Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/214

 202 FEDERAL REPORTER. �premeditated,inalicious, and witliout legal justification, but it must have been connected with the former intention to take life; a flxed design that the aet sliall resuit in the death of the party assaulted; a fully formee! and conscious design to yu, and with a weapon prepared for the purpose; and deliberation may be inferred from deliberately procuring the weapon for the avowed pur- pose of killing. Com. v. Murray, 2 Ashm. 41; Com. v. Williams, M. 69; Kennedy v. Com. 14 Bush, 340; Swan v. State, 4 Humph. 136; Riley v. State, 9 Humph. 657; Com. v Brum, 58 Pa. St. 1; Lanahan v. Com. 84 Pa. St. 80; King v. Com. 2 Va. Cas. 78. �As to the question of insanity. Every defendant is presumed in law to be sane, and the burden of proof is on him to prove his insanity at the time of the commission of the act, subject only to the beneflt of a reasonable doubt. U. a. V. Lancaster, 7 Biss. 440; Ogletree v. 8tall, 28 Al». 693; U. S. v. Mc- Clare, 17 LawEep. 439; Com. v. Hawkins, 3 Gray, 463 ; Com. v. Sddy, 7 Gray, 583; Com. v. Sogers, 7 Met. 500; Com. v. York, 9 Met. 93; State v. Jones, 50 N. H. 369; State v. Bartlett, 43 N. H. 224; States. Pike, 49 N. H. 399; People V, McCann,W N. Y. 58; Bond v. State, 23 Ohio St. 349; People v. Robinson, 1 Park. C. li. 649. �The criminal actor must be of sane mind.as an act does not njake a man gujlty unless his mind is guilty, and an insane person cannot, in the legal sense, have any intent. Long v. State, 38 Ga. 507. �Partial insanity can be an excuse only when it deprives the party of his reason in regard to the act charged. State v. JCawrenoe, bl Me. 74; State v. Huting, 21 Mo. 464; Bovard v. State, 30 Miss. 600; Com. v. Mosler, 4 Pa. St. 264; State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 341. And it will not excuse if he had reason sufflcient to distinguish between right and wrong as to the particular act. Bovard v. State, 30 Miss. 600. �A person may be sane and insane at different times, and insane and ina- sponsible as to oue subject and sane and responsible as to anotlier. Hall v. Un- ger, 2 Abb. U. S. 512; Freeman v. People, 4 Denio, 9; Bew v. Clarli, 3 Ad. & Ec. Rep. 79. So that if the defendant was sane as to the crime committed, his insanity on other topics will not save him. Bovard v. State, 30 Miss. 600 ; State v. Huting, 21 Mo. 664; Com. v. Mosler, 4 Pa. St. 266. Or if he commit a crime in some other matter not connected with the delusion, such delusion oonstitutes no defence. State v. Out, 13 Minn. 341; State v. Huting, 21 Mo. 464; Bovard w. State, 30 Miss. 600; State v. Oeddis, 4:2 lowa, 264; State v. Mewherter, 46 lowa, 88 ; Com. v. Mosler, 4 Pa. St. 264. �"The true test of responsibility lies in the word 'power' — has the defend- ant the power to distinguish right from wrong, and the power to adhere to the right and avoid the wrong, and the power to govern the mind, body, and estate? And it is sufflcient if power to do so is shown to have existed in ref- erence to the particular act. If he was under such defect of reason from dis- ease of mind as not to know the quality of the act he was doing, or was under such delusion as uot to understand the nature of his jact, or had not sufflcient raemoryor reason to know he was doing wrong, then he was not responsible; but if he knew what he was doing, and that the act was forbidden by law, and took precautions to accomplish his purpose, and had power of mind enough ��� �