43

L—IB.

G. CKAIG.j

then he has been a different man. He is subject to the petit mal of epilepsy, and informs me thai under a year ago. under great financial st less, he made up his mind to kill his wife and children. He did shoot his wife." &c. Dealing with his being emotional and excitable, do you not think that the facts of his being somewhat low in health and having come through an exciting and worrying time, and then finding that he was going to be committed to a mental hospital, must have produced a degree of emotionalism and excitability?—Y'es. 133. He broke down anil cried. Jul he not? —Yes. 13 1. That was pari of the emotionalism referred to? —Yes. 135. Do you think it is fair, then, to consider those as signs of insanity? Would not a normal man who was sane behave in the same way.' Many a normal man xvould. 136. Those facts, therefore, would not necessarily be proof of insanity—of mental disease?— No one would commit a man to a mental hospital because he was emotional and excitable only. 137. In regard to your statement about Johnston suffering from the petit mal of epilepsy, did you put that in the certificate on Johnston's own statement in regard to that?—On his description of liis condition, which he could not himself have known to be the petit mal of epilepsy; but he described the condition to me, and I diagnosed it from his statement. For instance, suppose you knew nothing about epilepsy and you came to me and said, " I suddenly fall down xvithout any warning sometimes; 1 bite my tongue. My friends tell me that I have convulsions, and that afterwards I am a long time drowsy and unconscious." I would say, " You have got epilepsy." I might never see you in an attack of epilepsy, but how could you describe that to me if you were not having those attacks.' 1 assume that a layman coming to me has no previous medical knowledge, ami on his description 1 base my opinion of a man's condition very often. 138. Vim based your opinion on his condition, then, on experiences that he related to you? Yes. 139. Were (hose experiences alone the lines that you have just related? —It is the grand mal that lam describing. I only took it for the sake of argument. IK). Will you tell us what Johnston said? -I have just done so. He said he was subject to lapses of memory, that he would be going along the street and everything would become a blank, and he would stop still confused. Then he would recollect himself and go on. Somelimes he would feel the condition coming on, and by a great effort of will he could control it. That is quite consistent with some forms of epilepsy-. 141. Assuming Johnston's description of experience to be correct, do you take it for granted that the shooting incident referred to occurred during one of those attacks?—l could not say so. I do not think so. 1 do not think it would be likely to occur during one of those attacks, because if it occurred during an attack of epilepsy it is very likely that Johnston xvould have no memory of it, that it would be like a dream to him. There are some epileptics xxdio do commit crimes, hut it is more due to their general condition. 142. Was it owing to his lieing epileptic that you considered he xvas dangerous to be at large? —Partly, but partly oxving to the fact that he had previously attempted murder. 143. You are inclined to the belief, at any rate, that that was not attempted xvhile in an epileptic seizure? —1 am inclined to believe that it was not an epileptic seizure that made him commit the crime. I am of opinion that in all probability it xvas under the stress of great emotion and mental strain that he committed that crime. 144. Would you agree with Dr. Beattie that the causes of that condition were purely physiological at the time he made that attempt? —Did he say " physiological " ? 145. Yes, 1 think that is in his evidence. He drew a distinction between a pathological and a physiological condition? —I should say No. 146. Would you consider it was a pathological condition? —1 did not consider it was a natural condition. 147. It was the result of mental disease.' —It was the result of mental disease at the time. 148. And likely to recur? —And likely to recur. 149. Therefore Johnston sitting there noxv is a dangerous man to be at large?—l do not know anything about him now. 150." But if it is liable to recur would you not -ay he is a dangerous man to be at large?— Yes, given similar conditions. Under other conditions Johnston might not be a dangerous man to be at large. 151. Does that not point to its being physiological?—lt is not physiological. Physiological applies to health. There was nothing healthy, either morally or physically, in a man shooting his wife. 152. But the condition that brought about the attempt to shoot his xvife xvas a matter of health, was it not? He had been suffering from dire poverty; he had been living for xveeks on stolen turnips—he and his family; mid the condition induced under those circumstances ami the hopelessness of seeing any improvement in front of him caused him to make up his mind to do this? —Yes, but other people are subjected to far more trying conditions and do not shoot their wives, which is the physiological oondition. Do you not knoxv that a man who is mentallyhealthy faces trouble like a man, if he has got a brain able to bear that trouble? Johnston's brain was not able to stand that trouble. 153. A man who is liable to a brain-storm under extraordinary conditions is not dangerous under normal conditions? —Did you ask Dr. Beattie where he draws the line? A man may come home and kick the cat, or he may conic home and thump his wife, or he may commit murder. Where are you to draw the line.' There is no distinct line of demarcation between sanity and insanity in some forms. A brain-storm may take the form of a man saying " Dam," or of a curate saying " Bother," but he means as much as a man who blasphemes.