[Reprint from The Alienist and Neurologist, Jan., 1886.] 
The Armstrong Case.* 
By Theo. W. Tmsher, M. D., Boston, Mass. 
THE legal inquiry into the mental condition of the 
widow of Gov. Armstrong was one of the most inter- 
esting events in the recent history of medical jurisprudence 
in this State. The formerly high social position of Mrs. 
Armstrong, her husband’s fame as ex-Mayor of Boston, 
and ex-Governor of Massachusetts, in those elder days 
when high office implied high honor; the amount of 
money involved; the amount alienated from its natural 
line of descent into the hands of her business adviser; 
and the array of eminent legal talent on both sides, made 
the case memorable from many points of view. 
The case was not a contest to set aside her will, as 
no will was ever executed, though the subject was often 
considered and several drafts made. It was a bill in 
equity, brought by A. S. Wheeler, Esq., Administrator, 
against Mrs. Armstrong’s former business adviser and agent, 
to recover $350,000 paid him, by her, during the last ten 
years of her life. The money was given secretly, her 
agent accounting each year for his collections of income 
and payments on her account, and receiving the balance 
as a present, with a receipt in full, dictated by Mrs. A. 
and signed by her. The case was tried in September 
and October, 1883, the trial lasting three weeks, before 
Justice Wm. Allen, of the Supreme Court; Wm. G. Rus- 
sell, R. M. Morse and W. W. Vaughn, for the plaintiff, 
and E. R. Hoar, Wm. Gaston and Aug. Russ, for the 
m 
defendant. 
Gov. Armstrong died in 1850, childless, leaving an 
estate of $150,000 to his widow, advising her in his will 
to keep up the style of living to which they had been 
•Read before the New England Psychological Society, Sept. 10th, 1885. 
1 2 
TJieo. W. Fisher. 
accustomed. His estate was chiefly real estate in the 
heart of Boston, destined to increase largely and rapidly 
in value. In earlier life he had been a well-known book 
publisher, and having made money in certain copyrights 
of books, once to be found in every pious New England 
family, he sold out to his successors, Crocker and Brew- 
ster. They continued the sale of the “ Church Psalmody,” 
“Watt’s Entire” and “Scott’s Commentaries,” and like- 
wise prospered 
In 1812, Gov. Armstrong married Miss Abigail Walker, 
sister of the late Dr. William Walker of Charlestown. It 
was said to have been a love match, she being but 
eighteen years of age. They lived frugally at the West 
End, boarding some of Mr. A’s apprentices as the cus- 
tom was. Messrs. Crocker and Brewster, then “ two raw 
boys from the Cape” as she called them, now aged and 
respected citizens, were personally cared for by Mrs. A. 
Ten years after their marriage, in 1822, they spent a year 
traveling in Europe. Mrs. Armstrong was presented at 
the French and English Courts and made the acquaintance 
of Miss Hannah More, and other distinguished persons of 
that day. In 1845 and 1846, they repeated their visit to 
Europe, spending two years in travel. Mr. Armstrong 
added to his other titles of distinction that of Deacon of 
the Old South Church. He lived in good style, however ; 
gave parties, kept a carriage and male servants up to his 
death. 
Mrs. Armstrong is said to have been her husband’s 
equal in every respect. She is described as of medium 
height, erect carriage, graceful deportment and some 
beauty ; intelligent and vivacious in conversation, elegantly 
dressed and fond of style and display up to the time of 
her husband’s death. Although greatly distressed by this 
event, she continued to maintain her social position upon 
a modified scale up to 1865, when she was seventy-one 
years old. Out of respect to her husband she preserved 
his desk, clothing and the furniture and pictures, of the 
room in which he died, intact, frequently exhibiting The Armstrong Case. 
3 
them to callers. She continued to live until her own 
death, in her house on Beacon St., opposite the Common, 
the iron fence of which Gov. Armstrong had been largely 
instrumental in having built. 
For a year or two after her husband’s death, her 
business affairs had been managed by Mr. Crocker, Gov. 
