Nest, sufficient capacity to judge whether it was
RIGHT OR WRONG SO TO DO ? And if he had, did ant disease divest
HIM OF CONTROL OVER HIS ACTIONS ?
Tou are not called upon to determine the extent or nature of his infor-
mation or acquirements. It is not material what are his views on the sub-
jects of Religioq, Morality or Law. He may deny the existence of a Su-
preme Being — reject Revelation and believe that the Son of God was a
Man ; he may think he was wrongfully imprisoned — ^that he ought to be
paid for the time he has lost and the labor he has performed ; he may make
unsuccessful attempts to obtain pay ; failing of this, he may levy War on So-
ciety and kill the first man he meets ; — ^and yet he is no less amenable
TO PUNISHMENT.
Ignorance of no kind excuses. Mr. Hopkins errs in supposing that '* the ex-
tent of information is the measure of responsibility." [p. 246.] A criminal
may never read or hear of a Statute ; nevertheless, public safety requires
that he should be punished for a violation of it, if he knows the act he is
committing is wrong. In the vast majority of cases it is the ignorant and
irreligioiA that coounit crimes. Dr. Fosgate errs in thinking that *' the Lav
could not impose any rules or reguUtions upon the human <^Sonstitation as it
is g^ven by the Almighty .'^ [p. 233.] His theory happens to overturn tht
WILUAM IBEXMAN. 437
precise office of all . government, Human and DlTine. To borrow an illua-
tration of the Doctor, " a dog in a sound state of mind** ought not so entirelj
to overlook the very end for which governments were instituted.
This prisoaer may really believe that when he was struck with a board,
his hearing was knocked down his throat ; he may believe he can read and
count, when he canndt ; (this, I presume every one believes who reads and
counts inaccurately ;) he may think Van Nest sud to him " if you eat my
liver, I'll eat yours f he may think Jesus Christ is a man whom he met at
Sunday School; he may have killed the Yan Nest family for revenge, plun-
der, amusement, or lor no conceivable cause; he maybe deaf, ignorant,
morally insensible, eccentric, willful ; — still by the Law he must be punished,
if HE VOLUNTARILY DID WHAT HE KNEW TO BE WBONG. It is UOt ac-
complishment, refinement, morality or religion, but accountability that the
Law regards. The Supreme Ruler of the Universe holds to the same rule.
Neglected opportunities, willful ignorance, deadened moral sense, and in-
veterate depravity, will avail as little hereafter as here, in saving sinners
from responsibility. The only inquiry will be — had they capacity to
KNOW THE right, AND PHYSICAL ABILITY TO PURSUE IT.
Let us apply this test to the Prisoner's case.
Sanity is the natural state of Man. The Law presumes a party to be
sane ; and we having proved the commission of the acts charged in the in«
dictments, the Pnsoner must be convicted unless he has satisfied you beyond
' all reasonable doubt, that when they were committed he was irresponsible.
We are asked what motive the Prisoner had in committing these murden .
We answer, frankly, tbat we cannot say. If you were bound to find hia
motive, on oath, although the testimony would incline you to the belief that
his purpose was revenge, you would not in a case of life and death be wUling
so to find. The testimony shows that he was five years imprisoned on a
conviction for Larceny, as he clamed wrongfully ; that he refused to work
on that ground ; that on coming out of prison last September, he inquired
for Jack Willard, who was a witness against him on his trial, [p. 237]; and
that he went several times to a Justice of the Peace to get warrants for
those who swore against him. Shortly before the murder he made several
efforts to get redress for having been sent to prison. He went two day»
before to Esquire Bostwick. [p. 291.] The Saturday or Monday before, he
went to Esquire Paine, [p. 257.] To him he complained of his inability toi
get work. He had been on the previous Monday to the house of Van Nest^
who refused to employ him. [p. 199.] He was well acquainted with th»
premises, having previously lived on them. [p. 203.] The horse, for the-
stealing of which he had been convicted, was stolen of Martha Grodfrey^
He visited her just before the murder and inquired in regard to it — said he
had been wrongfully imprisoned for stealing it, and wanted a settlement
There is no doubt that he supposed that Van Nest was concerned in: his
conviction. Nathaniel Hersey, a Negro companion of Prisoner, aveara.
438 THS TRIAL Of
that the Prisoner told lum about a week before the murder, that be had
found the persons who swore him into prison, and that he was going to kill
them— THAT THEIR NAME WAS Van Nebt. [p. 195.] Hersej lold this
the same night to Mr. Stephen Titus, [p. 196]; also to John De Pay.
[p. 241.] The day the Prisoner was brought to the Jail, he told £than A.
Warden that he killed the Van Nests because they swore him
INTO PRISON, [p. 211.] He told Aretus A. Sabin the same thing, the
same day. [p. 332.] And after the murder he rode into the widow God-
frey's yard, as he has frequently confessed ; but there being lights there
and being wounded, he made off. [pp. 235, 213.] He was drunk that
day and had drank a pint of liquor the ailemopn of the murder, [p. 267.]
Is it difficult to believe, when we know he was thus maddened by liquor,
filled with the belief that Van Nest had " swore him into prison," and bent
on redress, that he gave true answers to Dr. Bigelow and Esq. Bostwick
immediately on his arrest? They asked why he killed that family. To
the former he said : " Well, to see if I could'nt get revenge, or get some
pay for being in State's Prison about a horse ; and I did'nt do it" And to
the latter — " I couldn't get any satisfaction, and I meant to be revenged."
Shakspeare, who knew the human heart as well as if he'd made it, paints
a money-lending Jew, who, indignant at the insults and oppressions prac-
ticed on his caste, prefers the taking of human life to the re-payment of
three thousand ducats. Shylock, when asked if he will take the pound of
flesh, and what*lhat's good for, says: "To bait fish withal: if it will feed
nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me. * * * * And
what's his reason ? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes ? Hath not a Jew
hands, organs, dimensions, senses, afifections, passions ? Fed with the same
food — ^hurt with the same weapons — subject to the same diseases — healed by
the same means — warmed and cooled by the same winter and sunmier as a
Christian is ? If you prick us, do we not bleed ? If you tickle us, do we
not laugh ? If you poison us, do we not die V And, if you wrong us,
shall we not revenge ? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble yoa
in that If a Jew wrong a Christian what is his humility ? Revenge. If a
Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufierance be by Christian example?
Why, Revenge." And again,
** You'll uk me, why I rather chooM to haro
A weight of carrion flesh, than to receire
Three thousand ducats : I'll not answer that :
Bat say it is my hamor ; Is it answer's 1
What if my house be troubled with a rat,
And I be pleased to give ten thousand ducats
To have it ban'd f What, are you answer'd yet t
Some men there are, love not a gaping pig ;
Some, that are mad if they behold a cat ;
• ••••• jjq^ f^j jQ^g answer :
As there is no firm reason to be rendered
Why he cannot abide a gaping pig}
WILLIAH VRmiAK.
Why he a haTmlfia, necenary cat ;
60 can I give no reason, nor I will not ;
More than a lodg'd hate, and a certain loathing
I bear Antonio, that I follow thiM
A lotting suit against him. Are 70a aaewei'd 1"
This Prisoner had a reason for slaughtering this family. His threap
preparation, lying in wait, selection of them, avoidance of others, — ^all in-
dicate a fell purpose to destroy Van Nest I believe his modVe was re-
venge. It may have been plunder. He may have had confederates. This
family was known to be rich — their residence retired. The blow given him
by Mrs. Wyckofi* caused his flight ; and he had neither time nor strength to
rob. It is of no earthly consequence, except to satisfy an idle curiosity,
what his motive was. No adequate motive, of course, existed. The Bev.
Dr. Austin thinks Freeman not sound, because he can " assign no motive
adequate to a sound mind for the commission of this crime." Was there
ever a Murderer that could ?
Henry Green was convicted in July of last year, of murder, in Rens-
selaer county. He was a young man of good family and of property ; and
had married a lovely girl to whom he professed the most ardent attachment.
He poisoned her with arsenic in pills which he had procured for her to re-
lieve a slight indisposition. He put arsenic in her tea, coffee, toast, water,
broth, soup, and every thing she drank for forty-eight hours, till she died.
This oocurred within a week af\er the marriage. Not the slightest differ-
ence ever occurred between them. He was proved to have burst into tears
when she began to manifest the effects of the poison — called on the neigh-
bors and said he was afraid she was going to die, and wentafler a Physi-
cian. He attended her sick bed until almost the moment of her death,
when he fainted and was removed. Her suffering was so intense that she
was with difficulty prevented from tearing open her throat and stomach ;
and yet this creature calmly and steadily mixed, in her medicine, her drink,
her food, the arsenic which was burning her life out 1 We proved no mal-
ice— we could hardly conjecture any; yet he was convicted. He subse-
quently confessed that he committed the crime with the intention of marry-
ing another woman of small property and no attractions. He was executed.
Now, when such demons exist, how idle is it for a man of ordinary honesty
or humanity to hunt after the motive of a criminal ?
This Prisoner is and always has been, driven by the slightest causes into
bursts of ungovernable passion. As a boy he amused himself with stoning
other boys. [p. 333.] When larger he threw a flatriron at Jefferson
Wellington, [p. 332.] In Jail before he went to State Prison, he fought
and flogged another prisoner, [p. 330.] In State Prison he attacked a
convict for moving his boots after they had been greased, and lamed him for
a week, [p. 282] ; fought another about some yarn, [p. 283] ; assaulted the
440 iHB TUAL or
Keeper Tyler — struck him with his fist, then made at him with a knife, [p.
263,] and was with difficulty subdued. Just before the murder he threat-
ened the life of John De Puy, who forbade people giving him rum, [pp. 195,
241] ; and in March last, the day after the Murder, he had a severe fight
with Amos, who arrested him, and said, as Amos swears, ** if he had a knife
he would gut me." [p. 205.] Such a temper as this, influenced by such
trivial causes, animating its desperate and reckless possessor, requires but
little inducement to the commission of any crime.
The motive of a criminal is important when there is no direct evidence
that he has committed the crime. Circumstantial evidence is vastly strength-
ened by proof of a strong motive actuating the accused, and impelling him
to the act with which he is sought to be charged. But where, as here, the
testimony is direct and conclusive that the bloody deed was performed by
the Prisoner, his motive ceases to be material. It is not given to man to
search the heart Let that investigation be transferred to a Tribunal before
which this Prisoner must shortly appear. The illegal act being proved, the
Law declares the motive. That motive is malicb — a wick!ed, depraved
HEART. •
But Doctor Brigham testifies that the Prisoner is insane ; and Doctors
McCall, Coventry, Van Epps and Fosgate agree with him. They also give
it as their opinion that the Prisoner must have been insane on the twelfth of
March ; and that is the time, of course, to which you will direct your atten-
tion. The humanity of our Statute allows no insane man to be tried. A
preliminary inquiry has satisfied this Court that the Prisoner is not insane ;
and he has been put upon trial. Should he hereafter become insane, the
same Statute provides that he shall not be sentenced or executed whUe in
that condition. [2 R. S. 697.] But the present inquiry is, was he in-
sane ON the twelfth of March ?
If the Prisoner was insane on the twelfth day of March, he must be ac-
quitted ; and the testimony of Doctor Brigham being most important, I shall
call your attention to it particularly. Before doing so, however, allow me
to say, that I feel, in common with the whole public, the obligations we arc
under to Dr. Brigham, for his unwearied efibrts and extensive researches in
the humane and benevolent mission of alleviating the unfortunate condition
of those whom God has bereft of reason. The great good he has thus ac-
complished reflects credit on him, on the Institution over vi^hich he presides,
and on the State, and elevates the social condition of the age. I admire
lus intelligence in his profession, and hb kindness of heart ; and I fed happy
to think that the acquaintance I have enjoyed with him for years might al-
most give me the right to claim him as a personal friend. But you and I see
perfectly the difficulty with him as a witness on the stand. He is as pro-
foundly ignorant of Law as he is familiar with Medicine. He is utterly un-
accustomed to the prejudice, perversion and perjury of witnesses ; and com-
ing from the Asylum with a conviction that Freeman must be insane because
WIUJAM PB££]IAK. 441
he does not assign, and the Doctors cannot gaess, an adequate motive for the
crime, his only inquiry is, to which class of insane persons he shall assign
the Prisoner ; and without stopping to reflect whether the Prisoner or his
witnesses may not lie, he notes down, as the trial proceeds, here a fact deno-
ting Dementia, and there another indicating Homicidal Monomania; now
something that looks like General Mania, and there a suspicion of Clepto-
mania ; occasional symptoms of Macho Mania, and again strong manifestsr
tions of the Lying Mania. On such testimony he huilds his theory. He
will not sit still to hear a witness cross-examined. If the witness John De
Puy (the brother-in-law of Prisoner, whom I moved to have committed for
glaring perjury on the stand, a motion yet undisposed of,) swears to Free-
man's being up at night, dancing when he should have been asleep. Doctor
Brigham makex a memorandum — *' Restless nights — Insanity ;" and I can't
get him to sit still till the cross examination shows that the true entry should
be *' Negro Frolic — Rum," He will not believe our witnesses because they
do not see what he has pre-determined exists. Ho believes the Prisoner's
mother quicker than a disinterested witness. When asked if he relies on an.
unchaste black, he replies with charming ingenuousness, ** I do believe Debo-
rah." You can furnish him no proofs of sanity, for there is nothing he has
not seen or heard of insane people doing. He is filled with vagaries of the
insane — ignorant almost of the habits of the sane. With the nature of
blacks he is peculiarly unfamiliar. He (loes not know whether they ever
tan. He cannot tell whether illness makes them pale. He thinks Free-
man ought to have fled faster ; yet he cannot tell the distance a horse will
ordinarily travel in a day. He considers the conduct of Freeman in the
presence of the Magistrates Paine and Bostwick, evidence of insanity ; yet
he will not admit that the Magistrates themselves, who differ with him, are
better judges than he, of what they saw and he did not He thinks Free-
man's asking for a summons was evidence of insanity ; yet when" I ask him
what process he ought to have demanded, he answers—** I do not know. I
do not know a summons from a subpcena. I am summoned here to testifp^ T
His (Doctor Brigham's) memory, too, is treacherous. He commenced his
testimony by saying that he had been asked by me what, there was in the
expression of an insane man which he could detect, and yet could not des-
cribe. He said, by way of illustration, that he had seen in court a man thai
he knew to be insane ; and yet he could not tell how he knew it, or describe
it Mr. Seward asked him to point out the man, and he did so. We
called the man inside the bar; suffered him to talk before you; and you
saw that he was a maniac, with a wild, rolling eye and sei&seless discourse,
that a«hild would discover to be insane. And the constable (Cannon)
swears that he first pointed out this man to Dr. Brigham, as insane. This
Doctor Brigham denies.
Let us now look at the grounds of his belief that the prisoner was insane
<m the twelfth of March. He never saw him till in June last, after the
442 THI TRIAL Of
defence of insanity had been interposed. His belief, therefore, is founded on
the evidence in the case, and his own examination since the first of June.
His own examination he places littie stress on, except as satisfying him that
Prisoner t^ not feigning insanity. We could have saved him the necessity
of this. We admit that the Prisoner does not feign insanity. He occiisioii-
ally tells abominable falsehoods — such as his assertion to Amos, the day
after the murder, when trying to sell the horse he stole and ran away with.
Amos asked where he got the horse, which you recollect was Burrington's.
He replied, **he had a horse given him and had traded round till he got
this one." [p. 204.] Equally false were his statements to the Bev. Mr.
Austin, that he never heard of Wyatt — never knew he had coounitted mur-
der— never heard of his trial — did not know what his defence was — what
the result i^as — was not present, &c. [p. 247.]
Wyatt was tried in March for murder. The defence was insanity. The
Jury disagreed ; and the Prisoner was present, an apparent listener, during
much of the trial, [pp. 324, 327, 334.] It is impossible, recollecting as he
does, and repeating the minutest circumstances of his entire life, that he
can have forgotten this ; and yet the Rev. Mr. Austin, to whom he denied
all knowledge of Wyatt, swears, ** I have no idea that he did lie. His evi-
dent candor and frankness convinced me that he was not lying." [p. 255.]
His denials, too, of knowing Van Nest, are false. He visited Van Nest's
house the Monday but one before the murder, and asked Van Nest to hire
him. He entered the back door. He had acquired a familiarity with the
premises by living on them some years before, [p. 198.] These, therefore,
are gross falsehoods, but they do not indicate that he feigns insanity.
Doctor Brigham then proceeds to give his views of the testimony given in
the case ; and here let me say that if you differ with him as to what has
been proved, his opinion falls to the ground. It is based on what he con-
siders the evidence in the case. J£ the base fails, the superstructure must
fall ; and this is precisely the point in which, as I have already said, the
difficulty lies with Doctor Brigham's testimony. Let us begin by looking
at his ideas of responsibility. He says, if I should take this knife and kill
one of you, and sit down, he would swear I was insane. So if I should
shoot into the Jury box and kill a half dozen Jurors, if that was all that
appeared, he would swear I was insane, [pp. 302, 303.]
If a witness swear agunst me in a civil suit for a large amount, and I
should kill him, Dr. Brigham swears he would think me sane ; but if for a
small amount, he should think me insane, [p. 306.]
Now, gentiem^n, upon such a state of facts as either of these, the Law
says I am a Murderer ; and you will readily see that the safety of Society
consists in upholding this Law. To make the crime itself and alone proof of
insanity, is to extend entire inununity to men of standing who choose to turn
criminals. He applies the same rule to theft, malicious and wanton injuries;
and other crimes, [p. 303.] Doctor Brigham does not seem to have th»
WILLIAM VSSSMAM. 4
remotest idea of the frightful jeopard3r in which his notions and his evide
place the Property and the Life of the Citizen. And when I look at
artless countenance, and hear the mild, amiable and gentle tones of his to
while he is innocently dealing with doctrines that may convulse Society
its centre, ho renunds me more of a child playing with Lightning, tha
Scholar and Philanthropist brining the lights of Science to aid the inv(
gation and establishment of truth.
But what are the facts that Dr. Brigham considers proved ? He thi
insanity existed in the Prisoner's ancestors. In this he errs. The Pris
er's fatiier drank himself to death. His mother is part Indian, and is, i
always was intemperate, [pp. 291, 322.] True, the black man, Pa
Winner, testifies that his aunt, Jane Brown, and his sister are crazy [
258, 259.] The Prisoner's brother-in-law, De Puy, confirms this as
Jane Brown, [p. 23S.] But Doctor Bigelow tells you he never he
that Jane Brown was crazy till the commencement of this trial ; he ne
saw any thing to indicate insanity in her except ordinary intoxication^
850] ; and Prisoner's mother swears — ^* I have three children ; had dve ;
none of them are crazy but this one." [p. 286.] The Prisoner's un
Sidney Freeman, is insane. You will thus see that intemperance is i
nitely more the disease of his ancestors than insanity.
Doctor Brigham's next important fact is ax assumed changb in i
prisoner's temper and character. He truly says : " So commoi
this change of character in insanity, that many regard it as necessary to
definition of the term. A prolonged change of character, without any <
dent external cause, is given in many works on insanity as a characterisi
and the cases are almost innumerable where such changes have come wit
my own observation." [p. 295.] To the truth of this I heartily subscri
It conforms to the general observation of mankind. It is as good a definit
of insanity as need be given.
Has any change taken place in the prisoner without ext
nal cause ?
We have his history from childhood. He was born and brought up
Auburn. He was 21 years old last September. He has grown to be a n
in size. He was a mischievous boy ; and, utterly uncared for and un
strained, he naturally ends by being a criminal man. He ran away fi
Warden, [p. 264]; he ran away from Lynch, [p. 821] ; he never lived i
considerable time in one place, [pp. 324, 325.] He was always violc
and vicious in his temper. I have already referred you to his contin
fighting from childhood. (Refers to testimony of Munroe.) He was alwi
profane. Before he went to State Prison, Vanderhcyden pursued him, a
overtook him on a canal boat ; told him he had two warranto for him ; a
the Prisoner replied : " It is a d d lie — you have no warrant for m
[p. 331.] In State Prison, Van Eeuren threatened to report him. He
plied : ** report and be-d— = — d." [p. 326.] When Amos arrested him ai
444 ran tbial oy
the marder, he was equally profane, threatemng to rip him open if he had a
knife. In this, then, there is no change.
He was always extremely coTetons and close in making bargains. He
insisted that Lynch should pay him five shillings a day for work, instead of
four. [p. 322.] He sawed wood for Conklin, and insisted upon three shil*.
lings instead of two. He clumed more from Murfey than he was willing to
pay, [p. 237] ; and tried to get a summons from the Justices against him.
[p. 291.] He oflered Morris two shillings for a knife, the price of which
was four; then offered him four for a knife and handle, [p. 170.] Hyatt
sold him a knife for one shilling, the price of which was two. He beat Hy-
att down on the price of a rivet from six pence to three pence, [p. 188.]
In this, then, there is no change.
Jn his puysical appearance there is no change except growth,
increased deafness and, possibly, the ditferencb in sprightu-
ness and frankness that you would expect to find between ah
UNCONCERNED CHILD, AND A DISCHARGED StATB PrISON CONVICT.
Lynch, [p. 323,] his uncle Aaron Demun, [p. 324,] Wood, [p. 826,] An-
drus, [p. 327,] Sunpson, [p. 828,] Markham, [p. 829,] Austin, [p. 8.S0,]
Sabin, [p. 332J Munroe, [p. 883,] all of whom have known the Prisoner
nearly his entire life, and have had the best opportunities of judging, swear
there is no other change than I have described. His relative, Robert Free-
man, called by the defence, testifies to the same thing, [p. 282] ; and the
colored woman, Mary Ann Newark, with whom Prisoner boarded at the
time of the Murder, substantially confirms him. [pp. 281, 282.] The
smile on which Dr. Brigham lays such weight, the Prisoner always had ; so
had his father, and his grand father, as these witnesses show. It does not
prove insanity, but it does prove how true it is that a man may
" Smile and smUe and be a ViUaiji.'*
How are yon to find the fact of a change^ in the face of all this evidence ?
Will you believe Johu De Puy ? Even Dr. Brigham puts dynlnished trust
in hiuL He is contradicted in every important fact he swears to. He says
Freeman could once read. Freeman's mother say^ he never could. Hotch-
kiss says the same thing, [p. 285.] He swears he never saw the Prisoner
drink spirits. The evidence is abundant that he again and again forbade
people giving him liquor. He swears that he noticed nothing the day he
was removed from prison, and acted like a fool ; describes his buying a ci^,
and mistaking quarter dollars for halves; sitting on a pilaof boards, and
people asking De Puy " what d d fool that was who was sitting there ?**
yet the Chaplain of the prison proves to you that the day he left the prismi,
he appeared to feel well ; made some music and fun ; said when asked to sign
the usual receipt for three dollars given prisoners on their discharge, that he
had been imprisoned unjustly and was'nt going to settle so ; when told un-
less he signed it he could'nt have the money, said he could'nt write ; was
WILLXAM TBXmiAN. 445
told to make his mark, which he did, and received the money, [p. 838.]
Do not forget that the idea of being entitled to pay in the prison is a com-
mon one among the convicts, as you have heard.
What does honest Aaron Demun, the Prisoner's uncle, say of his appear-
ance on the day spoken of by De Fuy ? He saw the Prboner the day he
came out of prison on the " opposite side of the street ;" Prisoner said, ** l7n-
' cle Aaron, how d' ye do ?" Demun asked how he did. Prisoner replied
" Pretty hearty." Did not seem deaf. [pp. 824, 825] Is it not obvious,
then, that De Puy perjures himself? He swears to Prisoner's running back
and forth in the streets of Auburn, in the day time, without reason, ^ot a
citizen of Auburn confirms this 1 . He contradicts himself. He swears that
Prisoner, after coming out of prison, only answered questions, and never
commenced conversation ; yet he details an animated description, an hour
long, given by Prisoner of a fight with Hoskins, and another of half an hour
with Tyler, [pp. 281*, 241.] He states that Prisoner had a knapsack on
his back in prison and was crazy there. No one of the Keepers confirms
this, or ever saw it He swears that Prisoner is now crazy, and has been
for years. He denies that he said,' since Prisoner was arrested, that he was
not crazy— only ugly when drunk. Yet Stephen S. Austin, a perfectly re-
spectable man, swears, that after the story got round that Freeman was crazy,
he asked De Puy about it, and he replied " No f he is no more crazy than
you or I, except when he is drunk. Then he's an ugly little devil, and I
was always afraid of him." [p. 830.] Mnnroe swears De Puy told him
Prisoner was not crazy, [p. 888.] He told others the same thing. Under
these circumstances I felt it my duty to ask the Court to commit him for
gross and wilful perjury upon the stand, and I call upon you totally to dis-
regard his worthless testimony.
