Trial of Charles B. Huntington for forgery : principal defence, insanity / prepared for publication by the defendant's counsel, from full stenographic notes taken by Messrs. Roberts & Warburton, law reporters.

  • Huntington, Charles B., 1821-
Date:
1857
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Trial of Charles B. Huntington for forgery : principal defence, insanity / prepared for publication by the defendant's counsel, from full stenographic notes taken by Messrs. Roberts & Warburton, law reporters. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    12/500
    ject to \vliich the aberration specially relates; as, for example, the Homicidal Mania, « Pyromania, &c. It was strangely urged on Huntington's trial that, unless some name had been given to the individuality apparent in the exhibition of his in- sanity, the insanity itself should be denied. A fallacy so obvious might confirm or gratify Ignorance and Prejudice. It can not affect those who appreciate the very simple truth, that things exist irrespective of names. As to Moral Insanity, those who have considered the subject know that the existence of insanity thus classified is recognized by all authoritative writers. It is an insanity developed in reference to the moral nature, rather than the purely intellectual processes. Whether the intellect may be generally intact and yet the affections, emotions, or will be im- paired, is a question about which learned investigators differ. But none of those who deserve or enjoy any reputation doubt that insanity—as a physical dis.ease of the brain—may be mani- fested, exclusively, in developments affecting the moral part of our nature. A most conclusive demonstration of this will be found in an appendix to this volume, from the pen of Dr. Oilman. The professional reader will readily perceive that the Jury could hardly find in favor of the accused on the defence of in- sanity, however well it was sustained by proof; because the learned Judge expressly charged that, under our law, moral Insanity would not excuse from responsibility for crime; that insanity, if partial or Monomania, would not absolve the party unless it wholly deprived him of the power to distinguish between right and wrong ; and that the opinions of the medical witnesses were formed on a principle not recognized in our law. This was in effect overruling the whole defence of insan- ity. To anticipate that, under such instruction, the Jury would acquit, was to indulge mere hope not warranted by any deliberate or reasonable expectation. The verdict rendered cannot, there-