He was very deaf. I learned from him that he had been to prison, and he said "they wouldn't pay him." 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 conversation and manner attracted my attention. I thought it singular. Had a conversation 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 all the conversation I ever had with him until in the jail. The impression made by the two conversations was that he was deranged. [Witness further testified as upon the traverse. See post.] ROBERT FREEMAN, sworn in behalf of prisoner, testified: I am not related 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 him. He did not appear like the same boy when he came out of prison. JOHN DEPUY, called and sworn, testified as follows: I suspect I married a sister of the prisoner. I have known him thirteen years. There were a good many that were smarter than him. He could read some in the spelling book, but he had but little learning. He was always lively, active and playful. 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 his going to balls. He was social, lively and very talkative before he went to prison. He was at my house the night Mrs. Godfrey's horse was stolen. [Witness further testified in substance as upon the traverse. See post.] ADAM GRAY, a witness called and sworn on behalf of the prisoner, testified: 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 considerably changed since he came out of 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 stairs. 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 he 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 man grown when he came out. It was night when I heard him dance. Don't know whether he had been drinking. Some colored people dance a good deal, and some do not. Before he went to prison he 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. [Witness further testified in substance as upon the traverse. See post.] ETHAN A. WARDEN, called and sworn as a witness on behalf of prisoner, testified: I have known Freeman fourteen years. He came to live with my father, and afterwards lived with 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 he 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. After he got to the jail I asked him if he knew me. He said Yes. They took him to a cell and put irons on him. He said he recollected being with me. I was at the jail again a few days after. Talked with him about the affair at Van Nest's. He is not as intelligent as he used to be. He does not appear to be a man of sound intellect. I thought he was but little above the brutes as regards right and wrong. He don't appear to have reason, or power to draw inferences. [Witness further testified in substance as upon the traverse. See post-] PHILO H. PERRY, 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 business of the jury was. Same answer. He said something about having been in prison five years, and about getting his 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 all, 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. BLANCHARD 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 complaint. I went up 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 cut off; also, the main artery running to the hand. [Witness further testified in substance as upon the traverse. See trial.] DR. LANSINGH BRIGGS, 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. Fosgate 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. Fosgate proceeded 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 accountability? A. I formed no opinion as to his accountability. I came away with the impression on my mind, exceedingly strong, that the boy had become demented, 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. CHARLES VAN EPPS, being called and sworn, testified: I reside in Auburn. Have practiced medicine twenty-one 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 he 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 perfectly 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 commenced. 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 little, and grunted, and made no other answer. Asked him if he felt well. Answer, Yes. Whether they used him well. Answer, Yes. Whether he was crazy. Answer, No. Q. On that conversation did you form the opinion that he was demented? A. I formed the opinion then, that his intellect was very small indeed; I mean his intellectual faculties. Had not sufficient information then to make up my mind whether he was demented or not. I went again; I think it was the next day. Found his pulse to vary both when sitting and when standing, without any variations in his countenance. I asked him if any other person had ever advised him to commit the crime. He said No. If any person had hired him to commit the murder. Answer, No. If he had ever told any body he was going to do it? into the jail for? Answer, Don't know. himself, and said "horse." Answer, No. What he was put Afterwards, seemed to recollect 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 book and gave it to him; he then mumbled over some words without meaning. Seemed to be prayer words; "Jesus Christ," "pray," only two words I recollect distinctly hearing him speak. Q. Which of all the remarks induced you to make up your mind as to the state of his 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 as they can recollect; this is one powerful argument in favor of his insanity. When they have committed desperate acts they glory in them. Q. What are the symptoms of the disease which you think this man has 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, so 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, calculated 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 disappointment, 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. Dementia is that form of insanity running into idiocy. Q. What do you think the cause is in this case? A. I should think it originated from brutal treatment. [Witness further testified in substance as upon the traverse. See trial.] REV. JOHN M. AUSTIN, Sworn and testified: I reside in Auburn. Am clergyman of the Universalist church; shall have been here two years in October next. I first knew the prisoner after his confinement in jail. Saw him a week or ten days after he was confined in jail, in the latter part of March. Have had several interviews with him in jail; 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 his 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 his 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. Asked 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 told 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 I'll 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 affair. And also I drew that inference from his remark 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. He has a sense of some things at times, and at others, not. CROSS EXAMINATION.-I have felt it my duty to visit the prisoner. |