S. The effect of the plea of insanity has sometimes been controlled by the instructions of the court in regard to the burden of proof and the requisite amount. The older doc trine was that the person is to be considered sane until proved beyond a doubt to be in sane. Thus, in State vs. Spencer, 1 Zabr. N. J. 196, the court (C. J. Hornblower) said, "Where it is admitted, or clearly proved, that he [the prisoner] committed the act, but it is insisted that he was insane at the time,—and the evidence leaves the question of insanity in doubt,—there the jury ought to find against him." Of late years, and espe cially in this country, a very different doc trine hasprevailed to some extent. Thus, on an appeal for a new trial in People vs. Mc Cann, 16 N.Y. 58, it was held, all the judges concurring, "that it was an error in the judge to charge the jury that, sanity being the normal state, there is no presumption of in sanity ; that the burden of proving it is upon the prisoner ; that a failure to prove it, like a failure to prove any other fact, is the mis fortune of the party attempting the proof, and thus they must be satisfied of his in sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, or other wise must convict." Sc, too, in Corn. vs. Rogers, 7 Mete. Mass. 500, the court (C. J. Shaw) told the jury "that if the prepon derance of the evidence were in favor of his insanity,—if its bearing and leaning, as a whole, inclined that way,—they would be authorized to find him insane." See, also, Cr. Gas. 239 ; 4 Den. N. Y. 9 ; Elwell, Malp. 420; I Russ. Crimes, 9; 1 Mood. & R. 75; 9 Carr.
& P. 667; 8 Scott, N. R. 595; 19 N. Y. 58; 1 Park. Crim. N. Y. 649; 3 id. 274; 30 Miss. 600 ; 5 Ohio St. 77 ; 6 McLean C. C. 121 ; 21 Mo. 464; 16 B. Monr. Ky. 587 ; 17 Ala. N. s. 434; 1 Curt. 1 ; 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 38; 2 Barb. N. Y. 566; 6 Humphr. Tenn. 199; 4 Penn. St. 264; 7 Mete. Mass. 500; 4 M'Cord, So. C. 183; 4 Cow. N.Y. '207.
The following are the most important works on this subject:— Hoffbauer, J. C. Die Psycologie in ihren Hauptanwendungen auf die Rechtspflege (Psychology in its Principal Applications to the Administration of Justice). Halle, 1809.
Haslam. J. Medical Jurisprudence as it .relates t3 Insanity. Lond. 1817.
Georget, E. O. Examen medical des Proces criminels, etc. Paris, 1825.
Nouvelle Discussion medico-legale sur la Folie. Par. 1826.
Michu, J. L. Discussions medico-legales sur la Monomanie homicide. Par. 1826.
Discussion medico-legale sur la Folie. Par.. 1826.
Des Maladies mentales con siderke dans leurs Rapports avec la Legislation civile et criminelle. Par. 1827.
Burrows, G. M. Commentaries on In sanity. Lond. 1828.
Conolly, John, A.M. Inquiry concerning the Indications of insanity. Lond. 1830.
Friedreich, J. B. Handbuch der gericbt lichen Psycologie. Leipzig, 1835.
Nichol, Sir John. Judgment in Dew vs. Clark, 1 Addams, 279; in Ingram vs. Wyatt,. 1 Haoggard, 384; in Portsmouth vs. Ports mouth, 1 Haggard, 355; in Brogden vs. Brown, 2 Addams, 441; in Evans vs. Knight, 1 Addams, 229; in Groom & Thomas vs. Thomas & Thomas, 2 Haggard, 433; ii. Kin dleside vs. Harrison, 2 Phillimore, 449.
Pagan, J. M. The Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity. Lond. 1840.
'Marc, C. C. H. De la Folie, consideree dans see Rapports avec les Questions medico judiciaires. Par. 1840.
Prichard, J. C. On the Different Forms of Insanity in relation to Jurisprudence. Lond. 1842.
Benefield & Merrett. Trial of D. McNaugh ton. Lend. 1843.
Bigelow & Bemis. Trial of Abner RogeTa... Bost. 1844.
Brougham, Lord. Opinion in Waring Waring, 6 Moore, P. C. Cases, 349, 1848. Taylor, A. S. Medical Jurisprudence [chap.
on Insanity]. Philadelphia, 1850. Winslow, F. Lectures on Insanity. don, 1854.
Wharton, F. On Mental Unsoundness. Philadelphia; 1 55.
Brady & Br n. Trial of Huntingdon. New York, 185 .
Beck, T. R. Elements of Medical Juris prudence (chapter on Mental Alienation]. Philadelphia, 1859.
Ray, J. The Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity. Boston, 1860.
See APOPLEXY AND PARALYSIS; DELIR1111(