Armstrong’s former partner. She then took charge of 
them herself, soon after commencing a suit against 
Crocker and Brewster for payment of certain copyrights, 
which suit she lost. She collected her rents herself, 
employing Mr. J. who was her tenant, and of whom 
she bought her provisions, to collect in some cases of 
refusal to pay. About the year 1865, when she was 
seventy-one years old, a decided change occurred in 
her mode of life. She gave up her carriage but retained 
a horse, with which Mr. J., in his own carry-all, used 
to drive her about, on business or pleasure. He also 
used to call on her almost daily, and she grew to depend 
more and more on his advice and assistance. No bar- 
gain was made by which he was to be paid, but, as he 
testified, she promised to reward him liberally, sooner or 
later. 
For some unexplained reason, from 1865 to 1871, 
when she was seventy-seven years old, she lived abso- 
lutely alone. With exceptions of a few weeks only, she 
had no servants, did all her own work of the most menial 
kind, such as building fires, washing her clothing as well 
as the front steps, attending her own door and cooking. 
She became negligent of her personal appearance, her 
dress was soiled and shabby, and as Mr. J. himself 
testified, she dressed more meanly than he would have 
wanted one of his servants to dress. This conduct in a 
lady of her antecedents, with an income at that time of 
about $30,000 a year, struck her relatives and acquaintances 
as strange. 
In 1867, when seventy-three years old, she fell in her 
back-yard while on a step-ladder picking grapes, and with 
difficulty dragged herself into the house, having sprained 4 
Theo. IV. Fisher. 
her knee and otherwise injured herself. Mr. J. find- 
ing her in this condition, urged her to have a doctor, 
nurse and servants, but she refused, and he, with his wife 
and daughter, took care of her for a month. It should be 
here stated that Mrs. Armstrong had been for some years 
growing irritable, eccentric and hard to please. Her 
relatives had many of them been alienated by her sus- 
picions of their motives in calling, and by her criticisms 
of their conduct. Her acquaintances had naturally stopped 
calling when she adopted her solitary mode of life. She 
had become suspicious and secretive as early as 1855 or 
1856, when, as Mr. J. says, she first enjoined the 
most perfect secrecy in relation to all her affairs. 
In consequence of this fall and her unprotected con- 
dition, Mr. J. went to Mr. H., her husband’s old friend 
and business adviser, and asked him to go to her and 
tell her that he had heard of her fall through the 
neighbors, and to urge her to keep servants in future. 
She at once suspected Mr. J.’s agency in the matter, 
and after upbraiding him for telling one of her secrets, 
forbade him to visit her again. She transferred a large 
part of Mr. J.’s duties to a Mr. P., the carpenter 
who made repairs on her houses. This alienation 
from Mr. J. lasted three and one-half years, during 
which time no drives were taken, and no servants kept. 
Her life went on much as before in spite of a cataract 
which was removed in 1869 by Dr. Hasket Derby. She 
had double cataract, but one only was removed, result- 
ing in good vision of one eye for near objects. She 
could not recognize persons across the room with her 
reading glasses on. During treatment her sister, Mrs. 
W., was in attendance with servants for several weeks. 
In 1871 she became reconciled to Mr. J., and 
asked his advice about an income tax, which she thought 
was too large. She had paid him nothing up to this time 
and had kept her own accounts and written her own 
leases to save lawyers’ fees ; had invested her money, and 
kept her securities in her front chamber, of all which she The Armstrong Case. 
5 
was very proud. About this time Mr. J. says she 
proposed to make a will, giving him about $ 300,000 (or 
one-half of her property), as residuary legatee. In Nov. 
1872, when seventy-eight years old, she was attacked 
with double pneumonia, and was very sick and delirious 
for several weeks. Her life was despaired of, and her 
sister, Mrs. W. came to stay with her, and secured 
proper attendance. Dr. Rob’t Willard was called, and 
remained in regular attendance on her for the last ten 
years of her life. Dr. Willard says she was unconscious 
and incoherent, with lucid intervals for three weeks. 
After this sickness Mrs. Armstrong remained very 
weak in her limbs, and as Mr. J. testified, didn’t walk 
twenty rods in ten years. She occupied a room on 
the third story, in the rear, adjoining the bath room, and 
all the other rooms in the house were kept carefully 
locked. Two servants hired and paid by Mr. J. were 
her only attendants. Dr. Willard visited her at her 
own request about twice a month, and treated her for 
certain unimportant complaints. She took two quarts 
of the best French brandy per month, during most of the 
time. Her personal expenses were ‘extremely small, less 
than a thousand dollars a year, out of an income of 
about $40,000, the balance of which she annually paid 
over to Mr. J., unknown to anyone, and on a form 
of receipt dictated, as he says, by Mrs. Armstrong. 
