Reading Time: 3 minutes [362 words]

EDWARD D. WORRELL. 185

seat in the saddle. Witness also states that he had frequently
drunk with prisoner in his room.

‘What then, I ask, ean be inferred from all this, except the
fact that his sickness and the delirium attending it grew out
of excessive drinking, for there is nothing in the evidence for
the defense that furnishes us any other explanation of it.

The deposition of George Urghart has been read and al-
though a physician occupying the same room with defendant
from February to July, 1855, yet he makes no allusion what-
ever to his mind, but simply speaks of him as being affection-
ate to his parents, particularly so to his mother. The next
deposition is that of Dr. Wm. H. Curran of Kentucky, in
which he refers to an attack which he supposed to be epilepsy,
but I will refer more particularly to this deposition when T
reach that branch of the case. We have next the deposition
of Robert W. Raisin, who married 2 relative of defendant.
This witness has known defendant 25 or 26 years, and states
that he always considered him a wild and eccentric youth up
to manhood. Upon one occasion witness was in his carriage
passing over a bridge in Maryland—defendant was at the
opposite end of the bridge, and as he saw witness coming, he
raised the draw of the bridge, which placed witness in great
danger——-witness thought it was one of his common freaks of
mind, very mysterious. The balance of Mr. Raisin’s testimony
ig confined to the subject of hereditary insanity in prisoner’s
family, which will be the subject of comment when I eome
to notice that part of Mr. Wright’s argument. The most
that can be made out of Mr, Raisin’s deposition is that pria-
oner was a wild and eccentric youth, such as we meet with
daily in our intercourse with the world.

Mr. D. Blocher’s deposition ia next introduced. He knew
defendant in 1848 and 1849 in Cumberland, Md.—thinks
he had the head of 4 man but the mind of a boy. This wit-
ness gives no reason for his opinion, and in that request is
a little more shrewd than Mr. H. Miles Moore. If he intends
by that expression to imply that he was naturally wanting
in good sense, he differs from every other witness who has
given evidence in the case.

Related Posts