Where, then, will you look for evidence of change ? To Deborah De
Puy ? She gives no facts, and she either has no memory or no character,
[p. 287.] If she swears she has a husband and cannot remember- where she
was married, when she was married, whether she had a large wedding, or
who married her, what reliance can you place upon her description of a
change in Freeman ? Or, will you hear Sally Freeman ? The Prisoner
did not live with her for five years before he went to prison. She did not
see him the whole ^ye years he was in prison ; has seen him half a dozen
times since ; did not see him for two months before the murder ; visited
him in Jail and asked him what made him commit the murders ; he made
no reply. She gives no facts, and testifies with all the inducements to swerve
from truth, perhaps I might say the obligatum, that hangs over a mother tes-
tifying for a son's life. Or, can you gather the change from Ethan A.
Warden's testimony ? The Prisoner lived with Warden as a lad ; played
with his children ; ran away when he was sent of errands. Mr. Warden
swears he was not discharged, but was sent of an errand, and never
backi He has been, then, on Mr. Warden's errand ever since 1
446 THB TBIAL Of
Mr. Warden has been extremely active in preparing this defence ; in
procnrlng witneijses ; assisting counsel ; qualifying himself to testify, and
testifying. It is infinitely to be regretted that his curiosity as to the state
of Freeman's mind, and the extent of his mental and moral culture, should
not have been awakened earlier. If Mr. Warden had examined the boy
who lived with him on religious subjects, and had given him a fair educar
tion, he might, at least, have been able to tell us what Freeman knew then
that he has forgotten now, even if he might not, perchance, have arrested
the catastrophe we are investigating. Where have Mr. Warden's kind
feelings for this boy slumbered during the last fourteen years ? Has he
employed Freeman when he was hunting around Auburn for work ? Has
he inquired after his welfare ? Has he ever spoken to him in the streets ?
Once, indeed, he saw Freeman in State Prison. His counsel say he was
imprisoned wrongfully. Mr. Warden found in prison the boy who had
lived with him — the playmate of his children. Did he inquire how he came
there? whether he was guilty ? how he behaved ? when he was to come out ?
what could be done for him ? No : he observed a change, and truly there
was one. It was a great change from the fat of Mr. Warden's Kitchen, to
the leanness of a State Prison ; from the frolic of childhood, to the respon-
sibility of manhood ; from sporting with Mr. Warden's children, to hard
labor and a convict's cellT Mr. Warden observed this change, and although
he made no inquiry as to the cause, or effort to remedy it, he swears " he
thought to himself whafs come dver Bill V* Why, Mr. Warden might have
remembered all the causes for change I have described, and he ought to
have recollected that the law had come over Bill ; that he was a felon in
prison at hard labor, not a truant boy frolicking with Mr. Warden's chil-
dren, and having the run of his Kitchen. And if Mr. Warden had sympa-
thy to spare, then, and when Freeman was discharged from prison, were
the occasions to procure him employment, restore him to usefulness and
happiness. But he has waited till this man, driven to desperation, has
committed a crime, the thought of which almost freezes one's heart, and he
stands (if I may so speak,) at the very foot of the Scaffold I Thus, Mr.
Warden's horror of Capital Punishment, and peculiar views in other respects,
impel him to exertions to rescue this man from the law, the hundreth part
of which, empbyed a few months ago, would have made the Prisoner a
useful citizen, and saved an estimable family from butchery. But Mr.
Warden's testimony shows no change except what is natural under the
circumstances ; and the testimony against any change is overwhelming.
Has the Prisoner changed his habits ? This is one of the strongest
tests in the boo^s of Homicidal Monomania. It is the test Dr. Brigham ap-
plies to me. Let us try the Prisoner by it. Yanderheyden swears that he
has had- process several times for the Prisoner, for petit larceny, before he
was sent to the State Prison, and when he must have been about fifteen or
sixteen years of age. [p. 881.] He broke open a pedler's cart, and was
WILLIAM FRKIMAN. 447
arrested for it He tbeu stole hens, and was arrested. He was found at
John Dd Fay's under the bed. He escaped from the constable after he
was arrested ; was pursued and found on a canal boat with a bottle in his
pocket, as I have already stated. He was arrested .then for stealing Mrs.
Grodfrey's horse, and discharged for want of proof. He was again arrested ;
committed to Jail ; broke the lock of the Jail ; let himself out and another
prisoner; was pursued, overtaken, brought back, tried, convicted, and
served five years in the State Prison at Auburn, [pp. 826, 330.] It is
suggested that he was innocent of the last ofience. The evidence in this
case leads to no such conclusion. Yanderheyden has that impression ; but
it is incredible that this man could be tried here in Auburn, where he was
bom and brought up ; sent to the State Prison in this place where he, even
now, has such warm friends, and stay there five years, an innocent man.
He stands before you as a man legally convicted of that offence. Judge
Kchardson, before whom he was tried, is a witness in this case, called by the
defence, and proves his conviction. No question was asked him as to pre-
vious innocence, [p. 231] ; nor did the defence venture to ask such a que»-
tion of either of the witnesses we have called ; t. e, Myers, the District At-
torney, who tried him ; Markham, one of the Jurors ; or Andrus, the Coun-
sel who defended him. [pp. 293, 327, 330.] The point b not essential or
material to this case ; but I have no doubt he Was guilty of the ofi'ence for
which he was sent to prison. He assisted another black, known as Jack Fur-
man, or Willard, in stealing Mrs. Godfrey's horse. He stole Mrs. Wyck-
off's horse the night of the murder ; this being worthless, he stde Burring-
ton's, and tried to sell it to Amos, Corning and others, [p. 204.] There is
no change here, then. His habits are unchanged. He lied in early life ; he
lies now. He swore before ; he swears now. He fought before ; he fights
now. He stole before ; he steals now. He attempted to kill Tyler in the
prison ; he kills the Van Nests now. There is no change in him, except
that his depravity hardens with years. What other indications does Dr.
Brigham find in the case? Sleepless nights; but there is no proof of this.
Of De Puy I have already spoken. From De Puy's the Prisoner went to
Adam Gray's^ Adam Gray's testimony indicates that the excitement
of Prisoner was caused by liquor, although he never saw him drunk but
once. [p. 288.] From Gray's he went in January last to live in a part of
this village mostly settled by colored people, and called " New Guinea," and
there resided several weeks with Laura Willard, the toife of the man who
had been concerned with him in stealing Mrs, Godfrey's horse. Why is she
not brought upon the stand t Willard is now in State Prison. You, who
saw the colored man, David Winner, on the stand, who says, " he can't read
and can't count over one hundred without missing some— drinks spirits when
he wants it, and don't when he don't," know what value to attach tx> his tes-
timony. Where is Laura Willard ? and why did the Prisoner go to live
with the wife of one who had been his previous associate in crime ? one, too,
448 TSB TRIAL Of
who, it is contended, swore him into prison ? Mary Ann Newark, with
whom Prisoner lived at the time of murder, knew nothing of his being np
nights, [p. 23 1.] There is, then, no proof of sleepless nights within a
month of the time of the murder. Tayior swears that he slept well the
night after ; and the Jailer swears that his rest has never been broken, so
far as he knows, for the four months he has been in Jul, except one night
when he forgot to give him his bedding. Then he rattled his chains and
knocked against the wall dll it came. [p. 835.]
Doctor Brigham thinks there would be a calm after the homicide. He
thinks he now has dementia; but- there would hardly be an uninterrupted
tranquillity in an insane man's rest for five months, beginning a month be-
fore the murder, and continuing all through the tragedy and the trial ! Yon
will not find, therefore, in the evidence, the sleepless nights on which Dr.
Brigham relies. He thinks the testimony shows the Prisoner's pulse irreg-
ular, but it does not Dr. Bigelow swears that at the commencement of a
long conversation his pulse was at seventy-seven ; aft^erwards, while standing,
eighty-one ; when about leaving him, eighty-six. [pp. 21S, 214.] Dr. Spen-
cer swears <^ the Prisoner has slept well, eat well, and is in good physical health
generally." [p. 358.] There is no derangment of the pulse proved ; so far from
it, the Prisoner has a perfectly healthy pulse, except when terrified by threats
or fear of punishment Not one of the Physicians who examined him at-
tached importance to his pulse, as indicating insanity ; so far from it, the tes-
.timony of all of them shows that the Prisoner's physical health is perfect
Doctor Brigham is strongly impressed by his inability to satisfy himself
of the MOTIVE for this murder. On this I have already commented. He
thinks the testimony shows that the Prisoner never Asrs QtTBSTiONS.
Why, the testimony shows that he continually does ! He asked De Puy for
Jack Willard ; he asked Bostwick for a warrant, and again for a summons;
he asked Paine for a warrant; he asked Austin if he had wood to saw; he
asked hb uncle Demun how he liked his place, and whether he was at woik
steady ; inquired of Simpson, Hyatt and Morris for knives. If this is proof
of sanity, at or about Che time of the commission of the offence he asked
questions enough. Since he has been in Jail, he has been continually oocn-
pied in answering questions.
Dr. Brigham thinks the external appearance of the Prisoner, here
in'Court, indicates insanity. I appeal to you if this is so. You have seen in-
sane persons. You saw the man whom Doctor Brigham pointed out in
Court I will read to you from Esquirol the physical symptoms of dementia,
which Doctor Brigham says is the insani^ of this Piisoner. I cite Esquirol
because Dr. Brigham says he is high authority. Guy, Bay, Priichard and
other writers, agree with him. Esquirol says : ^ The face is pale, the eyes
dull, and moistened with tears, the look uncertain, and the physiognomy
wiUiout expression." [p. 41 9.] Of their habits, he says : ^ Almost all have
fome sort of ridicolouB habit or passion. Some are oonstantl/ waUdag about
wiujAM f&miAir. 449
•8 if seeking someihing thej do not find. The gait of others is doif , ud
thej walk with difficulty. OtherSf still, pass days, months and years, locft-
ted in the same place, drawn up in bed or ez.tended upon the ground. One,
in an interminable babble, speaks in a loud Toice, constantly repeating the
sime words ; another, with a sort of continued murmur, utters, in a very
low tone, certain imperfectly articulated sounds~-commencing a phrase
without being able to finbh it. The latter does not speak, while the former
beats with his hands both night and day ; his neighbor at the same time bal-
ancing his body in the same direction, with a degree of monotony very fa-
tigoing, even to an observer. One murmurs, rejoices, weeps and laughs
at the same time ; another sings, whistles and dances during the whole day.
Many cloUie themselves ia a ridiculous maaner," &c. [p. 418.] In speak-
mg of their intellects, he says their sensations are feeble; cannot recall im-
pressions recently made ; cannot fix their attention ; are consequently in-
edherent and disconnected in conversation and narration, [p. 417.]
Now, has Freeman one of these sjrmptoms, intellectual or physical ? Has
he not sat here for four weeks without a single grotesque or nnnatural
movement V The smile so often adverted to, he always had ; so had his father
and grandfather. You have had oj^Mrtunities fi>r oboerving it for two en-
tire weeks, and will determine whether it indicates any thmg— and what
Aside from this, is there a nngle feature or movement about him indicating
imbecility or insanity ? Did you ever see a sharper, brighter eye, or one
more fixed and resolute ? Did you ever notice an unnatural movement in
him? Ever observe him for an instant appear to be talking to himself?
Ever detect the slightest movement of his lips, or the least wandering in his
eye? I have not Does he ever laugh ? I have not heard him. Is not hie
memory remarkably retentive ? Does he not detail to Lynch the minutest
circumstances of his early as weU as his later life ? [p. 822.] Does he not
narrate to Wood all the ciicnmstances of his imprisonmnent, escape, flight and
Cloture ? [p. 826.] Does he not remember perfectly where he worked in
prison, what at, and under whom ? What did he ever know that he has
forgotten ? Is not hb attention perfect ? Does he ever wander from one
subject to another, or betray the least incoherence ? I can find no evidence
of it K I were asked to name the disease he cerUunly has not, I should
name dementia.
I have thus gone through, in detail with all the circumstances of any mo-
ment on which Dr. Brigham founds his belief of the Prisoner's insanity. He
has also favored us with an elaborate explanation of the facts on which we
rely to establish his sanity— such as preparation, design, concealment^ memr
or^yflig^^i these can as well be considered by you as by him.
It b doubtless true, that there is no one thing a sane man does, that Dr.
Brigham has not heard of some insane man doing; but it will be for you to
inquire, presently, whether all these evidences of sanity can possibly com-
bme in the case of the same insane man. Meantime, I ask you whether the
29
456 ' tarn tbial or
testimony does not oYerwhelmingly contradict all the facts on which Doctor
Brigham's theory of insanity rests ? Were the Prisoner's ancestors insane ?
Has his character, habits or appearance changed without external cause ?
Had he sleepless nights at the time of the murder, or at any time, from dis-
ease ? Is it proved that he could have had no motive for the murders ? Is
his pulse irregular ? Does he ask no questions ? Does his external appear-
ence indicate dementia ? I submit to you that the reverse of all this is true ;
and if so, the theory constructed on these false facts must fall.
Doctors McCall and Coventry reside in the same town with Dr. Brigham.
The latter is a Trustee of the same Asylum, and both claim to derive most
of their experience from observation in that institution. They naturally
agree with Dr. Brigham ; Dr. McCall is, in addition, a Phrenologbt, and
says he can judge by Freeman's external appearance that he is insane, and
what the character of his insanity is. He thinks Prisoner has cleptomania,
which is an irresistible propensity to steal, [p. 810.] He thinks the small-
ness of his head denotes insanity ; yet it is as large as Dr. Brigham's or
mine. He thinks he leans too much forward ; yet that is the way a deaf
man tries to hear. He thinks the holding of his arms awkward ; yet he
seems to forget that Prisoner has been wounded in both arms. In one re-
spect. Doctors Brigham and McCall differ ; both agree that insanity is a dis-
ease. Dr. Brigham thinks it in some forms contagious ; Dr. McCall thinks
it not strictly contagious, but at times epidemic. He says it appears epi-
demic on the coming of warm weather, [p. SIC] Dr. B. is sorry to hear
of cases of homicidal monomania, for fear it will induce others to imitate it.
In that way he thinks it may be called contagious ! [p. 305.] Contagious
by imitation ! This is indeed a peculiar disease ! I can imagine crime be-
ing contagious by imitation, but that disease should be thus contagious,
seems to me singular. I do not think it is true of any other disease but in-
sanity. At all events, I cannot realize that I should ever begin to shake,
from seeing another man with the fever and ague ! There is a breadth and
brilliancy in these theories that reach far beyond the institution from which
they emanate ; and the Professors may well think that
"No pent np, miea coatracta our powen,
The wide— the botmdleM continent ia oan.**
Dr. McCall thinks that the Prisoner's insane delusion was that he was
wrongfully imprisoned and was entided to pay. He thinks the insane im-
pulse under which the Prisoner committed the murders, was in some degree
manifested in prison, in the attack upon the convict and the officer, [p.
808.] Now, this delusion is certainly epidemic in the prison, as the testimony
shows ; and if the violence and the homicide which it provokes, in the prison
and out, should become contagious, this community would be afflicted with
a more fatal pestilence than Asiatic Cholera Or the Plague. It seems to me,
under these circumstances, that public safety calhi for a severe treatment of
the early cases. {Mr. Y. B. then commented in detail on the testimony of
WILUAM FBXIMAK. 461
Doctors Van Epps, Briggs, Fosgate, Hermance, Han and McNaugbton, and
on the teatamonj of Curtis, Green, Smith, W. T. Worden and others.]
The Reverend John M. Austin has satisfied himself that the Prisoner's
mind " is in a shattered or unsound state, though he can give no technical
name to the difficulty." [p. 251.] Mr. Austin is the Pastor of the Uni-
versalist Church in this Tillage. He is opposed, as he swears, to hanging
any one, and cannot think it right to take the life of another, [p. 252.]
He has written for religious and political papers in regard to this case ; em-
ployed counsel ; taken a trustee of his Church (Mr. Curtis) to the Jail, pre-
paratory to his being a witness ; gone there with other witnesses ; talked of
the case a hundred times, [p. 254] ; and gives us his own views on the stand.
He swears he is *< quite confident that a sane man twenty-three years old,
who cannot read, but thinks he can — ^who cannot count more than twenty-
seven or eight, but thinks he can, cannot be found in this county." He
therefore thinks Prisoner insane. What does Dr. Bigelow testify to?
He says, ** I have known men in prison over twenty-three years old, who
could not multiply two by four, and who could not read. I have seen both
white and colored men in that condition. A few days since, I examined a
prisoner by the name of James Madison. He is a negro, twenty-four years
of age. I asked him to lot me hear him count ; ^he sud, * twice ten is twenty,
three times ten is fifteen.' I asked him how much two times four was ; he
said < it would be nine.' I asked him how many days there were in a week ;
he answered, *six.' I asked him how many shillings there were in a dollar ;
he said, * I could'nt tell that' I asked him how many days there were in a
month and how many cents there were in a shilling, and he made the same
answer. I asked how many hours there were in a day ; he said * I don't
know, sir ; I could'nt telL' He counted up to thirty regularly, and then said,.
* forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety, sixty, forty, forty-one, forty-two,
forty-three, forty-five, forty-seven, forty-eight, forty-nine.' I then sud, * then
what ?' He replied, * I don't know ; I can't make it out' I asked how many
quarts there were in a gallon ; he said, * I can't tell.' I asked how many
pecks there were in a bushel ; he said, * I guess it is three pecks, three or
four, let me see ; I believe it is two pecks in a half a bushel ; I guess it is
four pecks in a bushel' I asked how much six and seven were ; he said, ' it
would be thirteen.' I then asked him to connt again. He began with
* ninety,' and continued, * thirty, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five,
twenty-six, twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty ;
that's as far as I went the first time ; I can't go no further. Stop, I can go
one more — sixty, sixty-one, sixty-two, sixty-five, sixty-seven ; there, I wont
count any more. That's as far as I went the first time, and I made a balk.'
The other was a white man, by the name of Jacob Miller. His age was
twenty-nine. Seeing him in the prison, I called him np to me and asked him
if he could read ; he said he conld. I asked him to call over the lettera. of ^
the alphabet He called them oorreotly. I then pointed to thia sentence^;
46i nniTiiALor
^The old Eomans used to write in the Latin langaage/ He then began to
read bynying — * T-h-e o-l-d B-o-m-A-n-a old man u-s-e-d aeafc i-o w-r-i-tre
dinrch in t*h-e Lra-t-i-n tin Uhn-g-n-a-g-e Jesiu.' I aaked him if he coold
count bills ; he said, * I can't count one bill from another.' He laid, ' nine
and nine were nineteen, and that ax and five were fifteen, and that seven
and eight were eighteen/ He eaid, * three times four were thirteen,' and
eounted to forty-fiTC, and from fifty to seipenty-nine, correctly ; but he could
not count correctly to one hundred. He didn't know how many pints there
were in a quart, nor how many pecka there were in a bushel."
Now, Mr. Austin must see how Tory easy it is for him to be mistaken.
James Madison certainly thinks he can count He counts thirty, which is
two or three more than Freeman. From that he counts by tens to ninety,
then sixty, forty, forty-one, forfy-two^ fi>rty-three, forty-fire, forty-seven,
forty-eight, forty-nine. Beyond this he says he couldn't make it out On
a second trial, he starts at ninety, which seems to be his maximum, and con-
tinues thus: "thirty, twenty-three^ twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-aiz,
twenty-seven, twenty-eight, twenty-nine, thirty, forty, filly, sixty;" and he
adds, " that's as far as I went the first time ; I can't go no further." But m
due reflection, he continues : ^ Stqi, I oan go one more — sixty, sixty-one,
sixty-two, sixty-five, sixty-seven; there,! wont count anymore. Thats oi
fir ct9 1 foent the first Hme, and I made a halk /" Again, Jacob Miller says
** he can read ; he repeats all the letters of the alphabet correctly* and he
reads, in entire sincerity, the following sentence* " The old Romans used to
write in the Ladn language." He renders it thus — ^^ Old man seat church
m fm JesMS /" He counts to fi>rty-five, and by his addition makes nine and
nine nineteen, six and Ay^ fifteen, and seven and eight eighteen 1 Jamei
Madison is twenty-three, and Jacob Miller twenty-nine. A little attention
to their exhibitions would show Dr. Austin the difference between igno-
lance and insanity.
But there are other peculiarities in Mr. Austin's testimony. Freeman
idld him that " if they would let him go this time, he would try to do bet-
ter." [p. 250.] This is the very essence of legal sanity-— the very test of re-
sponsibility that the law imposes-«A oonsoioubness that ha had vol-
UNTABiLT DONB TVROXO ; and yet to Mr. Austin it showed " an entire wast
of rational appreciation of the natere and enormity of his deeds, and an en-
tire ignorance of the consequences of his aotl" — in other words, it showed
insanity. Did Mr. Austin think him insane in Jail ? He swears he prayed
with him, [p. 248] ; and I can hardly believe that he would pray with an
insane man. Pray for him he might and ought, but I hardly think he would
pray with him. His examinations of the Prisoner have been most singular.
In regard to the fundamental principles of Religion he never questioned hint
These, he says, he supposed he knew, [p. 2d5,] and yet tiiese would seeats
be tfie precise subjects of diristian inquiry, and instruction in these, all im-
ptrtMkt to the Prisoner's salvation. Neither Mr. Austin nor any other wit-
WILLIAM vuniAK. 458
ness ever attempted to set Freeman right as to a single notion he enter-
tained, which might influence his future conduet So far from it, efforts
were continually made to lead him fr<Hn one folly or absurdity to another.
When Hopkins understood him to say he had seen Jesus Christ in Sunday
School, [p. 248,] instead of correcting or reproving this unhappy creature
on the brink of destruction, Hopkins asked him whether Jesus Christ took a
class, and whether he preached or talked! [p. 248.] Dr. Austin gaye him a
Testament, and he is the first man who is proved to have witnessed the Pri*
soner's peculiar manner of reading. Has he tried to correct him ? Has any
body attempted to teach him to read ? Witness upon witness has been taken
to the Jail to see the Prisoner run his fingets along the sacred pages and re*
peat the words " O Lord — Jesus Christ— Mercy — ^Moses," [pp. 244, 260,]
which were not on the pages, and yet Dr. Austin, instead of stopping thb
mummery, furnished the Testament, first witnessed the performance, and
has again and again superintended it since ! If the Rev. Mr. Austin knew
the natural disposition of the negro as well as I do, and his clerical duty as
well as I hope he docs, he would have taken Freeman a jewsharp, instead
of a Testament, to play on !
Under Mr. Austin's tuition, his weak and credulous trustee, (Mr. Curtis,)
came to the conclusion that Freeman ^ knows no more of the moral charac-
ter of an act than a dog or a cat ; " that he is <* part foot, bordering on idiocy
— idiotic and crazy." Some of the time he thought " he was foolish ; some-
times that he was crazy ; sometimes a little of both." [p. 261.] " Part fool,
bordering on idiocy — crazy and an idiot ; " and he sums up his complicated
derangement by swearing that he is both crazy and insane I** [p. 262.]
True, once he suspected Prisoner was deceiving him, but on appealing to
Mr. Austin, who was present, explaining the s3rmptoms, the. suspicion van-
ished, [p. 262] ; yet he had the strongest evidence that Prisoner was de-
ceiving him, for when he asked Prisoner what he killed the family for, Pri-
soner said : " You know I had my work to do." Curtis told him that was
nonsense f and repeated the question hud and distinct. Freeman then an-
swered: "/ don*t Icnoxo!* [p. 261.] Why was Mr. Curtis selected to wit-
ness this exhibition and testify to it ? He certainly was not the most intelli-
gent member of Dr. Austin's congregation. He is undoubtedly honest, how-
ever, and thus describes Prisoner who lived with him in 1840, before he
went to prison : " His disposition was not good ; he was stubborn and stu-
pid. He was of no use to me. If I sent him away five rods, he would be
jiist as likely to bring the wrong thing as the right one. He was a dull, mo-
rose and stubborn boy ; and if he had any capacity I could not discover it."