In the spring of 1878, and again in 1879, when eighty- 
five years old she proposed again to make a will, and 
was examined by Dr. Norton Folsom, unknown to her, 
with reference to her capacity. Mr. J. says she 
could not bring her mind to it, and it was never made. 
It was hard for her to make up her mind to give away 
anything, as Mr. J. testified. She had heirs she didn’t 
like at all, and she suspected that most of them 
cared more for her money than they did for her, though 
most of them were either wealthy, or in good circum- 
stances. She died in 1882, leaving her property, valued 
at three-fourths of a million, to be divided according to 6 
Theo. IV. Fisher. 
law, among a large number of heirs, diminished by about 
$ 350,000, which she had given Mr. J. in the manner 
described. 
All the preceding statements were received from the 
testimony of the defendant who was called for the plaintiff. 
The plaintiff was obliged to rely largely on the rather 
infrequent visits of her relatives for evidence as to her 
mental condition, as she had few other callers, and was 
cared for solely by the defendant and servants in his 
employ. She had had three sisters, one brother and a 
large number of nephews and nieces, most of them per- 
sons of intelligence, and in good standing and comfort- 
able circumstances. The pecuniary interest of each in 
the estate was rather small. They all visited her from 
time to time as politeness required, or circumstances 
would allow, many of them were prevented from calling 
oftener as they stated by her peculiar mode of life, and 
sometimes by their cool reception. Her general distrust 
of their motives was well-known, and they naturally left 
her to live out the kind of life she had chosen. 
From the testimony of these relatives and other 
chance callers, or business acquaintances, we gather the 
following facts bearing on her mental condition. Most of 
the witnesses agree that at the age of seventy-one, in 
1865, when she began to live alone, she was irritable, 
unreasonable, positive, arbitrary, peculiar, eccentric, sus- 
picious, secretive, economical, penurious, out of society, 
and solitary. That this was a decided change in her 
character, although in some particulars her natural char- 
acteristics were greatly and even morbidly exaggerated. 
She was evidently punctillious and exacting in her 
business relations, as was shown by her suit against 
Crocker and Brewster, soon after her husband’s death, 
and by the evidence of Mr. J. and some other ten- 
ants. One probable reason of her living without servants 
was the fact that she could not get along with 
them or they with her, and she found it easier to do 
her own work, than adapt herself to ordinary domestic The Armstrong Case. 
7 
conditions. The only letter she ever wrote Mr. J. was 
an appeal to come home from the country one sum- 
mer and settle some difficulty with a servant, whose 
honesty she suspected. Like many old people she 
sometimes lost, or mislaid things which she may have 
supposed stolen. On one occasion $ 500 and on another 
$ 3000 were missing, both sums being afterwards 
accounted for. 
Her falling out with the only person she trusted, 
the defendant, was a very characteristic occurrence. 
Because he told an old friend of her fall, she sus- 
pended confidential relations with him for three and one- 
half years, demanding back $ 2,000 which she had pre- 
viously lent him. Mr. J. says she was “peculiar 
and positive,” and that he “didn’t dare contradict her; ” 
that he had had “a good many tussles” with her, that 
she was “hard to manage” and “had her own will after 
1865.” She had a misunderstanding with this person 
and a falling out with that one frequently. She carried 
this peculiarity down to the time of her death. She 
refused to have her own relatives in her sick chamber, and 
would not ask them to stay over night, and made no 
effort to entertain them in a proper manner when they 
called. There is some reason to believe that this was 
/ 
an inherited eccentricity, as Mr. W. testified that 
her brother had no intercourse with any member of 
his own or his wife’s family for many years before 
his death, and that he left a million and a-half of 
dollars. In accordance with a similar morbid condition 
of mind, she rejected the advice and aid of her relatives 
during life, and forbad their presence at her death-bed. 
Another decided change occurred in 1872, when she 
was seventy-eight years old, and was sick with double 
pneumonia. This very serious and prolonged sickness left 
her so weak, physically, that she was confined to the house, 
and much of the time to her chamber for the next ten 
years. The exact nature of this great and protracted 
disability was not explained. It was said her limbs 8 
Theo. W. Fisher. 
were weak, that she tottered and was lame on one 
side. She said that Mr. J. “ couldn’t get her over 
the stairs,” and that if she “once got down she would 
never get back alive,” and other expressions indicating 
great and special weakness, differing from that in ordin- 
ary old age. Mr. J. said there might have been partial 
paralysis, but no account of any shock is given. 
