present stage of our legal development: Clarke's Case, 1 C. H. (N. Y.) 176; Patterson v. People, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 625; ante, §§ 54-56. But if it appears that the accused has been insane, on general principles of the law, this condition of mind would be presumed to continue until the contrary is shown, and it would devolve upon the prosecution to show that the accused was sane at the time of the commission of the act charged as criminal: Ante, §§ 45, 46; People v. Montgomery, 13 Ab. Pr., N. S. (N. Y.) 207. In New York it has been held that if the accused knew, at the time of doing an act, that it was criminal, and that he was committing a crime which was legally and morally wrong, he is responsible: Willis v. People, 32 N. Y. 715; 5 Park. C. R. 621; Flannagan v. People, 52 N. Y. 467; People v. Kline, Edm. S. C. (N. Y.) 13; People v. Moett, 23 Hun (N. Y.), 60; People v. Sprague, 2 Park. C. R. 43.

A mere frenzy, without total derangement, will not exempt the person from criminal responsibility: Pierrow's Case, 3 C. H. Rec. (N. Y.) 123; see also Sanchez v. People, 22 N. Y. 147; 4 Park. C. R. (N. Y.) 535. And volun

tary intoxication, though amounting to frenzy, is no defense to a homicide committed without provocation: Ante, § 57; People v. Rogers, 18 N. Y. 9; 9 Park. C. R. 632; Kenny v. People, 31 N. Y. 330; People v. Eastwood, 3 Park. 25; Rafferty v. People, 66 Ill. 118; State v. Harlow, 21 Mo. 446; Shannahan v. State, 8 Bush (Ky.), 463; Charce v. State, 31 Ga. 424; Humphreys v. State, 45 Ga. 190.

And if the accused at the time he did the criminal act was in such a state of mind as to know that it was morally wrong and unlawful, he would be criminally responsible, unless it was the result of an irresistible impulse or insane delusion: Ante, §§ 50-54; 6 Field's Lawyers' Briefs, §§ 440-444; Willis v. People, 32 N. Y. 715; 5 Park. C. R. (N. Y.) 621; Flannagan v. People, 52 N. Y. 467; People v. Sprague, 2 Park. C. R. (N. Y.) 43.

Evidence of intoxication, both at common law and under statutes, is always admissible to explain the conduct and intent of the accused: People v. Hammill, 2 Park. C. R. (N. Y.) 223; Lonegran v. People, 6 Park. C. R. 209; People v. Rogers, 18 N. Y. 9. And this would fre

quently be material for the purpose of establishing the grade of the crime: People v. Batting, 49 How. (N. Y.) 392; ante, § 62.

§ 65. Rules suggested on examination of mental condition. Drs. Ray and Ferrie, in their valuable treatise on Forensic Medicine, suggest the following rules for the guidance of the medical man in the examination of persons in various cases supposed to have want of mental capacity or to be of unsound mind :

"1. Observe narrowly the general appearance, conformation, and shape of the head; the complexion and expression of the countenance; the gait and movements, and the speech.

"2. Ascertain the state of the health, of the appetite and digestion, of the tongue, skin and pulse. Notice especially the presence or absence of febrile symptoms, as distinguishing delirium from madness. Ascertain whether there is sadness or excitement, restlessness or stillness, and whether the sleep is sound and continuous, or disturbed and broken. In females, inquire into the state of the menstrual function.

"3. The family history should be traced out in order to ascertain whether there is any hered

itary predisposition to insanity, and whether other members of the family have been subject to fits, or have betrayed marked eccentricity of behavior.

"4. The personal history should be ascertained with equal care. If the mind appear unsound,

ascertain whether the unsoundness dates from birth, from infancy, or from what time. If the unsoundness have supervened later in life, whether it followed severe bodily illness, accident, mental shock, long continued anxiety of mind, repeated epileptic fits, or indulgence in habits of intemper- · ance, or in solitary vice.

"5. Inquire whether the present state of the mind differs from that which existed when it was reputed to be sound; and whether the feelings, affections, and domestic habits have undergone a change.

"6. Ascertain whether the existing unsoundness is a first attack, and if so, whether it began with oppression or excitement; if not, did the first seizure follow a period of melancholy, passing then into mania, and then into slow convalescence? If any signs of any general paralysis are present in speech or gait, has the patient squan

dered his money, grown restless, and wandered about, exposed his person, committed petty thefts, or had delusions of wealth and grandeur?

"7. When our object is to ascertain the mental capacity, it must be tested by the conversation directed to such matters as age, the birth-place, profession, or occupation of parents, number of brothers, sisters, and near relations, common events, remote and recent, the year, name of the month, and day of the week, the name and family of the sovereign, and of persons best known and most talked of. The power of performing operations of arithmetic, and the knowledge of the value of money should be tested, and the memory by repeating simple forms of words in general use, such as the Lord's Prayer. In testing the power of attention, merely negative or affirmative answers to leading questions should be distinguished from such replies as indicate judgment and reflection. If the inquiry relate not to the capacity of the mind, but to its unsoundness in other respects, delusion should be sought for by conversations directed to the topics most likely to interest and excite the mind. The state of the moral feelings will be tested by conversation di