[p. 259.] Certainly, this docs not prove the change on which Dr. Brigham
relies. But you have the facts which Dr. Austin and Mr. Curtis testify to,
and you will say how far they sustain their theories, and how much they may
be relied on.
There is one extraordinary fact in this case that will not escape you —
454 IHB TBIAL Off
there is but one white witness who ever suspected Freeman of insanity be-
fore the murder I In this community, where he was bom and brought up,
and where such a thorough search has been made for testimony, there is but
a single witness on whom you will place any sort of reliance, that swears he
suspected Prisoner of insanity before the murder. And this witness is Levi
Hennance, who conversed with the Prisoner in the month of December,
twice, for five minutes each time ! [p. 274.] The effect of this testimony I
must leave to you without comment True, neither Mrs. Godfrey, Esquires
Paine and Bostwick, Messrs. Warden, Smith and Briggs, nor any of the
other witnesses for the Prisoner, detected any insanity. But there is an ex-
tent and variety about the acquirements of Mr. Hermance, before which
their gifts
** Pale their ineffectvel fintT
I bow with reverence, lay my hand upon my mouth and my mouth in the
dust when I find myself confronted by one who swears to us that he has prac-
ticed Allopathy and HomGeopathy,but ia esteemed a Thomsonian practition-
er ; has worked on a farm ; been an agent in a wooleli factory ; taught
school ; sold goods at auction ; is an attorney of the Common Pleas, and i
turnkey in the State Prison! [p. 275.] Whatever conclusion you miy
come to in regard to the Prisoner^ you will readily see that this witness has
no monomania.
Let us now turn to the medical witnesses for the prosecution. Doctors
Darrow, [p. 325,] Hyde, Gilmore, Clary, [p. 839,] Dimon, fp. 340,]
WiLLARD, [p. 844,] BiOELOW, [p. 349,] Spencer, [p. 353,] swear that they
have examined the prisoner repeatedly, to ascertain whether he was insane;
and they unanimously conclude that he is saxe. [Mr. Van Buren here re-
yiewed carefully the testimony of each of these witnesses. But it is impos-
sible, without extending this sketch beyond the patience of the reader, to
report his remarks. Their testimony b pretty fully detailed at the pages
referred to, and he invites attention to it, and particularly to the several
cross-examinations, as an exhibition of rare professional attainments, and a
combination, no less rare, of profound medical knowledge and sound common
sense.]
In view of this mass of testimony, coming from those to whom you daily
confide your own health and life, and those of your families, if this were a
mere question of medicine, would you not be forced to conclude that this
Prisoner is sane? But there is one physician whose name- occurs oAen jn*
the testimony, who invited Dr. Bigelow and others to visit the Prisoner;
who frequently visited him himself, and who is proved to bo. an eminent
physician and surgeon, [pp. 275, 352, 349.] Where is he ? Where is Dr.
Pitney ? Mr. Seward sent him to the Jail to examine the Prisoner, [p. 352] ;
why b he not called upon the stand by the defence ? Or when called by us,
[p. 185,] why was he not cross-examined as to Prisoner's sanity? Why
iriVidJM CBBEMAN. * 456
■end to Utica and Albany for physicians, who nevar before saw the Prison-
er, and neglect to call an eminent surgeon here, who examined him repeat-
edly at the request of Prisoner's Counsel, and knew him before ? Why re-
sort to the foreign scientific market, when the domestic furnishes an abun-
dant supply ? We may be told that Dr. Pitney is the father-in-law of one
of Prisoner's Counsel, and that motives of delicacy have prevented his being
called. But two of the Prisoner's Counsel themselves have made affidavits
in this case. [pp. 145-6-7.] Their clerk has been sworn, [p. 262.] War-
ren T. Worden, who assists the defence as witness, trior and counsel, has
not only testified as to the past, but prophesied as to the future. In his
judgment, the Prisoner " would laugh upon the gallows as readily and freely
as he did in his cell ; he would probably know as much as a dumb beast,
that was taken to the slaughter house, as to what was to be done with him I "
[p. 227.] In the cell, you remember Dr. Briggs testifies that the Prisoner
laughed when the Phrenologist felt Warren T. Worden's bumps, and so did
Dr. Briggs and Worden. [p. 278.] It is not this delicacy, therefore, that
keeps Dr. Pitney from the stand. When a client's life is at stake, such deli-
cacy must give way. Again, I ask, where is Dr. Pitney ? The absence of
one statue at a Roman funeral caused more remark than the presence of all
others ; so you, in missing Dr. Pitney from this galaxy of medical science,
will be forced to conclude that he has satisfied himself that Freeman is sane.
If Prisoner was insane on the twelfth of March, what spe-
cies OF INSANITY HAD HE ? I have endeavored to show that he has not
dementia now. He is not an idiot Idiocy is not insanity. Dr. Brigham
does not so consider it. Esquirol does not so consider it. [Esq. p. 447.]
Coke does not so consider. Insanity is a derangement of the faculties — Idiocy
is a defect of them. Idiocy is connate — Insanity acquired. Insanity is a
change — ^Idiocy is the absence of change. Idiocy is written upon the exter-
nal structure of the man — Insanity affects only his expression. The idiot is
free from disease — the insane man is not The evidence, in this case rebuts
all idea of idiocy. Dr. Brigham even finds no indication of it He says the
Prisoner had, on the twelfth of March, homicidal monomania, [p. 810.]
This Dr. Brigham terms a disease — a disease which is sometimes preceded
by no symptoms, [p. 310.] It is a sudden impulse to kill, and the unac-
countable killing is the first symptom of the disease. This he illustrates by
my rising and stabbing one of the Jurors. In me, this would be (he thinks)
homicidal monomania. Now, Mr. Christian, [addressing one of the Jurors,]
ignorant as you and I may be of medicine, the symptoms of this disease we
can appreciate — it is a knife thrust in the heart ! It concerns us to
understand fully this disease, and Dr. Brigham will therefore excuse us for
looking to other authorities for the definition of it
This prisoner is proved incontestibly to have been, for the past two years,
in perfect physical keaUh, except that he had an ear-ache in January, 1844
or 1845, and was costive in June or July following, for which Dr. Bigelow*
456 VBM miAL ov
prescribed, [p. 212.] With this ezception^ be baa eat well, depfc well Hk
boirels are regular ; so is bis pnlse, ordinaril j ; and his countenance indi-
cates perfect health, although bis color is not as dark as when babituaDj
exposed to the sun and air. He careful]/ prepared weapons for this mur-
der. He concealed them. The night previous he was at a ball. He per-
formed his usual labor at home the fatal evening. He went to the house of
Yan Nest in the night, and lay in wait He entered ; slaughtered the fannly ;
stole two horses ; fled ; fought when arrested ; denied all knowledge of the
murder; and his past life, for the last six years, has been a scene of intem-
perance, profanity and crime. Yet Dr. Brigham thinks this a case of hom-
icidal monomania I Now, I do not stop to inquire whether it would be ever
safo to allow the crime alone to be received as proof of insanity. It is true
that several eminent medical men say that insanity may exist without any
derangement of the intellect The theory was first broached by Pinel, who
terms this species of insanity Manie sans delire^ or, as some autbon
translate it, the Reasoning Mania. It is accompanied widi little or no appa-
rent intellectual derangement, and consists of a derangement of the affectioiis
and passions by disease, 'which subverts the will. Esqnirol, who at firrt
rejected the theory, subsequently adopted it; and other medical writers of
high authority now agree with EsquiroL' By Pritchard it is termed moral
insanity ; by Bay partial moral mania ; and Doct Dimon, one of the most
intelligent medical men sworn by us, testifies, that be believes such a disease
may exist [p. S42.] Let us then refer to eminent medical writers to see
what this disease is.
Esquirol, in his treatise on Insanity, at page 862, says : '< We have classed
among maniacs, persons who appear to enjoy the use of their reason, and
whose affective functions alone seem to be in the wrong. These maniacs
perceive, compare and judge correctly ; but they are drawn aside fVom the
slightest cause, and even without an object, to the commission of acts of vio-
lence and fury. They are irresistibly impelled, they assure us, to lacerate
and injure themselves and destroy their fellow beings. These wretched
persons have a consciousness of their condition; deplore their situation;
warn their friends to protect themselves against their fury, or place them
Irhere they can do no harm. Pinel, more than any other physician, has
called the attention of observers to this fearful malady, which in bospitab
they call reasoning insanity, and to which our illustrious master has given
the appellation of mania without delirium. Fodere admits tbn variety,
which he calls maniacal fury. But does a form of mania really exist, in
which those who are affected by it preserve the integrity of their reason,
whilst they abandon themselves to the commission of acts the most repre-
hensible ? Is that a pathological condition in which man is irresistibly led
on to the commission of an act which his conscience condemns? I think it
is.** Again, on page 866, he says : " Homicidal monomania spares no age,
since children from eight to ten yean old are not exempt from it It b
WILLIAX nLXIMAM. 467
ordinarily periodical, and tbe parozjron or attack is preceded by symptom
which indicate a general excitement. This class of patients experience
oolic pains and a sensation of heat in the bowels and chest, attended with
pain in the head. They suffer from insomnia ; the face becomes red or
▼ery pale, the skin swarthy, die pulse hard and fiill, and the body affected
with conyulsive tremors. The patient usually makes an assault, when no
external occurrence gives rise to the excess to which he yields himself. The
act accomplished, it seems that the attack is over, [p. 867,] ; and some homi-
cidal monomaniacs seem to be relieved of a state of agitation and anguish,
which was exceedingly painful to them. They are composed, and free Grpm
regret, remorse or fear. They contemplate their victim with indifference,
and some even experience and manifest a kind of satisfaction. The greater
part, far from flying, remain near the dead body, or concur with the magis-
trate by denouncing the act which they have just committed. A small num-
1>er, however, retire, conceal the instrument and hide the traces of the
murder. But very soon they betray themselves, or, if not seized by the
police, hasten to reveal the act ; to relate its most minute detaib, as well as
the motives of their flight**
Ray, in his treatise on the Me<iUcal Jurisprudence of Insanity, [p. 224,]
speaking of cases of moral mania, says : ** In nearly all, the criminal act has
been preceded either by some well-marked disturbance of the health, ori-
ginating in the head, digestive system, or uterus, or by an irritable, gloomy,
dejected or melancholy state ; in short, by many of the symptoms of the in-
cubation of mania. The absence of particulars, in some of the cases we
find recorded, leaves us in doubt how general this change really is; but a
careful examination would no doubt often, if not always, show its existence
where apparently it has never taken place." On page 226, the same author
says : " The criminal lays plans for the execution of his designs ; dme, place
and weapons are all suited to his purpose ; and when successful, he either
fKes from the scene of his enormities, or makes every effort, to avoid disco-
very. The homicidal monomaniac, on the contrary, for the most part, con-
sults none of the usual conveniences of crime. He falls upon the object of
his fury, oftentimes, without the most proper means for accomplishing his
purpose, and perhaps in the presence of a multitude, as if expressly to court
observation ; and then volunterily surrenders himself to the constituted au-
thorities. When, as is sometimes the case, he does prepare the means, and
calmly and deliberately executes his project, his subsequent conduct is still
the same as in the former instance.
" The criminal often has accomplices, and generally vicious associates ; the
homicidal monomaniac has neither. The acts of homicidal insanity, are ge-
nerally, perhaps always, preceded by some striking peculiarities in the conduct
or character of the individual, strongly contrasting with his natural manifes-
tations ; while those of the criminal, are in correspondence with the tenor
of his past history or character. In homicidal insanity, a man murders his
458 TBBTBIAIiOr
wife, children or others to whom he is tenderly attached ; this, the criminal
never does, unless to gratify some evil passion, or gain some selfish end, too
obvious to be overlooked on the slightest investigation."
Again, in distinguishing between this disease and the sanguinary atroci-
ties of the sane, he says, [p. 256] : ** That beings in human shape have
lived who delighted in the shedding of blood, and found a pastime in be-
holding the dying agonies of their victims, is a melancholy fact, too well es-
tablished by the Neros and Caligulas of history. For such, we have no dis-
position to urge the plea of insanity, for though we are willing to believe
them to have been unhappily constituted, we have no evidence that they labored
under cerebral disease, and they certunly exhibited none of its phenomena.
Motives the very slightest, no doubt, generally existed for even their most hor-
rid atrocities ; and even when they were entirely wandng, there was still a
conformity of their bloody deeds with the whole tenor of their natural cha-
racters. They followed the bent of their dispositions, as manifested from
childhood, glorying in their pre-eminent wickedness, and rendered familiar
by habit with crime ; and though conscience might have slumbered, or op-
posed but a feeble resistance to the force of their passions, yet it was not prevent-
ed by diseased action, so as to be blind to moral distinctions. In homicidal insa-
nity, on the contrary, every thing is different The criminal act for which its
subject is called to an account, is the result of a strong, and perhaps sudden
impulse, opposed to his natural habits, and generally preceded or followed
by some derangement of the healthy actions of the brain or other organs. The
Advocate General himself represented Papavoine * as having been noted for
his unsocial disposition ; for avoiding his fellow laborers ; for walking in re-
tired, solitary places, appearing to be much absorbed in the vapors of a
black melancholy.'
** This is not a picture of those human fiends to whom he would assimilate
Papavoine, but it is a faithful one, of a mind over which the clouds of insa-
nity are beginning to gather. Where is the similarity between this man,
who, with a character for probity, and in a fit of melancholy, is irresistibly
hurried to the commission of a horrible deed, and those wretches, who, hard-
ened by a life of crime, commit their enormities with a perfect deliberation
aud consciousness of their nature ?"
Pritchard, in his Treatise on Insanity, page 277, refers to a case cited by
Pinel, of instinctive fury^ in which the patient experienced at first a sensa-
tion of burning heat in the bowels, with an intense thirst and obstinate con-
stipation. This sense of heat spread, by degrees, over the breast, neck and
face, with a bright color ; sometimes it became more intense, and produced
violent and frequent pulsations in the arteries of those parts, as if they were go-
ing to burst ; at last, the nervous affection reached the brain, and then the pa-
tient was seized with a most sanguinary propensity ; and if he could lay hold
of any sharp instrument, he was ready to sacrifice the first person that came
in his way." Further on, he quotes De La Place, as saying : "When the af-
WILUAK VBXXMAir. 459
fection has continued for some time, and the, individuals poescssed with the
desire of committing murder have been observed, we have seen that this
state is like the delirium of lunatics — preceded and accompanied by head-
ache and pains in the stomach and bowels. These symptoms have preceded
the impulse to murder, and have become more severe when this dreadful
propensity is exasperated. "
Taylor, in his admirable treatise on Medical Jurisprudence, reviews the
whole theory of Moral Insanity, and points out forcibly the dangers to which
it exposes the administration of justice. [See Griffith's ed. pp. 514 to 519.]
He refutes, with singular ability, the fallacious idea that a failure to disco-
ver a criminal's motive is to be taken as a proof of his insanity, [p. 515.] Th^
cases of Moral Insanity referred to by all these writers, are usually instan-
ces of homicide, perpetrated by patients on those who are near and dear
to them ; such as a father or mother on his or her child ; a husband on his
wife, &c.
Now, b there the faintest resemblance in this case to those described by
these distinguished medical writers ? In them we find sudden, irresistible
fury; here, deliberation, self-control, preparation, concealment In them,
confession ; here, denial and flight In them, a change in the habits of the
individual, and conduct in opposition to all human motives ; hero, conform-
ity to the whole course of Prisoner's life, and several assignable ifotives.
In them, disease ; here, perfect and uninterrupted health.
But it id urged that if the Prisoner had not Moral Insanity, he labored
under an insane delusion, which led to the commission ^f the horrid deed
for which he is called to account, and which renders him irresponsible.
What is an Insane Delusion t
Doctor Brigham, says : '* An insane delusion is the mistaking fancies for
realities, where the patient cannot be reasoned out of them." [p. S06.] Dr.
Dimon, however, gives a much better definition. He says : " An insane
delusion, is the thorough belief of the reality of something in opposition to
the evidence of the senses." [p. 344.] An instance or two will illustrate
this. Hadfield had an insane delusion that he heard the voice of God com-
manding him to take the King's life. Sidney Freeman, the Prisoner's uncle, had
an insane delusion that Jesus Christ was in his throat, choking him. [p. 350.]
The rule of law which acquits a party of responsibility where he is incapable
of distinguishing between right and wrong, would, no doubt, exonerate
him who was compelled to the commision of an act by an insane delusion.
Such a delusion would lead him to the belief that he was doing right, apd
thus destroy his reason ; and it is an inevitable characteristic of this insanity,
that the subject of it should avow and glory in the act to which it impels
him, and that he cannot be reasoned out of the belief that he did right Now,
gentlemen, I should afiront your intelligence, if "I entered ujion an argu-
ment to show that no such delusion exists here. The Prisoner thought he
was entitled to pay for the time he lost in prison ; other prisoners think the
460 THS TMLt Of
same thing. He thought he was wrongfully imprisoned ; all prisoners say
this. A misapprehension of legal rights is not an insane delusion ; if so,
many lawyers and clients are insane. Discontent with imprisonment is not
insanity ; else, all prboners are insane. The Prisoner's Counsel contend
that Prisoner knew Van Nest had no connection with his imprisonment ; if
this is so, there is no connection between the delusion and the crime. Th^
Prboner never supposed he was doing right He fled, fought when arrest-
ed, denied all knowledge of the crime, and now tells Dr. Austin, " if they
will let me go this time 1*11 try to do better I ** [p. 250.] There is, therefore,
no pretence for saying that this Prisoner has now, or ever had, an insane de-
lusion.
I have thus called your attention to the various kinds of insanity, and en-
deavored to show you that this Prisoner bas none of them, because tins is
the question which he submits to you, and on which the laws of the land
make it your duty to pass.
I hope I have satisfied you that this Prisoner is cleariy responsible for his
acts. He is not an idiot This is not pretended. He has not dementiik
Uis attention, coherence, memory of events, ancient and recent, keen and
steady glance, healthy appearance — all triumphantly repel the idea of de-
mentia. He had no disease when these murders were committed, nor has he
now. He has never bad an insane delusion. If there was nothing but the
atrocity of this case, and the unwearied puns that have been taken to ac-
quit this prisoner, calling for thii? careful examination of the law and facts
in this case, I should cheerfully have gone through with it But even
higher objects than this demanded this labor. Doctrines have been ad-
vanced by counsel and witnesses in the course of this trial, dangerous to ihe
peace of society and fatal to good government The laws and institutions
under which we live have been assailed. The maxims of law which have
emanated from the wisest and most humane jurists that ever lived — max-
ims on whicb the security of liberty, property, and life have reposed for ages;
which the successive wisdom of centuries has confirmed, and under which
the safety of Prisoners, as well as of society, has been protected — are now
openly derided and defied. This generation is claimed to be wiser in the
elementary principies of law than all that have preceded it The represen-
tatives of medical science on the witness' stand, over-ride and swear down,
not only the laws of the land, but the most profound and accomplished treatises
on medical science itself. They seek not only to expel the Judge from the
bench and the Jury from the box, but would banish common sense and the
highest scientific attainments alike from this Court And* what great good
is thuit to be accomplished ? Let the experience of the past answer.
Last winter a convict in the State Prison, named Henry Wyatt, assaulted
another convict with one blade of a large pair of shears ; he plunged it in his
bowels ; the unhappy convict swooned and died. In March last, Wyatt was
tried for this murder ; the defence was moral insanity ; the Jury disagreed.
wiLUAM lasnuN. 461
Wyatt has been tried again at this term, and convicted; but on his first trial
in March, this Priaoner was present and seemed to be an attentive listener.
He is undoubtedly hard of hearing, but Mr. Andrus swears he thinks Pris-
oner heard his testimony during this trial, and gives his reasons, [p. 328.]
Munroe thinks he can hear his testimony, [p. 334] ; and Dr. Bigelow thinks
he knows what is going on in Court [p. 351.] He went, during the trial,
to Mrs. Godfrey's, to demand a settlement for his wrongful imprisonment
Mrs. Godfrey testifies to this. [p. 235.] He was then boarding with the
wife of his associate in the theft. David Winner, so states, [p. 239.] A
few days a£ber, he changed his residence to Mary Ann Newark's, and com-
mitted these foul murders. Now, is there not reason to fear that this de-
praved crinunal may have caught from the theories broached on Wyatt*s
trial, and from the result, an impression that he could commit this crime
with impunity ? Far be it from me to suggest that the distinguished Coon-
ad or witnesses on that occasion ever imagined or contemplated such a
frightful consequence. But is it beyond the range of possibilities ? And,
whether true or not, is it not the imperative duty of those charged in any
way with the faithful execution of the laws, to remember that the audience
who throng a Criminal Court Boom, are not exclusively composed of the
upright, the intelligent or the humane, and when theories are advanced in
such a presence, which strike at the root of Law and Order, and furnish a
perfect license for Crime, by rendering its detection impossible, to sift them
thoroughly, and if as unsound as they are dangerous, to condemn them pub-
licly and boldly ? It needed not the fearful conjectures as to the origin of
this crime, to induce courtsj juries and public prosecutors, by every just
means, to extingubh sparks which threaten such wide-spread conflagration.
I have canvassed freely the tesdmony of men eminent for their learning
and integrity. I have even ventured within the walls of their peculiar
mysteries, and challenged their skill in their own departments and profea^
aions. You must also do this. For while the law allows their testimony
to be given, (and never was greater lattitude given to it than on thb trial,)
the same law makes it your duty, at last, to pronounce, on the whole evi-
dence, the guilt or innocence of the Prisoner. And before I commit the
case to you, let me ask your attention to the simple, uncontradicted facta
which have been proved to you. It is on these that your verdict must rest,
and by these it must be justified. They lie within a narrow space, and
there is no conflict of evidence in regard to them. Dismiss, I beg of yon,
^while I do so, aU theories and ideas of insanity, and regard this Prisoner as
a man whose acts immediately prior to the 12th of March, on that day, and
the next, you are required to render a verdict on. Apply to them the role
of law I have stated. It is one perfectly simple in itself, abundantly 8na>
tained by authority, and covering every conceivable case of criminal irre-
sponsibility: — Did ths Prisoner know that hb was doing wbomq.
462 THE TBIAL OT
AND WAS HE IX A STATE OP HEALTH THAT GAVE HIM CONTROL OVER
HIS ACTIONS ?
John G. Van Nest was killed on Thursday night, the 12th of March
last On Sunday, a fortnight before, prisoner, drove out to Harry Lamp-
kin's public house, with three other colored persons, whom he treated and
drank with. [p. 338.] On the Thursday before the 12th, this prisoner,
then living about half a mile from here, at the New Guinea settlement, with
the colored woman, Mary Ann Newark, went to the shop of Joseph Mor-
ris, a blacksmith, who had never seen him be/ore, and asked to have a knife
made. He desired it of good cast steeL Failing to make Morris under-
stand the precise description, he went to a carpenter^s shop, and in about
fifteen minutes made a pattern of wood, which he left with Morris. This
is it [Holding Up pattern of knife in wood.] Morris charged him four
shillings for it — he offered two shillings. He then offered four shillings for
the blade, if Morris would grind it and put a handle to it Morris said to
him : " What do you want to do with the knife ?*' Prisoner did not an-
swer. Morris then said : "You want to kill somebody, don't you?" Pris-
oner said : ^^ It is none of your business, so long as you get your pay for it."
Morris was told he was deaf, and spoke louder to him than ordinarily. He
bought no knife of Morris, [pp. 190, 191.] On the Monday before the
murder, at nine a. m. he went to George W. Hyatt, another blacksmith, who
had never seen him before, to buy a knife. He had been in before Hyatt
saw him. .He selected a knife of which the price was two shillings or three
shillings. He asked Hyatt if he could not afford it for one shilling and six
pence. Hyatt eventually sold it to him for one and six pence. He handed
Hyatt two shillings and received six pence back. He then asked to have a
handle put on, and a ferule to keep the handle from splitting, which was
done. He wanted it ground, which was done by Hyatt and himself on a
grind stone. He went off with the knife and returned at twelve o'clock, with
a Jack Knife, the blade of which was out He asked the price of putting in
a rivet Hyatt answered six pence. He wuhed it done for three cents.