Loss of memory began to be a prominent symptom 
after 1872. Even before the pneumonia, there had 
been the usual tendency of old people to dwell on the 
remote past. She repeated to her visitors over and 
over again the story of Gov. Armstrong’s courtship, 
their travels in Europe, and his instrumentality in pro- 
curing the fence round the Common. This tendency 
increased after her sickness, and she would repeat the 
same story to the same visitor several times in the 
course of a short call. She also began to lose and 
misplace things more frequently. Keys were a source 
of annoyance to her. She felt called on to keep every 
door and chamber in the house locked, and carried about 
twenty keys, the servant said, which she frequently lost. 
She tied rags to them, to help her find them, or to des- 
ignate them, but why this was necessary, when as it was 
testified her eyesight was good for near objects, and she 
could write and read the Transcript with ease, does not 
appear. She lost her watch, her glasses and other 
small things in the same way. 
She, not very unnaturally forgot the names of some 
of her numerous heirs, but, what was a more serious 
indication of mental weakness, she could not remember 
long to whom she was talking after having been told. 
She would, repeatedly, in the same conversation, ask her 
relative her name, her mother’s name, where she lived, 
how many children she had, and this on many different 
occasions. In other words, she could not retain in her 
mind, for an hour, information concerning a single one of 
her numerous heirs who was in her presence at the time. 
On one occasion she forgot that she had just been The Armstrong Case. 
9 
informed of her sister’s sickness, and on another occasion, 
that her sister had been dead for some time. This loss 
of memory grew upon her, so that in the latter years of 
her life, she repeated the same story half a dozen times 
in the same visit to the same person. 
Her mental weakness was also manifest in her ten- 
dency to dwell on the story of her engagement to, and 
affection for Gov. Armstrong. This she told to relatives 
and strangers alike, often taking painters and plumbers 
into her confidence in this respect, showing them Gov. 
Armstrong’s last words : “ Oh ! how I love you ! ” written 
in a book. She said an old gentleman next door 
had thrown kisses at her and then called and offered 
himself in marriage. She was fond of advising young 
people about their love affairs, telling a young girl of 
sixteen, that her mother kept her too close; that she 
ought to be married; that it made no difference whom 
she married, as it was a disgrace to die an old maid. 
She asked the servants about their beaux, and advised 
one young man to marry young and another not to 
marry young, and showed on many occasions, a child- 
ish or rather a senile weakness concerning affairs of 
the heart. 
Another side of her character exhibits a growing 
miserly disposition, relieved by isolated acts of benev- 
olence or excessive generosity, which showed a loss of 
balance and self-control in business matters. She always 
showed some disposition to severity in her dealings 
with her tenants, and in negotiating a lease of real 
estate with Jordan and Marsh, held out strongly for an 
additional $50, saying: “Where is my bread and butter 
coming from?” After 1865, this tendency increased. 
For some reason she did not pay Mr. J. for his 
services for years, and then paid him vastly more than 
his services were worth on any reasonable estimate. 
She lived without servants, eating the simplest food, 
her dress “ rusty and dowdy,” as Mr. J. says. She 
lectured the butcher boy and others on economy, 10 
Theo. W. Fisher. 
referring to the habits of the French in making the 
most of every scrap of food; said it was possible to 
live on a chop and one-half pint of milk a day; said 
she couldn’t afford vegetables ; wore an $8.00 dress for 
eight years ; admired a fifteen-cent apron ; wore $2.50 
boots a long time; thought it extravagant for a young 
girl to wear a silk handkerchief over her shoulders; 
locked up a large amount of silver to avoid the income 
tax, and used broken kitchen crockery, two tined 
steel forks and knives without handles for years, and 
served her company in the same style, although there 
was plenty of silver and china in the house. She refused 
to have a fire in the grate in her room and dined in 
the bath-room and water-closet, where there was a reg- 
ister, for the sake of the warmth, and wore her under- 
clothing until it was so shabby and patched that her 
own servants refused to wear it when it was given to 
them. 
Her chief expenses consisted in her two quarts 
of brandy per month, at $ 7.00 a quart, and her 
doctor’s bill. Her annual expenses were less than a 
thousand dollars. Another very significant condition 
of things was found at her death. In addition to a gen- 
eral state of dilapidation in her wardrobe, and a moth- 
eaten condition of the furniture, was found several bureau 
drawers full of rubbish of a peculiar kind. Her chair was 
habitually near this bureau, and in it she kept her keys 
and other articles of daily use. As Mr. W., and 
several others stated, these drawers were in a chaotic 
condition. 
Among other things in them were found a score or 
more of rolls or packages as large as the fist, com- 
posed of layer upon layer of rags, tied in hard knots, 
and which must have required many hours to tie up. 
In the center of these bundles, which were opened 
with difficulty, were found the following articles : Copper 
cents, both old and new, and of no special value ; sil- 
ver coins and scrip, the whole amounting to $ 400 or The Armstrong Case. 
11 
$ 500; a chip of wood, porcelain buttons, burnt matches, 
empty spools, shot, two gold watches, and one dia- 
mond earring, worth $450. An explanation was attempted 
by the defense, of this state of things, that they were tied 
up in this way so she would know them, as she desig- 
nated the keys by rags. What need there was of this 
when she could read fine print to the day of her death 
is not apparent. It was also explained that these appar- 
ently valueless articles had a value from association for 
her, but why mummify them in such a strange way, so 
that they could not be seen by herself? There was no 
danger of the trifling articles being stolen, if kept in some 
other way, while there was danger of the valuable ones 
being lost, by being tied up in rags. In fact a pair of 
mosaic ear-rings was found in the rubbish <of the back-yard, 
after the drawers had been cleared. To my mind, there is 
no escape from the conclusion that they were secreted by 
a miserly dement, with absurd and insane cunning, either 
as a protection to the valuable articles, or as a purpose- 
less hoarding of worthless and valuable articles indiscrim- 
inately. 
The defense produced several servants, who corrobor- 
ated much of the preceding testimony. One stated that 
she “ knew what her relatives were after, ” and that “ she 
didn’t care anything about them ; ” that she kept twenty 
keys about her person, and otten lost them, with her 
combs, brush, glasses, teeth, etc., that she had things 
tied up in her bureau drawers, so that she would know 
them by feeling, although she was able to read and write. 
Another testified that she said her heirs “only came to 
see how soon she was going to die, so as to get her 
money. ” Another that she said her “ relatives would 
have had her in hospital, if it had not been for Mr. 
J.; ” that she wore her clothes very thin, so that they 
were well patched and she would not have worn such 
herself; that she was a hard woman to manage ; that she 
could thread a needle, but couldn’t find things in her 
bureau drawer and that she often joked about getting 12 
Theo. W. Fisher. 
married with servants, painters and plumbers. They all 
testified generally to her intelligence and mental sound- 
ness, her ability to direct her household affairs, to her 
exacting disposition in certain directions and to her great 
liking for Mr. J. 
Mr. P., the carpenter, who helped her during the 
period when Mr. J. was out of favor, made a draft of a 
will for her, in 1869, as she feared the operation for cat- 
aract might prove fatal. By this will Mr. P. was to 
receive $50,000 and Mr. J. nothing. In 1879, she gave 
Mr. J. $75.00 after he was burned out, and wished she 
could do more for him. She showed him a copy of a 
will in which she had done something handsome for Mr. 
J. as well as for himself. He read enough to know he 
was to be one df the executors. Said she meant to 
“ keep the staff in her own hands,” with reference to her 
property. What that implied is not clear, as she had 
already given Mr. J. nearly $300,000. 
Sundry tenants, workmen and business callers, testified 
to brief interviews with her during the last fifteen years 
of her life, in which she talked of old times and showed 
the fence and Gov. A.’s portrait and room furniture. 
Certain differences and disagreements were testified to. 
She complained of trespassers on her Charlestown estate; 
of the smallness of income from her brother’s estate; of 
the division line between her house and the next; of 
the sewer tax; of the color of the paint on the fence, etc. 
The defense relied largely on the opinion of Dr. Rob- 
ert Willard who had not known her previous to her 
illness in 1872. After her recovery he saw her only four 
or five times up to 1875, but afterwards more frequently. 