Hyatt agreed to make the rivet for three pence, if Freeman would put it
in. This was assented to. Hyatt made the rivet, and prisoner riveted it in
the handle. He handed Hyatt six pence and received three cents in change.
Hyatt discovered that he was hard of hearing ; but it is a remarkable fact
when this witness, who had sold him the bloody instrument of assassination,
called on him three weeks afterwards in Jail, and asked prisoner twice, in a
very loud voice, at a distance of three or four feet, if he knew him, prisoner
leaned forward and would make no reply, except that he was deaf and
couldn't hear ! [p. 190.] Mr. Andrus he heard well, and conversed ^th at
the same distance ! [p. 828.] A day or two before the murder, prisoner
went to Robert Simpson, a turner and chair maker, and asked him to grind
the knife he bought of Hyatt Simpson had no time to do it, but arranged
WILLIAM TEEKHAN. 463
ihe grindstone for him, and lie ground it for bimself. He afterwards rub-
bed it upon an oil stone, paid three cents to Simpson, and went off. We
offered to show that at this time other colored men were at work in this
neighborhood, killing hogs, but the testimony was objected to and excluded.
On the morning of the murder, or the day before, prisoner again came lA
Simpson's shop with a hickory club ; asked permission to use a brace and
bit which was granted; put the club in the vice and went to boring in
the end of it ; seemed to be fitting something in, which Simpson could not
see ; went off; was gone twenty- five or thirty minutes ; returned, and asked
for a larger bit, which was loaned to him and used in the same way. He
confesses to Dr. Bigelow that he fitted a blade in the end of that club, at the
house where he staid. Doubtless this was done between the two visits to
Simpson ; and in doing so he found that the first hole bored was toO'Small.
He also confesses that he took the knives up to the house where he boarded,
and hid one under his pillow and the other under his bed. [p. 211.] They
were so carefully concealed that Mary Ann Newark, with whom he boarded,
never saw him have a knife or stick, and never saw any about his room,
[p. 282.] About the same tim(f he was, on several occasions, drinking at
Galq^ grocery, and the very night before the murder he was at a ball at
Laura Willard's. [p. 289.]
We now come to the day of this deplorable tragedy. Simpson is uncer-
tain whether the preparation at his shop was the day or the day before the
murder. The two main witnessess who speak of the Prisioner on that day,
before the murder, with certainty, are both colored ; one called by us —
Aaron Demun, the Prisoner's uncle, and as honest a man as any in Auburn ;
the other called by defendant — also perfectly honest — Mary Ann Newark,
with whom Prisoner boarded. One witness — a grocer — ^testifies that Pri-
soner purchased of him three cents worth of soap, handed him six pence, and
received three cents change. Aaron Demun testifies that on the same day.
Prisoner came to him and asked for tallow to grease his boots, which was
given him ; said he was going to hire out by the month with some farmer.
(He had been previously to Van Nest to hire out) His uncle advised him
to do so. Prisoner said : " Uncle Aaron, you've a good place here ; are yea
to work here. steady?" Demun said. Yes. Demun told him that if he
did'nt get more than seven or eight dollars a month, he had better take it ;
and says : " he talked as rational with me the day of the murder as he ever
dW [p. 324.] Mary Ann Newark says he staid at her house till the bells
were rung for meeting, at six o'clock in the evening. He put snow in the
tub for her ; asked if she had any other chores to do ; she did not notice
him go off; she thinks he was sober, [p. 281.] You will remember that he
boarded at her bouse ; or rather, as he described it to his uncle, and as she
swears, [p. 2^2,] he didn't exactly board. ** I bring my provisions," said he,
** and she cooks for me." [p. 324.] She says she lent him the cooking
utensils, and he cooked for himself. He adnuts to Ethan A. Warden thai
464 sai TBiAL Of
on ihat afternoon he drank a pint of Uqoor, [p. 267]; and he admits to
Dr. Bigelow that he went np stairs; threw his knives out of the window;
hid them under the wood-pile dll he was ready to start; then stood around
and thought of it awhile ; then concluded to go, anj how ; got his knives,
secreted them in his breast and under hb coat, and started, [pp. 211, 214.]
Van Nest lived about four miles from here, on the Owasco Lake, in a se-
cluded dwelling. Next this side of him, lived his father and mother. Mrs.
Van Nest swears that she saw a black man twice in her yard that evening,
between eight and nine o'clock. This was no doubt the Prisoner. About
the same hour Cox met him this side of Van Nest's, [p. 293.] At nine
o'clock he was around the house of John G. Van Nest He went past it
on the road. Fatten met him. There was then a light in Van Nest's house.
Williamson was spending the evening there, and Van Arsdale, the laborii^
man, had not yet gone to bed. [p. 194.] He admits that he did not enter,
because it was too early, and he waited till he saw Williamson leave, [p.
845.] He must also have seen Van Arsdale, from the back window, "when
he retired. He then entered the house by the back door, as he had done
on the Monday but one previous. It is doubtful whether he stabbed Mn.
Van Nest (who was in the yard) first, or Van Nest He asserts that he
killed Van Nest first Helen Holmes and Van Arsdale both think Ihey
heard Mrs. Van Nest shriek before they heard any other outcry, [pp. 198,
200.] Van Arsdale heard Van Nest say : — ^ What do you wcmt here tsi the
houMe P* [p. 200] ; and in an instant, almost, he heard him fall upon the floor.
The door at the foot of the staircase was then opened by Prisoner, who in-
quired if there was a man up staim Van Arsdale said, Yes ; and Prisoner
rushed up with this knife, and aimed a blow at him, which wa^ so neariy f»-
taL Van Arsdale knocked him with the candlestick, pushed him down
stairs, and beat him outof the house with a bxoen^etick. The child, G^argit
W. Van Nest,slept in theroom where Van Nest was killed. The Priaooer
stabbed him entirely through, and with sach force as to pierce the bed. He
must have done this before he attacked Van Arsdale. Outside of the house
he had a souffle with Mrs. Wyckoff, Uie mother4n-law of Van Nest, who
attacked him with a carving knife. He stabbed her in the abdomen and
cat one of her fingers ; she disabled him by a cut on the wrist He return-
ed to the sitting room; kicked open the door; saw Helen Hohnes and per^
haps Van Arsdale still living.
After lurking about the house a little time, looldng in at the windows, he
stole a horse and fled. The horse took the road to MoFarland's instead of
to Auburn. At the distance of about a mile from Van Nest's house, as
Williamson testifies, Prisoaer tamed him, tSter going about a rod, and
brought him on the Aubnrti road. When he arrived within a mile of Au-
burn, the horse fell with him and hurt his 1^ ; he stabbed and left him, and ,
stole Burrington's horse. With this he fled, as he tells Bostwick, the most
he cared for beiag to get oat <^ the eotfnt/. [p. 298.] He fled in thedirec-
WlLUAll FBSnfflN. 465
tion of Canada, to the De Puys, who were connections of his by marriage.
They turned him out of the house, suspecting that he stole the horse.
* At two o'clock on Friday afternoon, (the murder having been committed
at half past nine o'clock Thursday evening,) we find him' forty miles from
Van Nest's. He offers tlie horse for sale to Amos, Corning and others, for
eighty dollars, its precise value. When charged with stealing the horse, he
denies it, and says he had a horse given him, and traded round till he got
this one. He reminded Amos of his having seen him at a husking bee,
and offered to satisfy him, by the De Fuys, that it was all right. He beg-
ged to be allowed to go on ; refused to let go of the halter ; fought ; tripped
up Amos, who endeavored to detain him, and finally regretted that he had
not a knife to gut him t [Testimony of Amos, pp. 203 to 207.]
To Taylor, who arrested him for the murder, he denied all knowledge of
it, but then admitted stealing the horse, [p. 207.] He was then taken into
a room by Messrs. Parker and Herrick — the former being a friend and ac-
quaintance of Van Nest. They affected to know all about the murder,
and urged him to confess. He denied all knowledge of Van Nest. When
asked how his hand was cut, he for a long time decHned answering, and at
last said he had a knife and was whittling with it, and cut himself. When
asked where he came from last, he said, "from Phojnix ;" where before that,
he said, " Syracuse ;" where before that, he said *' Nine Wit Creek ;" where
before that, he said he ^* believed they called it Elbridge ;" where before
that, he declined answering ; and when asked if It was Sennett, he said : '< I
shan't answer any mobe ; if they can prove any thing against
MB LET THEM PROVE IT !'\ The answers already given by him had coi^
rectly described his route from Burrington's to Gregg's, where he was arrest-
ed ; it was only when he got back to the scene of the murder, that he re-
fused to answer. [Testimony of Parker, pp. 209 to 211.]
He pretended to be deaf! Taylor once, by inquiring why he murdered
that little child^ got an answer that he did not know it was a child. At
other times, he said to £. A. Warden that he murdered the child to make them
feel more ; and to Lynch, that he murdered it for fear it would make a noiae.
[p. 323.] Pressed by Yanderheyden, on one occasion, as to the cause of
the murder, he said: "I don't want you to say any thing about it;" and
being urged, he says : " You know there is no law for me." [p. 881.]
He was taken from Gregg's to Van Nest's house, and identified by Van
Arsdale, who was still living. This he understands thoroughly ; and from
that day to this, he has known perfectly that no admission of the murder
itself could prejudice his case. He stated to Dr. Bigelow that he had seen
Van Arsdale since ihe murder, alive, [p. 215.]
Now, is not this a picture of as cool, deliberate, atrocious murder as was
ever presented in a Court of Justice ? Was ever preparation more careful ?
Buying knives of those who did not know him ; hiding them ; falsely stating
to Aaron Demon where he yfVA going; lying in wait; stealing; flying;
466 TOBTKUI^OW,
IjriDg. Was ever self-ocmtrol more absolute ? He did not molest Cox or
Patten, whom he met the same evening; he knew Van Arsdale was up
^Uin, and inquired for him before mounting the steps ; he fled when struck,
and was beat out of the house with a broomrstick ; he knew whither be was
flying ; he checked the horse, when taking the wrong road. He knew
he did wrong ; ehie, whj flj ? why steal ? why refuse to give himself up ?
why lie ?
lio comment can add to the force of a simple narration of the uncontra-
dicted fiicts in this case. They show, beyond the possibililj of doubt, that
FbBBMAM knew HB was JDOINa WBONO, AND SAD FUJLL CONTBOL OYBB
BIB ACTIONS.
Gentlemen of the Jury : I have thus gone through with the evidence in
this case ; and I cannot but believe that ic has left upon your minds the
same conviction of the Prisoner's guilt that it has upon mine. It is a fear-
ful task, in a capital case, to urge the conviction of a Prisoner; but I never
remember a case in which I could ask it with more undoubting confidence
than in this. There are upon this Jury three gentlemen who were chal-
lenged by me, and who, before they entered the box, admitted that they be-
longed to a class termed abolitionbts. [pp. 165, 166.] I have not supposed
that this rendered them incompetent to sit in this case ; but I desired to
know whether they entertained any peculiar views in regard to the general
neglect of the colored race, which would induce them to hold society, and
not the individual, responsible for the crimes which this race commita
Finding that they were disposed to try this case precisely like thai of a
white man, I have withdrawn the challenge, and am now gratified to believe
that these gentlemen will protect the Prisoner from all injustice ; at the
same time they will remember that the cause they advocate can receive no
greater injury, and themselves no deeper disgrace, than would flow from
their refusal to convict a murderer whom they know to be guil^.
John 6. Van Nest, gentlemen, was, as I learn, in every, respect one of
tiie most estimable men in this community. He resided with his wife's mo-
ther, Mrs. Wyckoff, and, as his aged father testifies, was all that father^s de-
pendence in his old age. He, his wife, his mother-in-law, and one <^ his
children, have been slain by this monster in human shape. I know there ts
always a disposition to forget the dead over whom the grave has closed, and
to sympathise with the living criminal, no matter how debased and de-
graded. But I cannot believe that when such a man as John 6. Van Nest
is cut off in the prime of life, with every thing about him to make the world
attractive, and sent, without an instant of preparation, to stand before his
Maker, that a jury of his neighbors and friends will set at large the instru-
ment of his destruction. It is to me, as you must know, a matter of no
concern, personally. The Van Nests were unknown to me; and although
the heart of this family tree has been cut out, leaving behind nothing but
the dependent branches and decaying looti, I havB lost nwther acquain-
laneea nor friends. This miserable Prisoner eaa excite no antipathy ;
he 18 anworthy of the hostilitj of anj human being. The danger to the
peace of this community bnlj affects me, as a bver of gQo4 order. If crimes
of this magnitude are to go unpunished, and thus to inyite imitation, it la
jour hearth-stoneS) not mine, that may be drenched in blood. But I do
confess to a feeling of pride at the administration of justice in our State.
Elsewhere, the murderer may go at large as, a Somnambulist, an Insane
Man, or a Justifiable Homicide. But in New York, thus far, die steady
good sense and integrity of bur Juries, and the enfightened wisdom of our
Judges, have saved our Jurisprudence from ridicule, and firmly upheld Law
and 0rder. Thus may it ever be ; and I feel entire confidence, notwith-
standing the extraordinary appeals that have been made to you in this case,
that your verdict will be in keeping with the high character our tribunals
have thus acquired, and will prove that the Jurors of Cayuga fully equal
their fellow citizens of other counties, in intelligence to perceive, and inde- '
pendence to declare the guilt of a criminal.
Non.— Me. Tas Bumnr IwTliig bem tppltod to bj om of the Coanad fox ttie PriMmar, m
VttUas by the Printers who an pnbUahing • report of the trial of William freemaaf end the gen-
teman who aaBoiiMB the reaponaibflity of U, to fomlBh a sketch of his remarks on that oooaalon,
deatres to say in explanation, that he haa had no partldpation in anggeadng or prepartngthla pnbll-
eatlon; that he haa only aeen the portloii of It begliuil&K at page 146 and ending at page SS8; and
In that are "^nV^t^ aavecal paawgns tfiat do not conlbrm to his leeoileetlon of the actual ooimr-
ranoea on the trial. He learns, howeTer, that the pnblication is ao flur advanced that no altera-
tion can be made ; atlll he cannot omk to correct an error which oeeora at pagea 2D0, 814 and 815,
and which waa embodied In the Bill of Bzeeptlonaaflnwanlamadointheeanae. Mr. Tan Bonn
la there made to Inaiat that the verdict of the Jozy which tried the jvralmiJiMry usm of aanlty, ■•
li waa called, determined ooneluslYe)y the Prisoner's sanity al the time of biatrial fi>rmiizder,and
eoald not be oontradkted by erldenoe. This, he says, is an entire misapprehension ; and that a
brief atatement of tkcta will ahow what qneationa axoae In tUa eonneotfon. Onr Statote provlAii
(aatheeommon tew did) that no insane man ahall be Med, [SB. 8. e07,aac.2]; battt doeaaai •
proTlde how hia inaanity shall be tested. Tho Prisoner waa brooght up for arraignment the flnt
Mondv of JoiMf 1846, before Mr. Van Buren reached Aoburn. His Counsel, W. H. SlWAao, said
in his behalf, that he waa insane, and filed a written statement to that effect, which he denomi-
nated » a plea of Present Insanity,*' and which he <dalmed to faavo tried by a Jury. To thio IIm
Court acceded. The Prisoner waa then remanded. HairvT Wtar waa then put on trial Hr
angthar nnuder ; defended by Mr. Seward and othera, on the ground of insanity ; conTided on
the 28d of June, after a trial of some three weeks ; and subsequently executed. FannAN waa then
placed at the bar ; a jury empanelled to determine whether he waa then aane or insane ; andaflar
an onainallon or witneasaa and addreMaa or Oonnael, which oecopied aho Oonrt tfU the eth daiy or
Jnty; the Jury made a written atatenMut to tho Court, in these wards : " We find the Prisoner at
tlie bar snlBclently sane in mind and memory to distinguish between right and wrong." Thsj
were then diaeharged and tho Priaoner arraigned and tried. Thla preliminary proceeding waa
olOected to by Mr. Tan Buren, and waa regarded by him, in nabatanee, aoa motion to poatpone the
trial on the ground of the PriiHMier*ataiaanity. It waa merely intended to aalMy the OovtMta
the propriety of proceeding with the trial, and aettled nothing except that the trial should be pro*
ceeded with. Brery feot Important to the Prisoner's defence, and proper to be giyen In erldenoe,
waa juat aa admisaible afterwarda aa before ; and as to the sanity of the Pilsonerat the tiaw ertha
trial, a referenee to pegea 294, 807 ond 811, ahowa that Boetora- BmnAn, MdOiu. aaid OOmnov
atweUaaotheiB,teatitellnngwdtelt. The gnmnd taken by Mr. Tan Buren atthe trial, waa, that^
in Judging of the inaanity or the Priaoner on the 12th or March, when the murder waa committed, the-
witnaaaaa might be allowed to teatlty to any aoti or declaratlona of the Priaoner himself, from the data
468 THS TEIAL OF
of his Urth tm after Uke daftnoe«r lafMlty had been interposed ; that Mfne time mart be flaad
when eiMnlnatiooB of (he Prisoner ehoold cease, or it was obvioiu that the visita to hia cell would
eontiniie as many nights aa there should be succeeding dajrs to tcsUfy to the resulta of the nightly
Tislts. For this object be requested* the Ponrt to fix the 6th of July as a suitable time at which to
stop the manufacture of this speciea of testimony ; and with the same Tiew he requested the fihexlff
to prsrent access to the Prisoner's oeU| as testified to, except under the permission of the Court.
The objections to the testimony of Doctors Hun and McNauqhton, as a reference to the authori-
ties cited will sliow, proceeded on the ground that phyfiicians who had not heard the whole trial,
and who were precluded, by the ml^ adopted by the Court, fW>m giving the Acts on which their
<^ini<nu were based, should not be allowed to give their opinions. WiCfa this brief explanation,
and the apology that it is utterly impossible, with a press of other engagements, to giTe more than
a sketch of an address to a Jury dellTercd nearly two years since, occupying eight or ten houn in
the dellTery, and substantially without notes, Bfr. Yan Buren commits his remarks to the pub-
lisher and the public. In conunendng on the testimony he has, in some instances, rafBRed to
the page .where the testimony is given ; in others, he has been governed by his own rocoUeetian
of the case and notes of the testimony talcen by himself. J. T. B.
JUDGE WHITING'S CHARGE.
Gentlemen of the Jubt :
The prisoner, William Freeman, stands indicted before you, for the
murder of John G. Van Nest, on the 12th day of March, 1846.
The questions for you to determine, are, Jirst^ Is John G. Van Nest
dead; second^ The cause of his death; and thirds Was it the act of the
prisoner.
The death and the cause of the death of Van Nest, are testified to by Doc-
tor Pitney. In his opinion, the wound must have caused almost instantane-
ous death ; and the facts sworn to by other witnesses, show that he fell dead
at the place where he received the wound.
Was this wound inflicted by the prisoner ? You are to judge of the evi-
dence bearing on this point, and it will probably satisfy you that he gave
the fatal stab.
The next question is, if yon find that the wound was inflicted by the
furisoner, is this murder ? [The Judge then gave to the jury the definition
«f murder as contained in the statute, and called their attention to the evi-
dence, as bearing upon the premeditated design of the prisoner ; the malice,
personal or general, by which he may have been moved ; the deliberation
with which the act was committed ; the means used, and the instruments
prepared to effect his purpose ; his concealment of the instruments at the
house where he boarded ; the time and the occasion of his committing the
fiCi ; his flight, and lai^enies of the horses, and his denial of his guilt when
overtaken ; and if, from a consideration of this evidence, the jury should
find that the killing of Van Nest w^s murder, then the jury were to con-
sider the defence set up by the prisoner, to wit : that he was insane at the
time of committing the act, and is not responsible for it]
WILLIAM FBXBMAN. 469
It 18 trae, that if the prisoner was insane at the time of committing the
murder, he b innocent of crime, and must be acquitted. To preseilt thii
question to the jury in its proper light, they will consider that sanity con-
sists in having a knowledge of right and wrong, as to the particular act
charged to have been done by an individual, and in possessing memory, in-
telligence, reason and wilL
Knowledge of right and wrong as to the particular act charged. This is
the true rule of responsibility. Not that the accused shall have knowledge
on all subjects, or on any particular subject save that charged against him.
The knowledge of men is in a great measure proportioned to their opportu-
nity of acquiring it ; and as that is unequal, there can be no standard safely
assumed, by Vhich to test responsibility, other than that of knowledge of
right and wrong upon the specific tfct charged as a crime.
Intelligence to know that the act he is about to commit is wrong. *
Memory to remember that if he commits the act he will be subject to
punishment
Reason and will to enable him to compare and choose between the sup-
posed advantage or gratification Co be obtained by tl^e criminal act, and the
immunity from punishment which he will secure by abstaining from it. .
These considerations are consistent with the legal definition of the crime
of murder ; that is, that it must be committed with a deliberate design lo
effect the death of the person killed. Crime is the result of will, and is
always charged to have been ti»(/ti//y committed.
The law presumes every man sane until the contrary be proved, to the
satisfaction of the jury. Insanity is, therefore, a fact to be proved like any
other fact, set up or plead by way of defence.
To establish tho plea of insanity, it most be clearly proved that the party
is laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not
to know the nature of the act he waa doing, or, if he did know it, that he
did not know he was doing what was wrong. He must be laboring under
that kind of mental aberration which satisfies the jury that the prisoner was
quite unaware of the nature, character and consequences of the act he was
committing. If some disease was tho acting power within him, which be
could not resist, or if he had not sufficient use of his reason to control the
passions which prompted the murder, he is not responsible ; and the jniy
must be satisfied that it was an absolute dispossession of the free and natural
agency of his mind.
So, if his moral and intellectual powers were so deficient that he had not
sufficient memory, will, conscience, or controlling power, or if, through the
overwhelming violence of mental disease, his intellectual power was for the
time obliterated, he is not a responsible moral agent, and is not punishable
for criminal acts.
Within this rule, is the prisoner clearly proved, to the satisfaction of the
jury, to have been insane on the 12th of Mareb, at the time of the murder V
470 THB tBJAL Off
And to decide diis, the jnry are to look st ihe conduct of the priaoner be-
fore, «t the time, and after the commission of the act> and give effect to the
proof as bearing upon the state of his mind on the day of the murder.
If sane, he is guilt/. If Insane, he is not guilty. Hiere is no middle
gxouxid.
Then, was the prisoner unaware, Jirstf of the nature of the act he commit-
ted ; second, of the character of that act ; and thirds of the consequences of
it
If the jury find that he was unaware, from insanity, of the nature of die
act he committed, the prisoner should be acquitted. If disease was the act-
ing power within him, which be could not resist, he should be acquitted. J£
he had not sufficient use of his reason, from insanity, to contrdl the pasnons
which prompted the murder, he is not rteponsible. If the jury are satisfied
th&t there was a dispossession, by disease, of ibe free and natural agency of
his mind, he is not responsible.
The classification of insanity, by learned men, has no influence in deter-
mining the question wheUier the prisoner was sane or insane ; for if insane,
he must be acquitted, without regard to the particular form of the disease.
Jgnoranoe is not insanity. The law does not require any degree of know-
ledge to render a person responsible, beyond that of knowledge of right and
wrong, under the rules already explained.
The. evidence of the prisoner's insanity is derived from three sources:
Jirgtj from comparison; second, from facts; and Aird, from o^nions of
medical witnesses.
1. From comparison with bimselC It would be idle to decide upon the
soundness of his mind, by expecting or locking for knowledge and intelli-
gence in him, s^xmt matters of which he had never learned any thing. He
must be taken in his own grade of life and intelligence, to determine whether
in that, he has reason, judgment, memory and consistency of conduct
And 6f his comparison with other men. Those with whom he is com-
pared should be of his own grade, ignorant and uneducated, but who yet
have a knowledge of right and wrong, and whose lives and conduct are un-
der the control of conscience and reason, though in a low degree.