Up to that time she did not show very great evidence of 
senility. She was coherent and agreeable in conversa- 
tion, giving detailed accounts of her travels in Europe. 
She wanted to talk mostly of the remote past; of her 
childhood, her courtship, of the distinguished people she 
met in her first visit abroad; for example, Daniel O’Con- 
nell, Bishop Wilson, Wilberforce and Hannah More. She The Armstrong Case. 
13 
was very proud of her descent from Edward Johnson, 
author of a rare book, entitled “ Wonder-Working Provi- 
dence,” of which she had two copies. 
Dr. Willard saw her read but never saw her write. 
The last two years of her life he always found her in 
her chamber. She sat in the bath-room in cold weather. 
Her mind was clear to within ten days of her death. 
She was reticent about her financial affairs, but spoke often 
of Mr. J. with affection. She was obstinate in small mat- 
ters. She showed some loss of memory in her late years. 
There was a tendency to repeat what she had said with- 
in ten or fifteen minutes. The soundness of her judge- 
ment was not affected as far as he knew by this. She 
was much prostrated in warm weather, and died of dis- 
ease of the heart. 
On cross-examination he said he knew nothing of 
many of the peculiarities mentioned in the plaintiffs 
hypothetical question. He thought the condition of 
things in the bureau drawers peculiar. He had heard of 
her as a person of very economical habits. Feebleness of 
limbs was very noticeable the last two years. She was 
never in the street on foot after her illness in 1872. She 
might have gone out if she would have worn her long- 
sighted glasses, but refused in spite of Dr. Derby’s 
advice. He made her an average of a visit a week for 
seven years. His object was professional and not friendly. 
She needed looking after and requested his visits. She 
never told him of her living without servants, or of her 
quarrel with Mr. J. She thought her sister-in-law, Mrs. 
W., disliked her because she was of a different religious 
denomination. She disliked one sister’s husband, but 
was proud of her brother, Dr. W. Mrs. A. had the 
impression that Dr. Folsom was to examine her eyes. He 
didn’t mean she should know that she was being tested 
as to her capacity to make a will. He gave Dr. Folsom 
little or no account of her, and didn’t know himself of 
her gifts to Mr. J. He may not have mentioned her 
sickness. He intended to have Dr. F. unbiased. Mrs. A. 14 
Theo. W. Fisher. 
would have been indignant if she had known her 
was being tested. He admitted that an examination 
under such limitations was less satisfactory than without 
them. 
He said Dr. Folsom noticed that she repeated her- 
self and mentioned it to him. Dr. Willard also testified 
that soundness of mind was not consistent with an 
extreme loss of memory, though a person might under- 
stand what was said, and answer correctly with consider- 
able loss of memory. Senility, he said, is growing old 
with the slow and gradual failure of all the powers of 
body and mind. Senile dementia is a passive insanity 
accompanied by a varied train of symptoms, such as 
incoherence, untidiness, profound sleeplessness, failure of 
appetite and digestion ; there may be hallucinations. It is 
easily controlled and patients are rarely violent. Decay 
of memory is not an indication of senile dementia,, 
although it may accompany it. He denied that a far- 
sighted memory is mentioned in the books as evidence 
of senile dementia. A violent change in habits of life 
may be an evidence; penuriousness alone is not; senile 
dements easily yield to persuasion. Has read no treatise 
on senile dementia for some years. 
Dr. Willard tried to explain the tying of the articles 
mentioned by different theories for each article, but, sub- 
stantially admitted that it was a peculiar state of things,, 
and he could conceive of no reasonable motive in some 
of the instances; thought it an evidence of oddity and 
that it would not alone satisfy him of a person’s mental 
unsoundness. 
Dr. Norton Folsom testified that he saw Mrs. Arm- 
strong at Mr. J.’s request, in April, ’78, March, ’79 and 
May, ’79. He took no notes and cannot separate in his 
mind what she said at the different visits. Went ostensi- 
bly to examine her eyes. She gave him an account of 
her early life and of her desire for a house on Beacon 
St. She showed him the distance at which she could 
read. Noticed a lapse of memory at first interview. The Armstrong Case. 
15 
Returned to the beginning of a story more than once. 
Said herself, “ you know an old lady’s memory is not so 
good as a young one’s.” She described her pleasure in 
reviewing the past. She said she had a method of aid- 
ing her memory by putting things in certain places. 