2. From facts in the case, which relate principally to his appearance and
«>ndiiet not being feigned ; to the change in him since his boyhood ; to hb
reafing and counting ; to his hearing ; to the breaking the knife in prison ;
to his sleeplessness ; to his buying the steak ; to the family insanity ; to hb
stupidity ; to his ignorance of and indifference to his fate, and the proceed-
ings of his trial ; to his habits of silence ; to the expression of and smile on
his countenance; to his want of early education ; to his conviction and im-
prisonment in State Prison at an eariy age ; to his treatment in prison ; to
his assertions of his innocence and wrongful imprisonment; to his daim of
pay, and its refusal ; to his opinion that he was entitled to pay for his time ;
the murden because of refusal to pay him| to his laioeny of the hones and
wiujAM nuBiiEAir. 471
his escape ; riding into Mn. Godfrej's yard ; his denial of Uie larceny to
Amos and othen ; his denial of the murders ; his being confronted with the
dead, and with his accusers ; his committal to jail ; his confessions there, and
the manner of them; his simplicity; his memory of eventB; his mode ol
talking, and of relating his story.
The jury shoald also inquire whether the prisoner was laboring under i
delusion ; and the Judge presented to them the case of Kleim, tried at the
Oyer and Tenniner in New York, and who exhibited eyidence of delusion
and an apprehension of danger, indicating an unsound mind ; and after ex*
plaining to the jury the state of mind in relation to that form of iusan<
ity, submitted to the jury whether the acts of the prisoner ai the bar were
the effects of delusion, or of an unsound and erroneous judgment as to his
rights, and the way of redressing his supposed wrongs ; and that, in the la^
ter point of riew, the jury should consider the proof in regard to his uniform
assertion that his conriction and imprisonment had been wrongful and un-
just, because he was innocent of the crime of stealing the horse ; his opinion
that he ought to be paid for his time in prison ; his demand of that pay oi
Mrs. Godfrey, the owner of the stolen horse ; her refusal of payment ; his
calls on the magistrates for process to compel payment, and their refusal ol
it; his declarations that the people had taken his time and labor, and would
not pay lum ; that they ought to pay him ; that there was no law for him;
then his preparation of the fatal knife, and other weapons ; his conduct on
the night of the murder ; his concealment of the prepared weapons undei
the wood ; his answer to Dr. Bigelow's question — what he did in the house
when he went in after hiding the weapons — " Nothing, but I stood round
there, and thought about it. I did not know what to do ; but I thought Fd
go, any how."
3. Opinions of medical witnesses.
The opinions of medical men, on a question of this description, are compe-
tent evidence, and, in bmhj cases, -are entitled to great consideration and
respect. This is not peculiar to medical testimony, but is a general rule,
ai^licable to all cases where the question is one depending on skill and sci-
ence in any peculiar department
In general, it is the opinion of the jury which is to govern, and this opin-
ion is to be formed upon the proof of facts laid before them. But some
questions lie beyond the scope of the observation and experience of men m
general, but are quite within the observation and experience of those vhose
peculiar pursuits and professions have brought that class of facts frequently
under their consideration.
Upon this ground, the opinions of witnesses who have been conversant
with insanity in its various forms, and who have had the care and superin-
tendence of insane perscmsi are received as competent evidence, even though
they have not had opportunity to examine the particular patient, and ob-
472 THs TRIAL or
«
serve the symptoms and indications of disease at the time of its supposed ex-
istence. It is designed to aid the judgment of the jury, in regard to the in-
fluence and effect of certain facts, which lie out of the observation and expe-
rience of persons in general. And such opinions, when they come from
persons of great experience, and in whose correctness and sobriety of judg-
ment just confidence can be had, are of great weight, and deserve the res-
pectful consideration of a jur}'. But the opinion of a medical man of small
experience, or of one who has crude or visionary notions, or who has some
favorite theory to support, is entitled to very little consideration. The value
of such testimony will depend mainly upon the experience, fidelity and im-
partiality of the witness who gives it.
They (medical witnesses) are not to judge of the credit of the witnesses,
or of the truth of the facts testified to by others. It is for the jury to decide
whether such facts are satisfactorily proved ; and if they are proved to the
satisfaction of the jury, then they (i. e. medical witnesses) should be asked
whether, in their opinion, the party was insane, and what was the nature
and character of that insanity.
The opinions of persons not educated to the profession, but who have
been so situated as to have given particular attention to the disease, and to
patients suffering under it,' are also competent evidencCj but not to the same
extent as those of medical men of the same experience.
This evidence, from these sources, applies on the one hand to the state of
the prisoner's memory ; to his knowledge and intelligence ; to his conduct in
life ; to the state of his conscience ; to his power of comparison or reason ;
to his judgment and to his motives of revenge ; and, on the other hand, to
the delusion under which he may have labored ; to the disease of his mind,
and the character of that disease; to his personal appearance ; to the ex-
pression of his countenance, and to his indifference to his fate.
The evidence bearing on the issue of insanity, is derived from axty-five
witnesses, seventeen of whom, including nine physicians, testify that, in their
opinion, the prisoner was insane when the murder was committed ; and the
residue of them, including eight physicians, testify that, in their opinion, the
prisoner was sane. The number of witnesses who have given opinions is
referred to, not for the purpose of governing or influencing the minds of the
jury, but for the purpose of cautioning them that it is not the number of
witnesses that should control or decide this question, so momentous to the
prisoner, but it is the intelligence, the skill, the integrity, and the opportn-
nity of acquiring correct and reliable information upon the subject of his
opinion, that gives weight and value to the testimony of a witness. And if
the jury should judge of the evidence by any other rule than this, they
would do great injustice to the prisoner as well as to themselves.
And if the jury, weighing the evidence in this light, under the solemn
responsibility resting upon them, both to the people and to the prisoner at
WILLIAM r&IElfAN. 478
tlie bar,^nd the prboner was insane on the 12th day of March last, they
will render a verdict of not guilty, by reason of insanity. And if they find
that he was sane, and that.be killed John G. Van Nest, by the means laid
in the indictment, then they will find him guilty.
After the delivery of the foregoing charge, the Jury retired in charge of
sworn constables, for consultation, and upon being returned into court on
the 2Sd day of July, 1846, say they find the prisoner at the bar guilty of
THE CRIME WHEREWITH HE 8TAXD8 CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.
His Honor, the Circuit Judge, then announced that the Court would pro-
nounce sentence upon the prisoner the next morning at half past six o'clock,
to which time the Court would stand adjourned.
July, 24th, 1846, 61 o'clock, a. m.
The Court convened pursuant to adjournment. The prisoner was brought
up by the sherifi*, assisted by his deputies, to receive the sentence of the
Court for the murder.
Ailer the usual proclamation, His Honor, the Circuit Judge, proceeded
to inform (or to try to inform) the prisoner that he had been found guilty
of murder by the Jury before whom ho had been tried, and to iuquire
of him whether he had any thing to say why the sentence of the Court should
not be pronounced against him ; to all which he made no reply. His Honor
then proceeded to announce the sentence of the Court in the following words :
SENTENCE OF THE PRISONER.
When the prisoner at the bar was brought up to be arraigned, Mr. Sew-
ard in his behalf put in a plea alleging that he was then insane. To this
plea the District Attorney took issue. By law an insane man cannot be
tried ; and hence it became the duty of the Court to determine the truth of
that plea before putting the prisoner on trial upon the indictment The
jury found that the prisoner was sane. He was then arraigned upon the
indictment, and the plea " not guilty" put in ; and the trial proceeded, the re-
sult of which has been a conviction of the prisoner upon the indictment for
the murder of John G. Van Nest
The prisoner is a negro of the age of twenty-three. At the age of six-
teen he was engaged in petty thefts, and in 1840, was cdhvicted of steal-
ing a horse of Mrs. Godfrey, for which he was imprisoned five years in the
State Prison. This term of imprisonmeht expired in September, 1845,
when he was found to be deaf, and impressed with an idea that he had been
wrongfully convicted, and was entitled to compensation for his time and
labor ; and upon his discharge, he called on Mrs. Godfrey, to settle ; and on
her refusal to pay him, he applied to two magistrates for process against her.
474 tn TftiAL ov
and the other personB who had been inBtrumental in his convictioQ. Theaa
applications being refused, he appears to haye reasoned himself into a belief
that the laws of the country afforded lum no protection against oppression
and injustice.
He then prepared a butcher knife, and a club with a knife inserted in the
end, and on the night of the 12th of March last, soon after nine o'clock,
approached the house of the deceased ; there lay in wait till he saw a man,
who had passed the evening with the family, leave for his home ; and then
meeting Mrs. Van Nest, who had retired to the yard, stabbed her, so that
ahe died in a few moments ; then entered the house and stabbed Van Nest
to the heart, of which he instantly died; thrust the knife through the body
of a child, two years old, while asleep in the bed; attacked and wounded
Van Arsdale, who had retired to the chamber ; and at the door and gate
attacked and wounded Mrs. Wyckoff", the mother of Mrs. Van Nest, of
which she died on the fourteenth day of the month ; — ^thus destroying the
lives of four persons, with savage ferocity an,d cruelly, And endangering that
of the fiflh.
He then stole a horse from the stable, winch fdl with him after being
rode about two miles. He then proceeded a short distance, when lie stole
another horse, and escaped to the town of Schroeppel, in Oswego county,
where he was arrested.
In the defence of this wretched man, some of the best tident of the coun-
try has been faithfully exerted, and the attendance of medical men from
Albany and Utica, procured to testify as to his insanity. A large number
of respectable men, some of whom had known him from childhood, both in
and out of the prison, have testified that they never had discovered or sus-
pected any thing like insanity in his conduct before the murder. And after
hearing all the proof adduced to sustain his defence of insanity, at the time
of the murder, an intelligent and conscientious jury have decided that he
was not insane, but a responsible man.
In this opinion the Court unanimously concur ; so that the prisoner has
been found to have been sane when put upon his trial, and also at the
time of conunitting the murder. No serious question as to his guilt, in com-
mitting the murder, has been raised. His whole defence has rested upon his
alleged insanity. And after twenty-four men have said upon oath he is
sane, it is to be hoped that those who have heretofore doubted it, will
yield to an opinion thus carefully formed and solemnly expressed.
This degraded and ignorant felon, who has consummated his wickedness
by these atrocious murders, has had the benefit of two verdicts. Let it not
be said that the administration of justice is pwtial or predjudiced by reason
of his color, his social degradation, or his monstrous crimes. Slow and
tedious as these proceedings have been, the Court are certain that in the
minds of all reflecting men, a confidence will arise in the power of the laws
wiLiiUx f&XBusr. 476
\
to protect the rights of oor fellow citizens, and that the result will reflect
honor apon the institutions and laws of the country.
. A family of high respectability; of great moral worth ; having numerous
connections and relations ; independent in circumstances, and in the full tide
of life, have been cut off in a moment, at their own fireside, where they
reposed in security and peace, by this degraded and malicious man. Thai
the public mind was excited and the public indignation freely expressed,
was natural ; and most creditable it is to the love of order which prevails in
the community, that no violence was perpetrated upon his guilty head. All
can now see that if the guilty are lefl to the laws, there is power in Uieir
provisions, and fidelity in their execution, to protect all and any interest of
societgr.
The lessons to be drawn fix)m this tragic event are many. The moat
impressive one is, that there is a duty upon society to see to the moral cohi-
vation of the colored youth, now being educated for good or evil in the
midst of us. This is so obvious that it needs no conunent
While we give full effect to the plea of insanity as an excuse for crime,
we learn, with great satisfaction, that there is, in the common sense of the
community, inteUigence enough to discriminate between acts originating in
moral depravity and ignorance, and those which proceed from the impulse
of disease. The rule by which a man must be judged, is whether he had
knowledge of right and wrong in regard to the act for which he is on trial.
If he had, he is responsible, and is neither an idiot nor an insane man. By
ihat rule the prisoner has been tried and convicted. And whatever theories
learned men may create, there is no other which can be safely introduced
into a court qf justice.
We trust that the prisoner, during the term of life which remains to him,
wlU receive the care and instruction of good men, to enlighten his darkened
mind to a true sense of his condition, and to prepare him for the change that
awaits him. For this purpose the sheriff will no doubt admit the visits of
all such as are disposed to see him.
The judgment of the law is, that the prisoner at the bar, William Free-
man, be taken from this place to the place from whence he came, there to
remain until Friday, the eighteenth day of September next, and that on
that day, between the hours of one and four in the afternoon, he be taken
from thence to the place of execution appointed by law, and* there be
HUNG BT THE NECK UNTIL HE StLAJ^s BE DEAD.
Before the above sentence had been executed by the sheriff, the prison-
er's counsel obtained an allowance of a Writ of Error, by which the
indictment and proceedings were removed to the Supreme Court, for re-
view upon a Bill of Exceptions. The case was argued at a Term of thai
Court held by Justices Bronson, Beardsley and Jewett, at the city of Bo-
chester, in November, 1846.
476 THB TBIAL OF
The following are the Points made upon the argument of the Bill of Ex-
ceptions hy the counsel for the prisoner and the people, respectively.
POINTS MADE FOR PLAmTIFF IN ERROR.
I. The proceedings on the trial of the preliminary issue are properly
brought before the Court by this Bill of Exceptions. [11 Wend. 561 ; 16
do. 583; 3 Hill, 432; 1 Root, 551 ; Elinor, 147 ; 6 Coke, 551 ; Co. Litt
289 ; Graham, 931 to 944.]
II. The prisoner was entitled to peremptory challenges on the trial of the
preliminary issue, and therefore the decision of the Court, denying such
challenge of Ezra Stone, one of the jury sworn, was erroneous. [3 Ed. R
8. 607 ; 1 Russ. on C 13 ; Bac. Abr. 264 ; Hale P. C. 267 ; 2 Hawk. P. C.
411, and authorities cited; Coke Litt 157 ; 1 Black. 46 ; Com. Dig. 323;
2 Strange, 824.]
HI. The oath administered to the triors of the challenge of Abraham
Gutchess was erroneous and improper. [Bac. Abr. vol. 3 ; Coke Litt* 158 ;
Trials per Palg, 199 ; 3 Bl. 362.]
IV. Tlie Court erred in receiving the verdict of the triors in the case of
Ezra Stone. [1 Lord Raymond, 133, 324 ; 5 Bac. Abr. 283, 286 ; 2 Binney,
514 ; 5 Burrows, 2669 ; 1 Salk. 63 ; 2 Strange, 1083 ; Trials per Pais, 814;
12 Vesey, 445; 4 Russ. 182.]
V. The Court erred in overruling the following question put by the pri-
soner's counsel to Simon Hawes, a juror on the preliminary issue, on the
challenge for principal cause, viz : " Have you formed and expressed an
opinion that the prisoner is guilty of the murders charged against him?"
[6 Eng. Com. Law R. 491 ; Law Rep. 1846 ; 4 B. and A. 471 ; 13 State
Trials, 221, 334; Trials per Pais, 200; 1 Inst. 158; 2 Hawk. P. C. 589;
Bum's Trial, 370 ; 5 Rand. 659 ; 2 Tidd, 779 ; 7 Cranch, 295 ; 14 Wend.
131 ; 1 Denio, 282.]
VL The charge of the Court to the triors on the qualification of Simon
Hawes, that a fixed and deliberate opinion that the prisoner was guilty of
the crime charged did not dis(|ualify him from sitting as a juror, on the pre-
liminary issue, was erroneous.
VII. The Court erred in refusing to instruct the triors of the qualifica-
tions of I|enry Acker, that the oath they had taken meant absolute indiffer-
encc between the parties, and not merely indifference as to the preliminary
issue then on trial ; and that if they should find the juror not indifrerent as
to the question of murder, then he was not indifferent as to that issue. [3
Bac. Abr. 259 ; 7 Cow. 122 ; 15 John. 177.]
VIII. The Court unlawfully instructed, on Sunday, the jury who had
charge of the preliminary issue. [1 R. S. 275 ; 12 John. 178 ; 15 do. 119,
277 ; 20 do. 140 ; 3 Burrows, 1597 ; 9 Coke, 6G ; Cro. Jac. 80, 496 ; Hale,
P. C.45.]
WILUAM FBBEUAN. 477
IX. The Court erred in charging the jury on the preliminary issue. Ut,
As to what is evidence of sanity ; 2d, As to what constitutes sanity. [Ray,
27; Coll. on Lunacy, 476 to 686 ; Trial of Abner Rogers, 276 ; 2 Green.
«01 ; 1 Nott and McCord, 191 ; 4 Hawk. 292 ; 19 State Trials, 947.]
X. The verdict' on the preliminary issue was bad. Ist, It was not ex-
press and certain ; 2d, It was argumentative ; 3d, It did not cover the
whole issue. [2 R. S. 697 ; 12 Vesey, 445; 7 Paige, 238.]
XI. The Court erred in overruling the plea that John OHara,a brother-
in-law of Van Nest, was a Grand Juror. [Burr's Trial; 3 Wend. 824.]
XII. The Court erred in overruling the demurrer to the plea to the chal-
lenge to the array, on the ground of the discharge of Richard Searing. [1
R. L. 335 ; Notes of Revisers 3 R. S. 848 ; 13 Wend. 354 ; Trials per Pais,
167 ; 3 Wend. 434 ; 1 Littell, 202 ; Burr's Trial, 366, 422.]
XIII. An erroneous decision of the Court overruling a challenge for prin-
cipal cause, b an error available to the defendant, although the juror was
afterwards excluded by a peremptory challenge. [2 Virginia Cases, 297; 1
Denio, 281.]
XIV. The Court erred in disallowing the challenge for principal cause to
James Amerman. [7 Cowen R. 121 ; 4 Wend. 229.]
XV. The Judge erred in his instructions to the triors on the challenge to
Argalos Taylor.
XVI. The Court erred in overruling the objection to drawing from the
jury box when there were less than twenty-four ballots in tlje box. [8 Hill,
432 ; R. S. and Notes.]
XVII. The Court erred in overruling the challenge for principal cause
to Benjamin Beach, and in their charge to the triors in the case of Benja-
min Beach.
XVIII. The Court erred in overruling the following question, put to the
juror, Henry Chadderton, viz : " Have you any opinion upon any subject
which would weigh against evidence ?"
XIX. The Court erred in overruling the challenge for principal caase to
Henry Chadderton.
XX. The Court erred in overruling the challenge for principal cause to
Isaac S. Johnson.
XXI. The Court erred in their instructions to the triors on the challenge
to Isaac S. Johnson, that an opinion on the prisoner's sanity wa^ not a dis-
qualification.
XXII. The Court erred in disallowing the challenge for prinicipal cause
to John Jones, in their instructions to the triors in the case of John Jones,
and in refusing to charge in that case as requested by the prisoner's counsel.
XXni. The Court erred in permitting to be put to James E. Tyler the
following question, viz : " When you questioned him in the jail, were his
answers pertinent and appropriate ?"
XXIV. The Court erred in permitting to be put to the witness, James
478 tm TUAL OF
£. Tyler, the following question viz: " Have jon seen a namber of insane
men in the prison, and did you hare any difficulty in detecting insanity ?"
XXV. The Court erred in overrulii^ the following questions to the
witness, Ethan A. Warden viz : Ist, " Did you say to yourself, then, * What
has oome over Bill 7' " 2d, ** Did you mention that to your fannly at the
time ?*' 8d, ** Did you then think there was a change in his appearance ?"
[1 Phil. Ky. Cow. and Hill's Notes, 259, 260.
XXVL The Court erred in overruling the following questions to Theron
Green, a witness for the defendant: 1st, ** Why did you not report lum ?
Was it because you thought him irresponsible V** 2d, '*Why did you not
flog him?"
XXVII. The Court erred in excluding testimony by Doctor Van £ppi|
Doctor Hun and Doctor McNanghton, of facts showing the prisoner's i
ity since the sixth day of July.
WuxiAM H. Seward and David Wbzobt for prisoner.
POINTS MADE FOR DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.
L The Preliminary proceeding to. test the prisoner's sanity cannot be
reviewed on a Bill of Exceptions. [1 Hale, 83-5-^ ; Trials pr. Pais, 14 ; O.
B. 1783, No. 4 ; 8 Bac. Abr. 81 ; Foster, 46 ; Kel. 13 ; 1 Lev. 61 ; 1 Sid.
72 ; 1 Hawk. P. C. ch. 1 § 4, n. 6.]
II. The several rulings and decisions of the Court in the preliminaiy
trial were correct, and the verdict of the jury is one of sanity, in the very
language of die law. [1 Rnss. on Cr., p. 8 to 12 ; the answers of the fif-
teen judges to questions suggested by the trial of McNaughton — Guy,
331.]
IIL No juror was allowed to sit on the trial of the cause to whom piisoaer
objected, except Beach. The charge in Beach's case is correct, and then
is no distinct or specific exception to any part of it
IV. The testimony of Van Epps, Hun and McNaughton, which was
offered and rejected, was irrelevant; at most, it was discretionary with the
Court to receive it That discretion was wisely exercised, and is not sub*
ject to exception. Testimony of a more dangerous character cannot well
be imagined, and the reception of it would render a defence intemunable.
[Rex. vs. Lord Ferrers, 19 St Trials (Howell) 947 ; Collison, 477 ; do. 678 ;
da 636 ; do. 480; Arch, Cr. PI. 14 ; Dickinson vs* Barber, 9 Mass. 225;
Guy, 382.]
John Van Burgn and Luman Srbrwood for the people.
The ailments of counsel before the Supreme Court cannot be reported.
The questions discussed and decided are fully indicated in the points herein
WILUAM WMMBUJX. 479
before stated, and in the opinion of that tribunal delirered on granting the
motion for a new triaL
. OPINION OF SUPREME COU&T-.BBiLB08LBT, J.
The prisoner was tried at a Court of Oyer and Terminer, held for the
county of Cayuga, and found guilty of the crime of murder ; and upon which
rerdict sentence of death was pronounced. In the course of the trials, pre-
liminary and final, a multitude of exceptions were taken by the prisoner's
counsel, which, with the record of the conviction and sentence, have been
brought into this Court by writ of error. These exceptions, or such of them
as the counsel for the prisoner supposed to be available, were argued at the
last term of this Cpurt, and having since been examined and considered,
with care and deliberation, I am now prepared to dispose of them, by ren-
dering judgment on the case before us.
When the prisoner was brought before the court of Oyer and Terminer,
to be arraigned on the indictment, a plea that he was then insane was inter-
posed by counsel on his behalf, which being denied by the public prosecutor,
a jury was empannelled, to try the issue so joined. On the trial of this
issue, various objections were made and exceptions taken, by the prisoner's
counsel ; and the first question to be decided is, whether these exceptions
can be re-examined on a wnt of error. The statute declares that " no in-
sane person can be tried, sentenced to any punishment, or punished for any
crime or offence, while he continues in that state." [2 R. S. 697. § 2.]
This, although new, as a Legislative enactment in this State, [3 Id. 832,] was
not introductory of a new rule, for it is in strict conformity with the com-
mon law on this subject '* If a man," says Sir Wm. Blackstone, *' in hia
sound memory, commits a capital offence, and before arraignment for it he
becomes mad, he ought not to be arraigned for it, — ^because he b not able
to plead to it with that advice and caution that he ought And if, after ho
has pleaded, the prisoner becomes mad, he shall not bo tried : for how can
he make his defence ? If, after he be tried and found guilty, he loses hia
senses before judgment, judgment shall not be pronounced ; and if, after
judgment, he becomes of non-sane memory, execution shall be stayed: for
peradventure, says the humanity of the English law, had the prisoner been
of sound mind, he might have alleged something in stay of judgment or ex-
ecution. Indeed," it is added, " in the bloody reign of Henry the Eighth, •
statute was made, which enacted that if a person, being compos TnentiSf
should commit high treason, and after fall into madness, he might be tried
in his absence, and should suffer death, as if he were of perfect memory.
But this savage and inhuman law was repealed by the statute of 1 and 2 Ph.
and M., C. 10. For as b observed by Sir Edward Coke, * the execution of
480 THB TBI4L OB
an offender Is for example, ut poena ad paucosr melus ad omnes perveniat*
Bat so it is not, when a madman is executed ; but should be a miserable
spectacle, both against law, and of extreme inhumanity and cruelty, and can
be no example to others." [4 Bl. Comm. 24.] The true reason why an
insane person should not be tried is, that he is disabled by an act of God to
make a just defence, if he have one. As is said in 4 Ilarg. State Trials,
205. " There may be circumstances lying in his private knowledge, which
would prove his innoceucy, of which he can take no advantage, because not
known to the persons who shall take upon them his defence." The most
distinguished writers on criminal jurisprudence concur in these humane
views ; and all agree, that no person in a state of insanity should ever be
put upon his trial for an alleged crime, or be made to suffer the judgment
of the law. A madman cannot make a rational defence ; and as to punish-
ment, furiosus solo furore punitur, [Hale P. C. 34, 35 ; 4 Bl. Comm. 395-6 ;
1 Ch. C. L. Ed. 1841, p. 761 ; 1 Russ. on Crimes, Ed. 1845, p. 14 ; Shelf,
on Lunacy, 467-8: Stock, on Non Com, 35-6.]
The statute is explicit, that " no insane person can be tried ;" but it docs
not state in what manner the fact of insanity shall be ascertidned. That is
lefl as at common law ; and although in the discretion of the court, other
modes than that of a trial by jury may be resorted to, still, in important
cases, that is regarded as the most discreet and proper course to be adopted.
[See the authorities last referred to ; also, 1 Hawk P. C, by Carwood, page
3 and note : Steph. C. L. 3, 4, 280, 334.]
At Common Law the only regular mode of redress for errors occurring
on criminal trials, was by motion for a new trial in the court where the trial
was had, unless the error was in some matter which formed a part of the
record, when it might be reviewed after judgment by writ of error. Bills
of exceptions, by which questions of law, made and decided on such trials,
may be brought up and i*eviewed in higher courts, were unknown to the
Common Law, although now allowed by a statute of this State. But the
statute b limited to exceptions taken on the trial of the main issue, and does
not reach such as are made on the trial of a preliminary or collateral ques-
tion. The words are, " on the trial of any indictment, exceptions to any
decision of the court may be made by the defendant in the same cases and
manner provided by law in civil cases.** [2 R. S. 736, §21 : see also S Id.,
849.] A trial of the question of present insanity is not a trial of the indict-
mentj but is preliminary to such trial. The object in a case situated as thb
was, is simply to determine whether the person charged with an offence and
alleged to be insane, shall be required to plead and proceed to the trial of
the main issue of guilty or not guilty. The statute does not authorise ex-
ceptions to be taken on such preliminary trial ; and if errors occur, they
must be corrected, if at all, as at Common Law, by the court which committed
them. For this reason none of the exceptions taken by the prisoner's
counsel, on the trial of the preliminary issue in this case, can be regarded
WILLIAM FRMIfAN. 481
as regularly before as ; nor could they, if held to be well taken, constitute
a ground for reversing the judgment of the court below. This part of the
case might here be dismissed ; but I choose not to do so, lest an implication
should arise that, in the opinion of this court, the preliminary trial was con*
ducted throughout with regularity, and according to law.
On the preliminary trial the counsel for the prisoner claimed the right to
challenge jurors peremptorily, as it is conceded to exist on the trial of the
main issue. This the court refused to allow — and it seems to me correctly.
Peremptory challenges are allowed in favorem tfitcs, and at Common Law
are restricted to the main issue, in which the iife of the party is in jeopardy,
and cannot be made on the trial of any collateral issues whatever. [2 Hale,
P. C. 267, chap. 85; Bac. Abr. Juries, E. 9; Foster, C. L., 42; 4BL Com.
868, 896 ; Co. Litt 156 b. ; The King v. Radcliffe, 1 W. Bl. Rep. 8-6.] To
the like effect is the statute which secures to " every person arraigned and
put on his trial for any offence punishable with death, or with imprisonment
in a State Prison ten years or any longer time," the right ** peremptorily to
challenge twenty of the persons drawn as jurors for such trial." [2 R. S.
784, §9.] This preliminary trial was not a "trial for any offence" what-
ever— ^and there was no error in refusing to allow peremptory challenges to
be made. Challenges for cause are allowable on the trial of preliminary as
well as final issues. This was conceded; and several of this description
were interposed on behalf of the prisoner. I pass by these without particu-
lar examination, as this class of challenges will again be presented for con-
sideration before the case is closed, when such suggestions will be made as
are deemied pertinent to this as well as other parts of this case*
An objection was made to the oath as administered to some of the triors
of challenges to jurors drawn for this preliminary trial The oath was thus :
"You do solemnly swear that you wili well and. truly try, and well and
truly find whether the juror is indifferent between the people of the State
of New York, and the prisoner at the bar, upon the issue 'joined." This
form of oath was not administered in every instance, the qualification at its
dose made by the words " upon the issue joined" being sometimes omitted,
as it should have been throughout The oath, as given in books of approved
credit and authority, contains no such limitation — ^bnt requires the triors to
find whether the juror is or is not indifferent between the parties to the
controversy. [Tr. pr. Pais, 206 ; 1 Ch. C. L. 649 ; Bac. Abr. Juries E. 12,
note; 1 Cow. 441, note ; 1 Salk. 162.] And jurors should be so. It is not
enough that they are indifferent upon the particular issue to be tried. An
actual and thorough impartiality in regard to the parties is required^ for no
one who labors under prejudice, malice or ill-will towardfl< another, can be
in a fit frame of mind to act impartially where his rijghts are in question. In
Brittain v. Allen [2 Dev. 120] the defendant challenged a juror for canse^
to wit: hostility between the jnror and party ehallenging. The challenge
was overruled, and the juror was sworn. On a motion for a new trial, Hen-
Si
482 THB TBIAL OV
denon, Ch. J. laid : ^ It seeniB that the judge disregarded aH kinds of hos-
tUity but that which related to the pcartieular suit t&en to he tried, I think
that the law b otherwise. The juror should be perfectly in^Mrtial and in-
different Causes apparently xery slight are good causes of challenge ; and
that which is good cause lor quashing the array, is good cause of challenge
to the poUs. I mention this, as most, at least many, <d the cases are chal-
lenges to the array. If the sheriff be liable to the distress of either party,
or if he be-his servant or counsellor, or if he has been god-£atiier to a ch3d
of either of the parties or either of them to his, or if an actbn which implies
malice, as assault and battery^ slander, or the like, is depending between
them— these all are causes cf principal challenges. [Bac Abr. Juries F. 1.]
From these eases, particularly the one which states a suit pending which
implies malice, it appears that general hostility — ^by which I mean that
which ia not confined to the particular suit — is ground of challenge. From
these causes the law of itself implies a want of indifference, which the defen-
dant offered to show. I think he ought to have been peimitted to do so,
and if he succeeded, that the juror shoukl not hare been sworn. For this
eanse, and for thb only, there should be a new triaL" & in the case at
bar, the oadi only required the triors to find indifference between the par-
tMs, ** upon the issue" then to be decided. In other respects, if the clanse
is susceptible of any meaning, the juror, although a sworn enemy of the
prisoner, might still be foifnd by the triors to be a competent and proper
person to pass upon the question then to be decided. This would be intol-
erable ; and an oath which requires or will admit of such a construction,
cannot be correct There b no precedent lor one in &b form, as will be
seen from looking at the authorities already referred to. At the rery best,
the clanse objected to b unmeaning, or ambiguous. But an oath diould be
plain, ezpfidt, and free from all aml4guity . If thb clanse does not necessa-
rily affix an improper limitation to the obligation which the law seeks to
east upon ihe trior by the oath adnunistcred to him, it b tery HaUe so to be
constraed and understood as to have that effect
In charging the jury on the preliminary issue, whidi we hare seen was on
the fhct of present insanity, the court said: ^Themainqnestion with tiie jury
was to decide whedier the prisoner knew right from wrong. If he did, then
he was to be considered sane." The statute before cited b emphatic, that
*' no insane person can be tried.** In its tenns the prohibition b broad
enough to reach eveiy possible state of insanily, so that if the words are to
ba taken literally, no person, while kboriog under insanily in any fyaa^
hcnreTer partial and limited it may be, can be put upon hb triaL But thb
the Legidatmre codd not hare intended, for, althoi^h a person totally be-
velt of reason cannot be a fit subject for trial or punishment, it by nomeaaa
foUowB that one whose insani^ b limited to some paxticular olgect or con-
eeit, hb mind In oUwr respects being free from ^Ksoase, can justly claim tha
lilm exemption. ThiM dauaeof the statute fhodUl receive a neasondble in-
WILUAM TSEIMAJI.
terpretatioa, avoidiiig on the one hand what would tend to gire impnnkj to
crime, and on the other seeking to attain the humane object of the Legial»-
tore in its enaetment. The Common Law, equally with this statute, forbids
the trial of any person in a state of insanity. This is clearly shown l^ an*
thorities which have been referred to, and which also show the reason for
the rule, to wit : the incapacity of one who is insane to make a ration^ de*
fence. The statute is in affirmanee of this Ckmimon Law principle, and the
reason on which the rule rests, furnishes a key to the intention of the Le-
gislatiue. If, therefore, a person arraigned for a crime, is capable of under-
standing the nature and object of the proceedings going on against him — if
he rightly comprehends his own condition in reference to such proceedings,
and can conduct his defence in a rational manner — he is, for the purpose of
being tried, to be deemed sane, although on spme other subjects has mind
may be deranged, or unsound. This is, as it seems to me, the true meaning
of the statute, and such is the construction pnt, by the English courts, on a
similar clause in an act of Parliament By the 89 and 40 Geo. S, ch. 94,
sec. 2,' it is enacted that ^ if any person indicted for any offence, shall be in-
sane, and shall upon arraignment be found so to be by a jury lawfn% lom*
pannelled for that purpose, so that sudi penon cannot be tried upon sack
indictment"—*^ it shidl be lawful for the court before whom any such pewflDU
shall be brought to be arraigned" — ^^ to direct such finding to be recorded,
and thereupon to order .such person to be kept in strict custody till l^is Ma-
jesty's pleasure shall be known." [1 Russ. on Cr. 15.] The question npon
this statute is the same as upon ours ; that iff — Is the alleged offender insane ?
Bussel says, (p. 15) : *^1£a prisoner have not at the time of his trial, from the
defect of his faculties, sufficient intelligence to understand the nature of the
proceedings against him, the jury ought to find that he b not sane-Hud up-
on such finding he may be ordered to be kept in custody, under tfak act."
For this he refers to thn can of Rex t. Dyson, (7 C. and P. SOd^-samecase
1 Lewin C. C. 64,) before^ Mr. Justice J. Fai^e, in 1^31. In that case the
priaoner was indicted for murder, and on being arraigned, stood mute. A
jury was then empaanelled to try whether she did so by malice or by tho
yisitation of God— «nd they found Ae did so by the yisitation of God. The
judges thereupon examined on oath a witness who was aoquiunted with the
priaoner, and who swore that she oocdd be made to understand some thii^
by signs, and could give her answers by signs. The witness was then swefm
to intMpret and make known to the priaoner the indictment and charge
against her; and to the eourt, her plea and answer thereto. The witMst
explained to her fay rigns what she was charged with, and she made s^;na
whidi impoited a denial of tlie charge : whereapon the jndge directed a |rfea
of not guilty to be recorded. The witness, by direction of the court, ti&en
stited to her that die w«i to be tried by a jury, and that she might oljjoet
to SBch as she pleased. Bnt he testified that it was impossible to make her
comprehend a matter of that nature, although she might understand sub-
484 THB TBIAL Of
jects of daily occurrence which she had been in the halnt of seeing. A jury
was thereupon '* empanelled and sworn to try whether she was sane or notH
— and proof was given of '* her incapacity at that time to understand the
mode of her trial, or to conduct her defence." ^ The jndge *' told the jury
that if the prisoner had not then, from the defect of her faculties, intelligence
enough to understand the nature of the proceedings against her, they ought
to find her not sane." The jury so found — ^and the prisoner was detained in
close custody as the statute directs. A similar case occurred in 183 6, which
was disposed of in the same way. Alderson, B. said to the jury — ^" the ques-
tion is, whether the prisoner has sufficient understanding to comprehend the
nature of this trial, so as to make a proper defence to the charge." [Bex r.
Fritchard, 7 C. and P. 303.] Both these prisoners had been at all times
deaf and dumb. In presumption of law such persons are always idiots or
madmen, although it may be shown that they have the use of understand-
ing, and are capable of committing crimes, for which, in that event, they
should to be punished. [Russ. on C. 6 ; Shelf, on Lunacy 3.]
In the case of Queen ▼ Goode, [7 A. &£. 536,] which occurred in 1837,
the prisoner was brought into the court of Queen's Bench, and arraigned on
an iui&tnient for a misdemeanor. As he showed clear symptoms of ins»-
mtjf a jury was immediately empanelled to try whether he was then insane
or not; and upon eridence pven, as well as upon his appearance in court,
the jury found that he was insane. The prisoner was thereupon detained
in custody under the statute.
In Ley's case, [1 Lewin, C. C. 239,] on tiie trial of a rimilar question,
Hullock, B. said to the jury : '* If there be a doubt as to the prisoner's sanity
— «nd the surgeon says it is doubtful — ^you cannot say that he is in a fit state
to be put upon his trial."
The course of Common Law was much the same. In Firth's case, [22
How. State Tr. 307—318,] which preceded the act of 1839 and 1^0, Gea
3y to which reference has been made, the prisoner was arraigned for high
treasoS, and a juiy sworn to inquire whether he was of sound mind and un-
derstanding or not Lord Kenyon, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, pre-
sided at the trial, assisted by one of the barons of the Court of Exchequer,
and one of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas. It was obeerred by
the court to the jury, that the inquiry was not whether the prisoner was in-
sane when the alleged crime was committed, nor was it necessary to inquire
at all what effect his present state of mind might have, when that question
came to be discussed. But the humanity of the law of England had pre-
soribed that no man should be called upon to make lus defence at a time
when his mind was in such a situation that he appeared incapable of doing
so; that however guilty he might be, the trial must be pos^Kined to a time
when, by collecting together his intellects, and having Ihem entire, he should
be able so to model his defence, if he had one, as to ward off the punishment
WlLLlAlf FBBUAK. 485
of the law ; and it was for the jary to determine whether the prisoner was
then in that state of mind. [Shelf. 468.]
With these lights before us, the construction of the statute which forbids
the trial of any insane person, cannot be attended with much difficulty. A
state of general insanity, the mental powers being wholly perverted or ob-
literated, would necessarily preclude the trial, for a being in that deplorable
condition can make no defence whatever. Not so, however, where disease
is partial, and confined to some subject other than the imputed crime and
contemplated trial. A person in this condition may be fully competent to
understand his situation in respect to the alleged offence, and to conduct his
defence with discretion and reason. Of this the jury must judge ; and they
should be instructed that if such should be found to be the case, it will be
their duty to pronounce him sane. In the case at bar, the court professed
to furnish a single criterion of sanity, that is, a capacity to distinguish be-
^tween right and wrong. This, as a test of insanity, is by no means invariably
correct ; for while a person has a very just perception of the moral qualities
<ii both actions, he may at the same time, as to some one in particular, be
absolutely insajie, and consequently, as to this, be incapable of judging ac-
curately between right and wrong. If the delusion extends to the alleged
crime or the contemplated trial, the party manifestly is not in a fit condition
to make his defence, however sound his mind may, in other respects, be.
Still, the insanity of such a person being only partial, not general, a jury un-
der a charge like that given in this case, might find the prisoner sane ; £or
in most respects he would be capable of distinguishing between right and
wrong. Had the instructions been that the prisoner was to be deemed sanoi
if he had a knowledge of right and wrong in respect to the crime with which
he stood charged, there would have been but little fear that the jury could
be misled ; for a person who justly apprehends the nature of a charge made
against him, can hardly be supposed incapable of defending himself in regard
to it, in a rational way. At the same time, it would be well to impress dis-
tinctly on the minds of jurors, that they are to guage the mental capacity of
the prisoner in order to determine whether he is so far sane as to be compe-
tent in mind to make his defence, if he have one ; for unless his faculties are
equal to that task, he is not in a fit condition to be put on his trial. For tht
purpose of such a question the law regards a person thus disabled by disease
as non compos mentis^ and he should be pronounced unhesitatingly to be in-
sane, within the true intent and meaning of this statute. Where insanity is
interposed as a defence to an indictment for an alleged crime, the inquiry is
always brought down to the single question of capacity to distinguish be-
tween right and wrong at the time when the act was done. In such cases
the jury should be instructed that ** it must be clearly proved that at the
time of committing the act the party accused was laboring under snch a de-
fect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and qua-
486 THl TRIAL Of
lltj of Uie act he was doing— or if he did know it, that he did not know he
was doing wrong,** The mode of putting the ktter part of the question to
the jury on these occasions, has generally been, whether the acoised, at the
time of doing the act, knew the difference between right and wrong ; which
mode, though rarely, if ever, leading to any mistake with th^ jury, is not
deemed so accurate when put generally and in the abstract, aa when pat
with reference to the party's knowledge of right and wrong in respect to the
very act with which he is charged." (2 Greenl. £v. § 373.) This is the
rule liud down by all the English Judges but one, in the laite case of Mc-
Naaghton, while pending in the House of Lords. The case is reported in 10
Clark & Fin. 200, and the opinion of the judges may be found in a note to
the section <^ Green. £v. referred to. In Rex v. Oxford, (9 C. & P. 525,)
Lord Denman, Ch. J. charged the jury in this manner : "• The question is,
whether the prisoner was laboring under that species of insanity which sat-
isfies you that he was quite unaware of the nature, character, and conse-
quences of the act he was committing, or in other words, whether he was un-
der the influence of a diseased mind, and was really unconscious, at the
time he was committing the act, that it was a crime." The u^isanity must be
tach as to deprive the party charged with crime, of the use of reason in re*
gard to the act done. He may be deranged on other subjects, but if capsr
ble of distinguishing between right and wrong in the particular act done by
him, he is justly liaUe to be punished as a criminal
Such is the undoubted rule of the Common Law on this subject Partial
insanity is not necessarily an excuse for crime ; and can only be so where
it deprives the person of his reascm in regard to the act charged to be eri-
minaL Kor in my judgment was the statute on this subject intended to
abrogate or qualify the Common Law rule.. The words of the statute are,
** No act done by a person in a state of insanity can be punished as an of- ^
fence." (2 R. S. 697 § 2.) The clause is very comprehensive in its terms,
and at first blush might seem to exempt from punishment every act done by
a person who is insane upon any subject whcUever. This would, indeed, be
« mighty change in the law, as it would afford absolute impunity to every
person in an insane state, although his disease might be confined to a single
ttad isolated subject If this is the meaning of the statute, jurors are no lon-
ger to inquire whether the party was insane " in respect to the veiy act
with which he is charged," but whether he was insane in regard to any act
or subject whatever ; and if they find such to have been his condition, ren-
der a verdict of not guilty. But the statute is not so understood by me. I
interpret it as I should have done if the words had been ** no act done by a
person in a state of insanity," in respect to such act, " can be punished as an
offence." The act, in my judgment, must be an insane act^ and not merely
the act of an insane person. This was plainly the rule of Uw before the
statute was passed; and although that took place more than sixteen yean
since, I am not aware that it has at any time been held or intimated by any
WILLIAM VRMBIAK. 487
jwticial tribonal, that the sUtote bad abrogated, or in any respect mddified,
this principle of the Common Law.
But to return to the trial of the preliminary question in the present case.
The jury (bund, not as the istae required them to do, that the prisoner was
or was not insane—bnt that he was " sufficiendy sane, in mind and memory,
tq distinguish between right and wrong/' This Terdict was defective. It
did not directly find any thing, and certainly not the point in issue ; but
eraded it by an argumentatiYe finding. At the utmost, the jury only made
an approach towards the point to be decided, but failed to reach it They
should have been required to pass directly on the question of insanity, and
should not have been allowed to evade it by an argumentative verdict of
any sort Such a finding as this would be objectionable in a civil proceed*
ing, and an a crinunal case should not be allowed. [In the matter of Morgan,
a lunatic, 7 Paige, 286.]
The preliminary trial being closed, a plea of not guilty was entered for
tlie prisoner ; and the court proceeded to the trial of the main issue. Nu-
merous objections were taken in the course of the trial by the counsel for
the prisoner, most of which were obviously not well founded, and were pro-
perly overruled by the court I shall notice but four of the points excepted
to, as it is deemed unnecessary to give to each of them a separate examina-
tion.
Several persons, drawn as jurors, were in the first place challenged for
principal cause, by the counsel for the prisoner ; but the court held that
these challenges were not sustained by the evidence adduced in their sup-
port Challe&ges to the favor were then interposed; but the jurors were
found by the triors to be indifferent Various exceptions were taken by the
prisoner's counsel to points made and decided in disposing of these challen-
ges ; and although the several jurors thus challenged were ultimately exclu-
ded by the peremptory challenge of the prisoner, it is now urged that these
exceptions are stiU open to examination and review in this court I think
otherwise. The prisoner had the power and the right to use his peremptory
challenges as he pleased ; and the court cannot judicially know for what
cause or with what design he resorted to them. [The People vs. Bodine, 1
Denio, 810.]
He was free to use or not use them, as he thought proper ; but having re-
sorted to them, they must be followed out to all their legitimate consequen-
ces. Had he omitted to make peremptory challenges, his exceptions grow-
ing out of the various challenges for cause would have been regularly here
for revision. But he chose, by his own voluntary act, to exclude these ju-
rors ; and thus virtually, and, as I think, effectually, blotted out all such er-
rors, if any, as had previously occurred in regard to them. But the case of
the juror Beach stends on other grounds. He was first challenged, as is said,
for principal cause ; which, after evidence had been given, was overruled by
the court He was then challenged to the favor ; but the triors found him
488 THS TRIAL OF
to be indifTerent. No peremptoiT' challenge was made, and he served as one
of the jury. As to this juror, every exception taken by the prisoner's coun-
sel is now here for examination and revision.
When a juror is challenged for principal cause or to the favor, the ground
of the challenge should be distinctly stated ; for without this the challenge is
incomplete, and may be wholly disregarded by the court It is not enou^
to say, I challenge for principal cause, or to the favor, and stop there. The
cause of the challenge must be specified. In Mann vs. Glovier. (2 Green. R.
195,) the Court say : " A party cannot make a principal challenge or a chal-
lenge to the favor by giving it a name. A challenge, whether in writing or
by parol, must be in such terms that the court can see in the first place whe-
ther it is for principal cause or to the favor, and so determine by what form
it is to be tried ; and secondly, whether the facts, if true, are sufficient to
support such challenge." Again, the challenger must " state why the juror
does not stand indifferent. He must state some facts or circumstances which,
if true, will show either that the juror is positively and legally disqualified,
or create a suspicion that he is not or may not be impartial. In the former
case the challenge would be a principal one, triable by the court — ^in the
latter it would be to the favor, and submitted to triors."
These views are sound and appropriate, and their observance would
greatly promote order and convenience in the determination of challenges.
I am aware that challenges are not unfrequently made in general terms,
which merely indicate the supposed character of the challenge, as for prin-
cipal cause or to ihe favor, bu|| without designating the particular grounds
by which, if at all, it must be sustained. In this posture of the question, as
far as a question can be said to have been made, the parties proceed to the
examination of witnesses before the court, or triors, as the case may be. No
issue has been joined, and no matter of fact alleged by either party. What
is to be tried ? It can hardly be determined in such a state of things, whe-
ther the question is one of fact or of law, and the proceeding is obviously in-
convenient and irregular. Challenges for principal cause may become part
and parcel of the record, and should, therefore, be made in due form. Tliey
may be demurred to, and unless some cause, suflicient of itself to raise the
legal presumption of unindifTerence, is alleged, the challenge must, of course,
be overruled. But the opposite party is not bound to demur. He may take
issue on the facts stated as ground for the challenge, or may counterplead new
matter in evidence. Thus an issue of fact may be joined, which must be
decided on the evidence to be adduced by the respective parties. By pur-
suing the orderly mode of requiring the challenger to specify the grounds
of his challenge, and the opposite party to demur, take issue, or counter-
plead, questions of law and fact will be kept distinct ; and, as I apprehend,
the convenience of the parties, as well as that of the court, will be greatly
promoted. The case of Mann vs. Glover has not been referred to as con-
taining any new doctrine, but because it presents a terse summary of the
WILUAM lADOIAN. 489
law on this subject All challenges, except such as may be made peremp-
torily, axe for cause; and unless some cause is stated by the challenger, the
objection cannot justly be called a challenge, nor should it be regarded as
such.
The bin of exceptions does not show in terms what cause of challenge was
alleged against the juror Beach. It is only said he was challenged !^ for
principal cause." But from the scope and character of the evidence given
to maintain the challenge, the inference is plain that it was alleged the ju-
ror had formed and expressed an opinion that the prisoner was guilty of the
crime for which he stood indicted. This was good cause of principal chal-
lenge, as has repeatedly been held by this Court. [Exparte Vermilyea, 6
Cow. 555 ; 7 Id. 108 ; The People vs. Mather, 4 Wend. 229 ; see also Mann
vs. Glover, supra; The State vs. Benton, 2 Dev. & B. 196 ; Irvine v.Kean,
14 S. & R. 292 ; The Commonwealth if. Lcsher, 1 7 Id. 155.] We mustthen
understand this cause of challenge to have been alleged ; and as evidence
was gone into, the fact must have been expressly or virtually denied by the
public prosecutor. An issue was thus joined to be tried by the court ; and
if the fact alleged was found to be true, the juror was necessarily excluded.
Every challenge for principal cause, must be for some matter which imports
absolute bias or favor, and leaves nothing for the discretion of the court The
truth of the fact alleged, and that alone, is in question. Its sufficiency as
ground of challenge is conceded by omitting to demur and taking issue on
the fact It is otherwise on a challenge to the favor. That must be deter-
mined by triors, who are to pass upon the question of actual bias or favor.
They are final judges upon the matter submitted to them, and from their
decision, when properly instructed, the law has provided no appeal.
The challenge of the juror Beach, for principal cause, was not, in my
opinion, sustuned by the evidence, and was correctly overruled. He had
only an'impression that the prisoner was guilty, but nothing which deserved
to be called an absolute opinion. He had doubts of the pxisoner's guilt, and
as far as any opinion had been formed, it was contingent and hypothetical.
Such impressions or opinions fall short of what is required to maintain a
challenge for principal cause. [The People v. Bodine, 1 Denio, 281-806 ;
The People vs. Mather, 4 Wend. 243 and cases there cited ; Mann v. Glover,
supra; Irvine v. Lumberman's Bank, 2 W. & S. 190, 202.]
The challenge for principal cause having been overruled, or in other
words found not to be sustained by the evidence given in its support, this
juror was challenged to the favor ; and the question of his indifierence was
submitted to triors on the same evidence which had been given to the
court, on the trial of the challenge for principal cause. As the bill of ex-
ceptions states, the court charged the triors the same as in the case of the
juror Taylor, to which charge, and every part and portion thereof, the coun-
sel for the prisoner excepted.
In the case of the juror Taylor, evidence was given tending to show that
490 TOM TBiAJL or
he liad decided impresnons against the prisoner, and a prettj strong belief
of his guilt ; and in the case of Beach the evidence, although less decisive,
was of the same character. The court charged the triors in the case of the
juror Taylor, among other things, that the resort to the triors hy the priso-
ner's counsel was in the nature of an appeal from the opinion of the court
(m the facts, and that a hypothetical opinion formed hj the juror did not
diaquidify him. These points were distinctly stated in the charge, and as it
seems to me are plainly reached by the exception as taken. The charge
embraced several distinct propositions, amongst which were those I have
stated ; and although a separate and formal exception was not pomted at
each of these positions as laid down by the court, the exception as taken,
was in my opinion fully sufficient to apprise the court and the counsel of
what was intended. In terms, the exception extended to ^* every part" and
^ portion** of the charge, which would seem to be sufficient to reach eveiy
distinct position of law which had .been laid down by the court At all
events, in a capital case, where it b obvious that the court regarded the ex-
ception as stated fully sufficient for the occaaon, I do not feel at liberty to
overlook it as deficient in the requisite degree of certainty.
Then, as to the legal positions laid down by the court, and which have
been already stated, it seems to me they cannot be maintained. I wonld
not be understood to hold that a hypothetical opinion necessarily disqualifies
m juior. It clearly does not If such vrere its effect^ it would uphold a ckal-
lenge for principal cause, which it will not Still, it is some evidence of Uas,
and upon which triors in their discretion may set a juror aside. [The Peo-
ple V. Bodine, supra,'] The court should not instruct them as matter of law,
as was done in this case, that such an opinion does not disqualify a juror,
for this, in effect, is charging them that he cannot be set aside on that ground.
If the triors find that bias actually exists in the mind of the juror, although it
is proved only by the formation of a. hypothetical opinion, they may and ought
to reject him. Some minds are so constituted that such an opinion would
exert a controlling influence in the jury box, whUe with others, its influence
wonld be neither seen nor felt All this is to be considered and passed upon
by the triors. No rule cim be laid down which will enable them in every
case to determine with unerring certainty that the juror is or is not indif-
ferent between the parties. It is not a question to be solved by a rule of
law, but by the common sense of the triors, and if this has fair play, the dif-
ficulty will rarely be found very great The triors must find that the juror
stands impartial and indifferent, or they should reject him. It is the pro-
vince of the court to say what evidence is admissible on the question of
indifference ; but its strength and influence in establishing the allegation of
bias or favoi^ are for the triors alone to determine. The court erred in in-
structing these triors that the juror could not be found unindifi*erent on
evidence that he had formed a hypothetical opinion of the guilt of the priso-
ner. The instruction should have been that this was evidence to be con-
wnxuM miiM AN. 491
tidered hj the triors, and if it eouTinced them that actual bias existed, the
juror ought to be excluded ; but if his mind was, notwithstanding^ found to
be impartial and unbiassed, the objection should be disregarded.
I know of no sense in wMch a resort to triors hj a challenge to the favor
can be rightly regarded as an appeal from the decision of the court, on a
challenge for principal cause. The latter species of challenge is allowed on
some ground from which the law infers partiality or bias ; and where the
fact is put in issue, the court has only to find whether it b true or not If
true, the law adjudges unindifference — ^and the juror is necessarily excluded.
The court is not to pass upon the question of actual bias, but simply to
ascertain the truth of the alleged cause of challenge ; for if that is true, it
follows that the juror is unindlfierent But on a challenge for favor, no
sneh isolated question is presented to the triors. They are first to inquire
whether the alleged cause or ground of challenge is true in fact But this
is not all ; for supposing its truth to be established, they must then pass
upon the effect it has produced upon the mind of the juror, and find whether
the consequence has been actual bias or favor. The triors must come to
this conclusion before they can exclude a juror on a challenge to the favor.
But as no such question is to be decided by the court, on a challenge for
principal cause, the charge in this case, that the resort to the triors was an
appeal from the decision of the court, was enxmeous. Besides, the tendency
of such a charge must be to prejudice the prisoner on the question to be
decided by the triors ; for it virtually places them in the position of persons
sitdng in judgment on what had immediately before been determined by the
court It should never be lost sight of, that the triors are to ascertain the real
state of mind of the juror to determine whether he is truly impartial and
indifferent between the parties, without favor or bias as to either, and that
all the evidence given is only allowable as material to enable the triors to
come to this result On this part of the case my opinion is, that there was
error in the instructions to the triors, and for which the judgment should be
reversed and a j^ew trial ordered.
I proceed to another class of questions made by the prisoner's counsel.
The verdict on the preliminary issue was rendered on the sixth of July.
In the course of the trial, and shortly afler the fifteenth of that month, seve-
ral medical witnesses were sworn and examined on the part of the prisoner,
with a view to establish his insanity the preceding March, when the alleged
murder was perpetrated. One of these witnesses. Dr. Van Epps, had known
the prisoner from childhood, and had visited and examined him with a view
to ascertain his mental condition, both before and aflier the sixth of July.
The others had never seen the prisoner until the fifteenth of July, but they
also had examined him on and after that day, in order to be prepared to ex-
press an opinion on the question of his sanity or insanity.
That part of the bill of exceptions which states the questions made and
exceptions taken in regard to these witnesses, is perhaps liable to some mis-
492 TBM TRIAL Off
apprehension ; and it may be that I have n6t rightly understood what was
intended to be decided by the coart. I have read this part of the bill of
exceptions repeatedly, with an ^nxious desire to collect its true meaning ;
and although I would not affirm positively that its meaning may not have
been misapprehended, I still think no error has been fallen into in regard
to the views of the court. As I understand the bill of exceptions, the court
held that it was competent for these or other medical witnesses to express
an opinion upon the question of the insanity of- the prisoner at the time of
the alleged murder ; but that such opinion must be formed upon facts and
circumstances which occurred, or observations made, before the sixth of July,
when the verdict on the preliminary issue was rendered, and could in no
degree rest upon any thing observed in the appearance, manner or condition
of the prisomer since that time ; that the .witnesses oould not, with a view to
fortify the conclusion of insanity at the time of the homicide, be allowed to
express an opinion that he was insane at the trial, or had been at any time
since the sixth of July ; nor was it even allowable to say they had examined
the prisoner since that time witii a view to ascertain his mental condition.
These restrictions were deemed proper by the court, as I gather frqm
the bill of exceptions, on the ground that the verdict on the preliminary
issue had conclusively established, for all purposes connected with this trial,
the sanity of the prisoner at the time when that verdict was rendered. I
cannot adopt the suggestion made on the argument, that the sixth of July
may have been taken as a reasonable time by which to bound the inquiries
made of these witnesses. On the contrary, it is quite clear that the court
regarded the preliminary verdict as decisive of the question of present in-
sanity, and therefore limited the witnesses to the time when that verdict was
rendered. In giving reasons for his opinion that the prisoner was insane,
Doctor Van Epps spoke of an interview with him since the sixth of July,
when he "was stopped by the court, who then remarked (an objection
having been made by the counsel for the People) that the question of pres-
ent sanity had been tried and verdict rendered on the sixt^ of July instant,
and that the question of the present sanity could not be then again re-tried ;"
that the question now was as to the sanity of the prisoner when the deed
was done, the preceding March, " and that the evidence of insanity must be
confined to facts before and at the time of committing the act, and up to the
sixth of July instant, when the verdict of sanity was rendered."
Doctor Hun, another of these witnesses, had first Seen the prisoner on the
15th day of July. The prisoner*8 counsel " proposed to prove by this wit-
ness, that in his opinion the prisoner is and was insane at the time of the
commission of the crime. This was objected toby the counsel for the people,
on the ground that the verdict on the preliminary issue, rendered on the
sixth day of July instant, was and is conclusive that the prisoner was sane
on that day, and that the same cannot be contradicted by evidence.** The
court did i\ot pass directiy upon this offer and objection, although the ground
WILLIAM ntXEMAN. 493
stated by; the counsel for the people is understood to have been precisely
tbat which the court acted upon. This witness was asked if he had made
a personal examination of the prisoner since his arrival at the court, which
was on the 15th day of July, " with reference to the state of his mind." To
thb the counsel for the people objected, and the court refused to allow the
witness to give an answer. He was then asked if it was his opinion, founded
upon personal examination since the sixth day of July, that the prisoner
was insane on the twelfth of March, when the homicide was perpetrated.
This was objected to by the counsel for the people, and the court sustained
the objection. The witness was then asked his opinion, founded on such
examination, as to the prisoner's being insane at the time when the question
was put This was also objected to and excluded by the court Dr. Mc-
Naughton was examined under like restrictions. " The court decided that
the witness should not testify as to any examination made by him of the
prisoner since the sixth day of July instant," and particularly " instructed
the witness that he should, in any future testimony to be given by him, upon
the trial of this cause, exclude all knowledge or information gained by him
of or about the prisoner, since the sixth day of July instant*' These refe-
rences to points decided and views expressed by the court, clearly show, in
my opinion, that the court regarded the preliminary verdict as absolutely
conclusive, for all purposes in this case, that the prisoner, on and after the
sixth of July, was in a sane state.
The views of the court upon this part of the case were, in my opinion,
dearly erroneous. In strictness, the verdict on the preliminary issue was
not before the court and jury on the trial of the issue of guilty or not guilty
— ^nor was it in any respect material to such triaL But if it should be le-
garded as a fact in the case, of which the court and jury, while engaged in
the trial of the main issue, might take notice, no such consequence as that
deduced by the court would follow from it The only object of the prelimi-
nary trial was to ascertain the mental condition of the prisoner, in order to
determine whether he should be tried on the indictment This, I repeat,
was the only object of ^hat trial ; and the result at which the first jury ar-
rived could have no possible bearing or just influence upon the trial of the
main issue. The indictment was not to be tried piece-meal, but at one Ume
and by a single jury. If, therefore, the opinion sought to be obtained from
these medical witnesses was otherwise competent and proper, (and that
seems to have been conceded,) it is perfectly clear that the preliminary ver^
diet constitated no obstacle to its reception.
I am not about to inquire how far or under what circumstances medical
witnesses may be admissible on the question of insanity, although in general
nothing is better settled than that such evidence la competent [1 Phil. Ev.
290; Shelf, on Lu. 62, 67, 73 ; 1 Greenlf. £v. § 440.] And- 1 entertain no
doubt that such a witness should bo allowed to express an opinion in regard
to the mental condition of a person alleged to be insane, in the month of
494 THs TRIAL or
March, although the opinioii may have been founded solely on an examina-
tion made in the succeeding July. In most caoes, undoubtedly, the opinion
would be more satiafactory and con yincing when baaed on obserradons made
at or about the time to which the inquiry relates. But it was not deciaire
against the reception of auch eyidence, though founded on examinationamade
at a later period. The competency of the testimony is one question, and its
effect another. The first is for the court, and the latter for the jury. It
will sometimes undoubtedly be found, and perhaps not unfrequently, that
the mental malady is such that an examination would disclose, beyond all
peradventure, to a skillful physician, what must haye been the eondition of
the patient fov months or years before. The lateness of the time when the
examination was made, as well as the character of the malady, are certainly
to be con»dered in determining the degree of consequence which should be
given to the opinion of the witness, but unless the intervening time ia much
greater than frpm March to July, that can furnish no acAid objection to the
admiasion of the evidence. If I could, therefore, adopt the anggestion that
the sixth of July waa adopted by the court as a reaaonaUe limitatien to in*
quiries of this description, I should still be nnable to agree that the ooort
had a right to impose any such restrietbn upon the witnesses. It waa eom-
petent for such witnesses to atate what their opimons were, whe^er founded
on examinations before or during the trial ; and those opinions might not
only extend to the mental condition of the prisoner, at the time when tiie
homidde was perpetrated, but they might be brought down to the very time
when the witness was speaking. The latter would be admissihle, not because
the present insanity of the prisoner would necessarily control the Terdict,
bat beoause it tended to fortify the conclusion that insanity existed in the
preceding March. But although such are my views upon this part of the
case, it is not supposed that the court excluded the evidence of the opinion
of these witnesses, in consequence of the lateness of tiie period when their
examination had been made. The evidence waa shut out, aa I understand
the case, because the vordict on the preliminary iasne waa supposed to con-
stitute an insuperable bar to its reception. This, n I before said, was, in
my judgment, erroneous. Upon the whole case, therefore, I think the judg-
ment of the court should be reversed, and a new trial <mlered.
Whether t^ priaoner waa or waa not inaane at the time of the homiddet
or the trial, is not n question before us on this bill of exceptions, and no
opinion on that subject is intended to be ezpresied or intinwted.
Jadgnant BoTened.
During the foregoing proceedings in the Supreme Court, the
remained in chuns in the jail of Cayuga County. After the Conrt had
granted him a new trial, he waa viaited by the Circuit Judge, and exaouned
with reference to his mental condition, and ^e propriety of m aecond trial
WILLIAM rRuniAK. 495
before his Court He found the prisoner in a gradual decline of healtb and
strength, and as unconcerned about hb fate as when upon trial for bb life.
It b understood that hb Honor declined to try the prisoner agun. He was
never re-tried.
William Freeman died in his cell, August 21st, 1847.
APPENDIX.
POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION OF FREEMAN.
^ So great had been the conflict of medical opinions, as to the menti
dition of William Freeman at the time he assassinated the Van Nest
during his trial, and, indeed, until his death, that when the morning
of the 2l8tof August, 1847, announced his death, the inhabitants of t
of Auburn, with an almost unanimous impulse, expressed each to th
the desire that the body of the wretched being should be examine
some, his life had been one of crime ; to others, it had been one of mc
nocence, yet of misfortune and distress; toothers yet, in numbers abi
it had been a perfect, yet painful riddle, which they hoped medical
might enable the learned to solve, by a careful examination of the p
organs through which, in life, the prisoner's mind was manifested,
mortem examination, therefore, was called for, by a very large nun
citizens who had taken no part in the excitement occasioned by the
er's homicides.
The resident physicians desired that Doctors Brigham and McCal
be notified by telegraph, and requested to attend. The desire wascc
with, and those medical gentlemen attended. They did not reach A
however, until nine o'clock in the evening, that being the hour for t
val of the cars. Lest, during the inevitable delay of twelve hours ft
gentlemen to arrive, the body might undergo some change to dis^i
condition at death, it was deemed expedient by the resident physic
remove his brain from the skull at once, and put the same in ice, v
might be preserved in condition until evening. This waa accordingl
by Doctoi-8 Brigi]^ and Fosgate, assisted by Doctors Willard and ito
at about nine o'clock in the morning of the 21st of August.
Doctors Brigham and McCall arrived in the cars at precisely nine <
and proceeded to the office of Dr. Briggs, where they met Doctors
Dimon, Fostirate, Van Epps, Hvde and Luce, and a large number
yers and otficr persons assembled to witness an examination of the
That organ was then carefully dissected by Dr. Brigham, the atl
physicians agreeing with him, as to the appearance of its several partj
laid open to the view. At the conclusion of the' examination, the fo
paper was drawn up by request of Doctor Brigham ; and aft«r beir
to the other physicians present, all of whom assented to its correctnc
signed by the persons whose names appear thereto :
" STATEMENT.
" The undersigned being present at the examination of the brain (
liam Freeman, coincide in toe opinion that this organ preseotod the i
32
498 APPENDIX.
ance of chronic disease ; that the arachnoid membrane was somewhat thick-
ened and congested ; that the medullary portion was of an unnatural dusky
color, and in places harder than natural, nS if par-boiled ; that the posterior
portion of the skull appeared diseased, and the dura-mater at that point un-
naturally adherent; and that the left temporal bone in the vicinity of the
auditory nerve was carious and much diseased.
" A. BRIGHAM, CHARLES VAN EPPS,
" JOHN M'C ALL, BLANCHARD FOSGATE,
" LANSINGH BRIGGS, CHARLES A. HYDE,
" WILLIAM O. LUCE.
"Auburn, August 21, 1847."
On the twenty-third day of August the Editor of this volume consented
to undertake the labor of preparing a report of the case. He thereupon
addressed a note to the several physicians who where present at the exami-
nation, requesting, in reply; a statement of the particulars of the same, the
facts discovered, and their deductions therefrom. In reply to tibat note, the
following communications were received.
OPINION OF A. BRIGHAM, M. D.
State Lunatic Asylum, )
UiicGy Septeiriber 6, 1847. )
Sir : — ^Your letter iuforming me that you intend publishing the trial^ of
William Freeman for the murder of the Van Nest family, and requesting
** a detail of the facts developed by the post-mortem examination of the
brain of Freeman, with deductions theretrom, touching the enigma of his
deeds," I have just received, and cheerfully hasten to comply with your
request.
Anxious to witness the examination of the body of Freeman, I very readily
complied with a solicitation to visit Auburn after his death ; but I did not
arrive until the examination had been partially completed, and did not see
any part of the body except the brain and the upper part of the skull, and
a portion of it, including the diseased ear.
1 was, however, informed by Doctors Fosgate, Briggs, and other medical
gentlemen, that the lungs were found much diseased, and that he died of
consumption ; svmptoms of which had been observed for some time. I was
also tola that of late an increase of disease of the brain had been apparent ;
that there had been copious discharges of foetid matter from one ear ; that
hB had lost the sight or one eye ; and that the muscles of the face on one
side became pariuyzed, and Uie mouth drawn to one side, several weeks
previous to his death. I also understood that he had been for some time
very feeble, and moved and spoke with extreme difEculty. ^ They also read
to me from notes they had taken of the post-mortem examination, that they
found the dura-mater adherent to the posterior part of the skull, and the an-
terior portion of this membrane inflamed and congested, with considerable
serum oetween it and the arachnoid membrane; and that the anfractuosities
or grooves between the convolutions on the right side, were filled with serum,
and the superficial vessels of the right anterior lobe of the brain highly con-
gested on the superior surface.
The entire brain, without the dura-mater, weighed two pounds, eleven
and three-fourth ounces ; the c.erebrum weighing two pounds six ounces, and
the cerebellum five and three-fourths ounces.
After my arrivalt about twenty hours after the death of Freeman, a more
APPIMDIX. 499
minate examination of the brsdu was made by myself, in the presence of a
large number of physicians and citizens of Auburn. We noticed that the
skull was quite thm, and the upper posterior portion appeared diseased, as
if it had been formerly injured and inflamed ; and at this point the dura-
mater was strongly adherent, and when removed, blood continued to ooze
from the bone.
The arachnoid membrane was opaque, thickened and congested, and un-
usually firm. It could be removed from the convolutions, and then pre-
sented a thick net work of congested blood vessels, similar to what is most
generally found in those who have died after long continued insanity. The
gray or cineridous portion of the brain seemed partially atrophied in places,
or thinner than usual, especially on the anterior and supenor part of the
brain, and the outside appeared harder than natural ; while beneath this
thin layer it was soft, and of the usual appearance.
The white fibrous or medullary portion of the brain was changed from its
natural state. It was of a dusky gra^r color and presented numerous bloody
points ; and what was particularly noticeable, it was much harder and firmer
than natural, and appeared as if its fibres had become adherent to each
other, presenting an appearance similar to what is often, if not usually, seen
in the brain of an insane person who has died from General Paralysis.
This unusual hardness extended to the annular protuberance and the me-
dulla oblongata. The left hemisphere of the brain was not quite as hard and
firm as the right The right thalamus appeared to have under^ne some
change, as if at some time previous tHere had been an effusion of olood into
the middle of it, which had not been entirely absorbed.
The inner portion of the left temporal TOue was carious, and the dura-
mater covering this portion of the skull was red and congested. The mem-
brane of the tympanum and the internal structure of the ear were destroyed
by disease. There was also a collection of foetid pus in a cavity of this bone,
having no connection with the externfd ear. The cerebellum, and other
portions of the brain not mentioned in the foregoing account, appeared nat-
ural.
As regards ** deductions*' from this post-mortem examination, it must be
evident to every one who has even but a slight knowledge- of the physiology
and pathology of the brain, that such a condition of this organ and its mem-
branes as was found in this case, was incompatible with the healthy peiform-
ance of the mental faculties.
I have very rarely found so extensive disease of the brain in those who
have died after long continued insanity, as we found in this instance ; and I
believe there are few cases' of chronic insanity recorded in books, in which
were noticed more evident marks of disease. It should be recollected, that
although insanity is a disease of the brain, yet it usually is but a slight dis-
ease of this organ. K it was not so, it would soon prove fatal. Hence, we
find many persons unquestionably insane to enjoy good bodily health for
many years; the disease of the brain, though sufficient to derange the
mina, not being so severe as to perceptibly disorder the general healtn. In
such cases, after death, some disease of the brain or its membranes will be
found, but usually less than in the case of Freeman.
The whole history of this man, his parentage, his imprisonment, punish-
ments, deafness, crimes, trial, sickness, death, and the post-mortem appear-
ance of his brain, establish, most clearly to my mind, and I doubt not to
others who are much acquainted with mental maladies, that this was a case
of insanity — that Freeman had disease of the brain, and was deranged in
mind, from a period some time previous to his leaving prison, until the time
of his death. *
A slight review of his history may serve to render this more strikingly
evident.
500 Appjwpuc.
1. He was hereditarily disposed to insanity. An ancle and an aunt of
his were insane for many years.
2. He bad been exposed to causes, both mental and physical, likely to
develop this disease: arrested and imprisoned when a boy but sixteen
years of age, for a crime which there is good reason to believe he did not
commit ; whipped repeatedly in prison ; and struck on the head with a board
and rendered deaf.
3. Afler five years' imprisonment and seclusion, he came out remarkably
changed in appearance, manners and character. From being a lively,
cheerful, bright lad, he had changed to a dull, unsocial, and apparently idi-
otic being ; complaining that he had been abided ; that he had worked five
years in prison, and ought to be paid for it. This notion engrossed all his
thoughts.
4. Suddenly he undertook to right himself or to get his pay, and solely by
the most bloody, yet most irrational means, (no doubt the offspring of in-
sane delusion,) by '^ killing round awhile*' as he phrased it, and without any
attempt to plunder, or any regard as to whom he destroyed — indifferently
men, women, the sleeping infant — those who were entire strangers to him,
and whom he knew and acknowledged never had given him any cause of
offence whatever.
5. Arrested for these crimes, and in answer to questions, he confessed all;
but from that day to the time of his death, during his long protracted im-
prisonment and trials, he never asked a question respecting his probable
fate, nor took the least interest in the proceedings for and against him ;
never asked his counsel a question, nor made any suggestion to them or to
any one else. During his trial he did not betray the least emotion, nor ex-
hibit any consciousness of what was doing in court, but day after day sat by
his counsel, apparently regardless of every thing and every body, and with-
out any change of countenance, except the frequent, unconscious laugh of
the idiot. Even when called up bv the Judge to receive sentence of death,
he did not appear to know anv thing of the proceedings that had taken
place in court relating to himself; and when told by the Judge, " You have
been tried for killing John G. Van Nest — the Jury say you kiUed him, and
we are now going to sentence you to death ;" and then asked by him, " Do
you understand this ; do you know what I mean ?" answered, ** / don't
know'*
6. His appearance since his trial has been that of a person nearly bereft
of intellect. I saw him the last week in June, and found him more demen-
ted than he was the year previous, during the trial ; almost totally deaf and
speechless, and apparently affected by General Paralysis. Never, scarcely,
have I seen such a mere fragment of humanity, so far as mind was con-
cerned.
7. He died of disease of the lungs — a disease of which a majority of the
insane die ; ^nd his brain, on examination, exhibited those appearances of
disease most generally found in those who have been long insane, though, in
this case, to a greater extent than is usually seen.
In conclusion, I add, that at the time of the trial of Freeman, I was very
confident that he was insane, and that the heinous crime he committed was
the consccj^ueuce of mental derangement. I can now have no rational doubt
of the entire correctness of that opinion.
Very respectfully, yoUr obedient servant,
• A. BRIGHAM.
B. F. Hall, Esq., Auburn, N. Y.
APPWDIX. 601
OPINION OF JOHN McCALL, M- D.
Utica, Septemler 10, 1847.
B. F. Hai.l, Esq. — Dear Sir : In compliance witli your request that I
would '* communicate in form for publication, the facts discovered at the
examination of the brain of William Freeman, and my deductions therefrom,
touching his insanity,"' I am clad in being able to say that I was present and
witnessed* the dissection and inspection, by Dr. Brigham, of the brain, its
membranes and the upper part of the skull, and a portion thereof inyolving
the lefl ear, as described so fully in the Doctor's report of the case for
publication ; and that I regard his statement as strictly correct in all respects.
That able physiologist and experienced physician in the management and
treatment of the insane, has given you, in my opinion, a full and accu-
rate account of the case ; and hence I consider myself relieved from the
labor of furnishing a detailed statement of the observations made and the
deductions formed, as aHorded on thab occasion, *^ touching his insanity."
In the examinations made and witnessed by me, during nearly forty
years* practice in my profession, I have never seen greater or stronger
evidence of chronic disease of the brain, and its membranes, in cases of
insanity of several years' standing, than in Freeman's.
My opportunities during his long trial, for judging and making up my
mind respecting his sanity or insanity at the time he murdered a whole
family in ** cold blood," were such as enabled me to say, unhesitatingly,
that ne was, in my Judgment, not only insane then, but at the time of the
commision of the crime.
In my opinion his brain was permanently diseased at the time he left
the State Prison. That his insanity, which was a consequence of that affec-
tion, continued to grow worse, until he became utterly demented, is a fact
which I should hope no one can now doubt
It is in this, as m every such case, very gratifying to the friends of medi-
cal and legal truth, to know that it was fully and severely investigated to
the satisfaction, it is believed, of our whole community.
With these views I remain, my Dear Sir,
Very truly and sincerely,
JOHN McCALL.
OPINION OF DAVID DBION, M. D.
Auburn, January 4, 1848.
Dear Sir: — William Freeman died on the twenty first of August, 1847,
after a confinement in the jail of eighteen months. In the month of January
previous, his lungs became diseased, in consequence of a severe cold. Pre-
vious to this attack his appetite and sleep were good, and his health did not
appear to have suffered ; and up to the time of his decease he had no delirium,
but retained hb senses to the last. A few days before his death I visited
him, in company with Dr. Willard. He then answered questions correctly ;
and complained of great difficulty in. breathing, and other distressing symp-
toms, which he referred to his lungs. The jailer informed me that he readily
made known all his wants ; and that when he had become satisfied that his
disease would prove fatal, he manifested less reserve, was more willing to
hear, and answered inquiries more readily than he had formerly done. The
day previous to his death, Mr. Clough, an artist, in company with Mr. Van
Andcn, went into his cell to make a sketch of him. Upon D^r. Yslr Anden'g
502 APPENDIX.
feeling his pulse, he asked him if he was a physician ; showed him the mat-
ter which he expectorated ; said he was too weak to sit up ; that the^ would
have to draw him lying down. After the sketch was finished, he wished to
see it, and seemed much pleased with it.
A post-mortem examination of the body was made in the forenoon of the
day of his death, in the presence of several physicians and citizens. His
lungs were found extensively disorganized, and contained numerous ulcers,
full of matter. The brain was removed from the skull, and the dissection of
it deferred, until Doctors Brigham and McCall, who subsequently came from
Utica for that purpose, should arrive. This examination took place at niorht
To the statement made by the other physicians, I could not subscribe.
The arachnoid membrane had, to me, a uniform appearance, one part being
no more thickened than another; and had a natural transparency through-
out. The same was true, so far as I could see, of the substance of the brain.
If there was any unnatural hardness or density of the brain, or alteration of
color, (so far as color could be determined by candle light,) it extended,
with remarkable uniformity, throughout its entire structure. No portion of
it indicated, to my senses, any decided marks of disease. Whatever general
unhealthy appearance it mignt have presented, which my experience would
not enable me to detect, could be attributed to another disease, which was
the cause of death, and* about which there was no doubt and no difference
of opinion.
Yours, &c.
B. F. Hall, Esq. DAVID DMON.
OPINION OF BLANCHARD FOSGATE, M. D.
Dear Sir : — In reply to your note requesting a statement of the post
mortem examination of the body of William Freeman, at which I assisted, I
beg leave to say that my vie'ws of that case are embodied in an article lately
prepared by me, and published in the American Journal of the Medical
Sciences. If that article will answer the purpose indicated in your letter, it
is at your disposal. Yours, &c.,
B. F. Hall, Esq. B. FOSGATE.
" William Freeman — the murderer of the Van Nest family — was a
native of Auburn, Cayuga Co., N. Y., twenty-three years old. In stature
he measured about five feet seven inches, and when in health weighed in
the vicinity of one hundred and fifbeen pounds. He had a broad chest, and
was of muscular make. With the exception of a slight admixture of abo-
riginal blood, he was of African descent
'* At the a^e of sixteen he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment in
the State Prison at Auburn, for grand larceny. It was lono; since conceded
that of this charge h6 was innocent. His sentence expired in September,
1845. He led his prison conscious of the injustice he had suffered, and had
imbibed an idea that he was entitled to pay for his time. This sentiment
could not be eradicated from his mind, and on several occasions he applied
for warrants against those whom . he supposed liable. Remuneration with
him was the one idea. Failing in this mode of obtaining redress, be armed
himself with a common butcher's knife, and a cane with a blade attached to
the lower end, and from his lodging made his way toward the Owasco Lake,
at about sunset on the 12th of March, 1846. After examining two or three
premises, he finally selected the residence of Mr. Van Nest as the proper
place to bedn * his work,' as he termed it, and there massacred Mr. Van
Nest, his wife, and one child, aged two years, and Mrs. Wyckoff, aged
APPBMDIZ. 508
seventy. He stabbed Mr. Van Arsdale in the chest, who subsequently re-
covered. In the affray he entered every room in the house, both above and
below, but took nothing away. He went to the stable, unfastened and
mounted a horse, and was some rods from the scene of devastation in the
incredibly short period of not more than five minutes from the time of en-
tering the house, as was proved in evidence. Three days afterwards he waa
committed to Cayuga county jail to await his trial.
** He was tried at a special session of Oyer and ^rminer, July, 1846 —
first, as to whether he was sane at the time of trial, and secondly, on the in-
dictment A verdict of sufficient soundness of mind to be put on trial was
rendered on the preliminary issue, and of wilful murder on -the indictment.
A trial calling forth so much talent in its prosecution, and arousing such
fearful excitement among the people, is of rare occurrence. Subsequently,
however, a new trial was granted by the Supreme Court
** On the part of the people, the cause was conducted by Hon. John Van
Buren, Attorney- General of the State of New York, and for the defence by
Hon. William H. Seward, Ex-Governor of this State.
I* My knowledge of the prisoner commenced on the 16 th of March, 1846,
being the day after his commitment, and it continued until the completion
of a post-mortem examination of his body on the twenty-first of Au^^st, 1 84 7.
^ ** During the scene at Van Nest's, he received a severe wound in the ar-
ticulation of the right thumb with the carpus — the artery barely escaping
division. This circumstance saved the lives of other members of the family,
because, to use his own expression, *he couldn't handle his hand any
longer.'
"Mv services were required on account of this injury. In addition to the
wound, I also found him entirely deaf in the left, and partially so in the
right ear.
^ **It was a singular circumstance that he never made an inquiry as to
either the extent or condition of the injury, or the time necessary to com-
plete a cure, or the prospect of recovenng the use of his hand — though it
was the right, and as a laborer was his main dependence. Neither did he
complain of any sensibility in the wound, although the physical evidences
of pain accompanying tlie inflammatory sta^e were such as to leave no doubt
of its existence. In fact, from the time of his commitment until the day of
his deathj although he often saw, and was attended by me through his last
sickness, he asked only two questions, one about his medicine, the other re-
garding his diet, and Uiese were made during his last illness.
^* During the principal part of his incarceration, he j^assed his time stand-
ing ; his bodpr erect — tis head a little drooping, and with arms folded. He
sustained this posture with statue-like stillness — indicating great muscular
strength. He exhibited a calm, quiet expression of countenance, occasion-
ally broken by a smile, which had the appearance of just bursting into
laughter, but would quickly subside, leaving the same unalterable expres-
sion, as undisturbed as though a gleam of mirthfulncss had never occupied
his fancies. To the careless observer, it appeared as though he endeavored
to suppress an irresistible propensity to laugh. This smile was never ac-
companied by any vocal sound, but often glowed upon his features, regard-
less of time, place or circumstance, indicative of intense mental emotion.
For this emotion he could never assign a cause. I say he never could, be-
cause, when asked, he always said he * didn't know.' My conclusion is also
based upon the remarkable fact, that on the trial, seventy-two witnesses on
both sides coincided in the opinion that the prisoner did not intend to de-
ceive in any reply made to the numerous interrojgatories put to him.
" His deafness increased until the sense of heanng was nearly, if not quite,
obliterated. I doubt whether he heard any conversation for the last two
504 APPEimix.
weeks of his life ; at all eventSf I could not get a reply that harmonized
with my question.
" On the. twelfth of June, 1817, 1 was called to see the patient as bein^
* not very well.' He had a quick, thready pulse — considerable cough, with
free expectoration — not much appetite, but rather thirsty. He made no
allusion to these symptoms, but directed my attention to his left ear, which
discharged pus profusely. From this time forth, the aural discharge con-
tinued,- accompanied by all the symptoms of tubercular phthisis, until his
existence terminated, six days after the chain that^ bound him to the ma-
sonry of his cell had been removed.
" About three weeks previous to his decease, I observed a prominent pro-
trusion of the left eye, and upon further examination there proved to be an
entire obliteration of vision. He could not close the- lids over it, for they,
with all the muscles of that side of the face, were paralyzed, and the mouth
considerably drawn to the right The cornea of both organs had much the
same appearance. The loss of vision, I am inclined to think, was the re-
sult of functional, not organic, lesion. The protrusion depended most pro-
bably upon the loss of muscular power in its motor aj)paratus, in conunou
with the muscles of that side of the face. The globe, in articulo-martis, re-
covered in a great measure its natural location, as did the paralyzed mus-
cles of the face — a common occurrence of facial distortion from nervous
lesion at death.
" Owing to insufficiency of light in the cell, but more particularly to the
shattered condition of the patient — being deaf, almost blind, and nearly
speechless — no satisfactory account of symptoms or the cfiect of remedies
could be obtained from him.
" As this case presents points of interest in many particulars, I would re-
mark that phrenologically, Mr. Fowler says, * he is verj' defective in the
mental temperament, and has great predominance in the muscnlar. Ills
propensities (with the exception of self-esteem and firmness, very large —
and combativeness and destructiveness^ large) are all small, and have but
little influence. The intellectual faculties are not so small, yet the quality
of brain considered, their influence is quit0 limited. He has one of the
piost imperfect developments of brain I ever saw. He has no real balance
to his mind ; it is entirely one-sided, he being at the mercy of circumstances,
and the stronger propensities.* (See Phrenological Almanac in press for
1848.) Another phrenologist, though of less notoriety, has allowed him a
much better development; but whatever the external evidences of mind
the contour of his head may denote, they all have reference to a healthy
brain.
" I have measured his cranium in two ways : First, by passing a string
across the frontal and around the spinous process of the occipital bones. It
measured, in the greatest circumference, twenty-one inches. Secondly,
after the directions laid down in Combe's Phrenology, by callipers.
Viz. from occipital spine to individuality, 7 S-8 inches.
" occipital spine to ear, 4 4-8 "
" ear to individuality, 4 6-8 •*
" ear to firmness, 6 3-16 "
" destructiveness to destructiveness, 6 8-8 "
" cautiousness to cautiousness, . 4 2-16 "
" ideality to ideality, 6 1-8 "
" On proceeding to a post-mortem examination, the body was found ex-
tremely emaciated. The costal and pulmonary pleura, though easily sepa-
rated, were extensively adhered, and the lungs were an almost entire mass
of dis(?asc. Tuberculous matter was interspersed with abscesses throughout
the whole organ. The pericardium contained about one and a half gills of
APFINDIZ. 505
geram. The heart contained polypit but had a healthy appearance. Liver
nataral. Gall bladder a little aistended. Mucous membrane of the stomach
slightly inflamed. Intestinal mucous coat healthy. Mesenteric glands tu-
berculous. Urinary bladder distended, i^idneys natural. The peritoneum
appeared healthy, but the sac contidned some fluid.
" Upon openins the cranium, the bones were found rather thinner than
ordinary, parUcularly for a colored subject, and the dura-mater was adhe-
rent to a portion of the occiput The anterior portion of this membrane
was congested and inflamed, with considerable serum between it and the
arachnoid. This latter tunic was somewhat thickened and congested. The
anfractuosities of the right hemisphere of the cerebrum were filled with
serum. The superficial vessels of the right anterior lobe highly congested
on the superior surface. Cerebellum to all appearance heal&y.
" The whole brain, separate from the dura-mater, weighed 48 8-4 ounces
avoirdupois. Cerebrum 38 ounces. Cerebellum 5 3-4 ounces.
" On section of the medullary substance, it was found thickly studded
with bright red points. The right thalami appeared to have undergone
some cmmge, and the whole superior brain was more or less congested.
The membrane covering the petrous portion of the lefl cavity was congested,
and the remaining parts of it appeared healthy.
" There were canes of the inner part of the petrous portion of the left
temporal bone. The membrana tympani, with the internal structure dT the
ear, mostly obliterated. There was a necrosis contidning fetid pus, having
no perceptible connection with the external ear.
** Remarks. — The important Question connected with this subject 18,
whether the pathological state or the bndn, its membranes and the ear, is «
one of long standing or of recent occurrence ? On this point rests the phy-
sical evidence of the prisoner's accountability. If by possibility it could be
determined that the organ of mental manifestation was without disease when
the crime was perpetrated, then depravity unparalleled must be assigned as
the only cause ; and if so, the disease of the oi^n at his decease could not
be held in extenuation of his crimes.
*' That the diseased condition of the brain was of long standing, appears
to be unquestionable from the fact, that the mental organ could not sustain
so great a lesion as the autopsy presented, without the mind having exhibit-
ed sudden and violent derangement, as well as other symptoms which ac-
company its acute diseases. This, however, was not the case. He never
complained of, or exhibited the ordinary symptoms in such instances, nor
ever gave evidence of any mental change whatever ; but on the contrary,
presented the same characteristics throughout During his last sickness,
there was not a single symptom indicating acute inflammation of the brain,
and yet, on examination after death, there were abundant and unequivocal
evidences of inflammatory action there.
" The disease of the ear also was chronic, and dated its commencement
some months previous to the commission of the crime. On his trial it was
proved in evidence that about two years previous — when an inmate of the
State Prison — ^he was struck on his head with a board, the blow splitting the
weapon into fragments. He attributes his deafness to this cause, or, to give
his own description, 4t knocked his words down his throat — ^his ears dropped
down — ^his kernels (meaning the tonsils^ dropped.' Now, the infliction of
this blow upon a thin skull, associated with his own account of its effects,
would lead us to conclude that the concussion seriously injured the auditory
apparatus. It possibly burst the tympanum, and if so, it opened a commn-
mcation between the external ear and the fauces, which induced the re-
mark that *it knocked the words down his throat,' &c. Is it not a just eon-
elusion, that from this injury the diseased action was set up, which mtimately
involved the whole brain?
506 APPXNDIX.
" Whether the facial paralysis was the result of cerebral congestion, or
whether it was owing to a diseased state of the nerves of motion in connec-
tion with the condition of the ossa petrosa, may be questionable, because the
nerves, as they passed off the brain, were apparently healthy ; but the right
hemisphere of the brain being the most deeply implicated inihe organic de-
rangement, the paralysis woiild appear, as it did in this case, in the muscles
of the opposite side.
<* It should not be forgotten, that the deceased had passed through scenes
of blood seldom equaled, where but a single individual was the agCTesaor ;
that he had been surrounded by the wild fury of an enraged populace for
hours ; that he had been chidned, and for a portion of the time beaded upon
the stone floor of a dimly-lighted cell, for almost eighteen months ; suffering
the jeers and grimaces of inhuman and uncounted spectators ; wasting by
the slow process of consumption ; sustaining the blight of one physical ener-
gy after another ; with little compassion and less than ordinary attention ;
and through the whole period, having scarcely asked a question regarding
either friend or foe, soliciting no favor, showing no hatred, exhibiting no re-
morse, entering no complaint, and through all, sustaining an undUtnrhed
tranquillity.
" From this concatenation of circumstances, this unruffled, equable, almost
idiotic state of mind, that no external relation could disturb, or internal in-
fluence alter, we can scarcely come to an^ other conclusion by pathological
reasoning, than that the state of mind which he exhibited subsequent to his
arrest, depended on a chronic derangement of the mental organ, and must
have existed antecedent to the crime itself. If such a combination of patho-
logical facts, and' all the other circumstances attending the prisoner from his
arrest to his death, do not establish an unsound state of mmd, they at least
present one of the most extraordinary cases furnished by the annals of our
race. Such a case demands the careful consideration of Uie philosopher and
jurisL
* How much the cause of justice and philosophy is indebted to the un-
wearied perseverance of the eminent advocate who withstood the tide of
popular indication in conducting the prisoner's defence, is led for other
hands to renter ; but true it is, that over prejudice and error, science has
gloriously triumphed.
"BLANCIIARD FOSGATE.
« Auburn, N. Y., Sept 1, 1847."
NOTS.— Tn the April number of the American Qnart«rly Retrosipect of American and Foreign
Practical Medicine and Surgery, fbr 1848, the aboro article by Dr. YofgAto in published, with the
following comment by the learned Editor : '^ We publish thi«i cam not only for ita iDMosfe inter-
est in an historical and moral point of view, but beoause it is drawn up with uncommon elegance,
and in a medico-legal point of Tiew aflbrds a most striking illustration of the importance of this
■etenco to the welfare of men. It sared, In tlxis instance by its generous application, the lift of aa
unaoooantabie agent from sacrifice."
OPINION OF LANSINGH BRIGGS, M. D.
Auburn, August 23, 1847.
Hon. B. F. Hall. — Dear Sir : In reply to your note of this morning, I
would obserTe, that the man Freeman, therein alluded to, died on Friday
last of consumption ; disease of the brain, probably, having no immediate
agency in his death. I never could discover any thing in his case, making
it an exception to the fact, that a very considerable and decided departure
from sanity may exist without interruption to tolerably good bodily health
during life, or exhibiting visibly, corresponding lesions of the brain on in-
APPENDIX. 607
spection after death. Consequently, aside from the extensively and long
diseased condition of one ear and the lungs, I did not anticipate any stri-
kingly morbid appearances on examination ; nor did I deem such manifesta-
tions indispensable to prove him previously insane, as there were otherwise
abundant and convincing evidence to establish the fact, in my opinion, that
that was his condition.
The post-mortem examination was made about twelve hours after death,
and for a " statement of the result — the facts discovered and deductions
made therefrom," I would refer you to the very intelligent and accurate
notes, made on the spot by Dr. Fosgate, and to the enclosed original paper*
drawn up and subscribed at the time and place of examination.
I remain, very respectfully.
Yours &c.,
LANSINGH BRIGGS.
OPINION OF CHARLES A. HYDE, M. D.
Auburn, September 13, 1847.
Hon. B. F. Hall. — Dear Sir: Your communication requesting me to
furnish you with the particulars in reference to the post-mortem examina-
tion of the brain of William Freeman, is received, and in reply I would
briefly say, that I am unable to do so just now, from the fact, that I have not
at this time in my possession the minutes of the case, (save those already
before the public,) and therefore would respectfully beg permission 1o refer
you to some one of my colleagues who was present at the autopsy, and care-
fully noted all the diseased appearances of the different organs and tissues
in the case, at the time, as we progressed in our examination ; and thus, by
obtainino- a full and clear exposition of all the diseased parts of the entire
system of the man, you will nave a data, from which you may arrive at a
just conclusion, deducible not only from the morbid appearances of the
brain itself, but also from the pathological state of the other organs and viscera,
all of which are intimately blended in the performance of their multiplied
and varied operations and functions, in a physiological point of view, and
which evidently exhibited greater ravages of disease than that of the brain,
and was the immediate cause of his death.
It is to be regretted that the article drawn up and sufcscribed, at tWe
Bpur of the moment, by the medical gentlemen present, had not been more
full and explicit before it found its waj' into a public newspaper ; for it is
to be apprehended, that erroneous opinions will thereby be promulgated ;
especially when prefaced by a long editorial, calling Freeman a perfect
idiot. We regard speculation of this kind as irrelevant or merely hypothet-
ical, and consequently, unreliable and fallacious.
The medical profession, as well as the public, require opinions ratiocina-
tive, based upon a knowledge of the entire history of the case, and sustained
by known scientific principles, in order to arrive at the truth in regard to
the important and long controverted questions of sanity or insanity. It is
only from deductions thus correctly drawn, that we shall be enabled to pro-
mote the interests of community, and thereby subserve the legitimate ends
of public justice, and make reliable those necessary, important and funda-
mental laws of medical jurisprudence that constantly govern our penal
courts of judicature.
• The paper, a copy of which appears on papfo 497 and which was siyned by Doctors Brigham
and others, on the evening of the 2lRt of Angust, 1^7. Dr. Bri;;pp4 t4;stificd, that he beliored
Freeman's mind to be dii^ordered ; and hcnco, liis remark that '' tLcre were cthcrwise abundant
and coavincing eridenco, to establish the fact in my opinion, that that was his condition.*'
508 APPXNDIX.
I wUl, therefore, f>artica1arly refer you to Dr. Bri^ham, of the State Lu-
natic Asylum at Utica; whose peculiar province it is to deal with cases of
this kind, as he is in possession of all the facts, and will in due timo give
them to you and the public, as well as the medical profession.
Yours, very respectfully,
C. A. HYDK
\
q
THE NEW YORK PUBUC LIBRARY
RBFBRBNGB QBPARTMBNT
This book is under qo oircumstanoea to bo
taken from tbe Bailding
V ■ _, ( •
'.
•
.
•
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11