Showed a comprehension of a defect of mind, which is 
evidence of soundness of mind. Loss of memory would 
not affect the reasoning powers. At interviews, in 1879, 
there was no change and no incoherence. She forgot 
and repeated as before. Thinks it would sometimes be 
better for a patient not to know the object of an exam- 
ination. 
The hypothetical question of the defense recounted 
generally her history down to 1872; stating that she 
wrote her own leases up to that date and signed all doc- 
uments afterwards in a firm hand ; that she could go down 
stairs till 1876, eight years before her death ; that she 
read the Bible and French novels, and failed to recognize 
people because she wouldn’t wear long-sighted glasses; 
that her housekeeping was orderly ; that she liked Mr. J, 
and disliked her relatives ; that her relatives neglected her ; 
and that she gave directions to mechanics about work. 
The condition of the bureau drawers was not put in. 
The question was then asked of Dr. Folsom, would such 
a person be susceptible to influence by others, and the 
answer was “she would not.” 
On cross-examination he said, “ a person to have capac- 
ity to make a will, should be able, by memory, or by 
such aid as they know how to summon, to recall the 
value of their property in general, the persons who were 
intitled to inherit it, and those to whom they were under 
obligations. They should have a normal preception of 
surrounding objects, be free from morbid emotion, have 
will of sufficient strength to carry out their purpose, and 
power of reasoning correctly. Admits that he didn’t test 
her power of recalling her relatives, and didn’t test her 
knowledge of her property. Can’t recall details of her 
statements and knew nothing of her relations to Mr. J., 16 
Theo. W. Fisher. 
or of her living alone. Constant recurrence to a certain 
round of topics would indicate senility. Defines senile 
dementia as a decay of mind in old age, with apathy, insensi- 
bility to influences from without, sluggishness of intellect, 
extreme loss of memory and weakness of will. Possibly 
unreasonable prejudices, or attachments, penuriousness, 
secrecy, hoarding, suspiciousness and negligence of dress 
may exist. 
Dr. Fisher, the only expert called by the plaintiff, tes- 
tified that senile dementia in its widest application, 
included any mental peculiarity in old age, out of the 
ordinary course, or any mental condition differing from 
the usual process of growing old. He assented to 
Spitzka’s definition that senile dementia is a “ progressive 
and primary deterioration of the mind connected with the 
period of involution, but exceeding the ordinary extent 
of such deterioration to a pathological degree. ” Any 
excess or irregularity in the usual process of involution 
would, he said, be properly classed as senile insanity, or 
dementia. He described senility as the common and 
ordinary process of growing old, wherein the senses, per- 
ceptions, memory, emotions and intellect, all gradually and 
uniformly become blunted and weakened, without unusual 
excitement, depression or alteration of character. This 
uniformity was often interrupted by accidental patholog- 
ical changes in the brain, due to arterial disease, malnu- 
trition, starvation of the cortex, atrophy, apoplexies and 
the like, which might result in senile insanity, or dementia. 
He mentioned as among the mental characteristics 
of senile dementia, extreme loss of memory for recent 
events, unusual reversion of the mind to the events of 
early life to the exclusion of more recent interests, 
alteration of character, whereby the person from lead- 
ing a strict and sober life becomes exhilarated, garru- 
lous, childish, amorous, or dissipated, or depressed with 
disgust of life and fear of poverty; or he may become 
irritable, fault-finding, suspicious, secretive, penurious, 
showing hostility to friends and relatives, with undue The Armstrong Case. 
17 
favoritism to comparative strangers. Any decided alter- 
ation of character would indicate some form or degree 
of senile dementia. 
In answer to an hypothetical question put by plaintiff 
including all the evidences of loss of memory, change 
of character, irritability, secretiveness, parsimony, exact- 
ing disposition, undue prejudice against relatives, and 
undue favoritism to Mr. J., with the purposeless hoard- 
ing of trifles, in Mrs. Armstrong’s case, he said he 
thought there was reasonable ground for belief in the 
existence of senile dementia in some form or degree 
in such a person. He thought there were evidences 
of alteration of character as early as ’65, when she began 
to live alone and that decided evidence of weakness 
of mind existed after her sickness in 1872, when she 
was seventy-eight years old, increasing from that time 
gradually until her death. He thought the condition of 
articles tied up in rags suggestive of the motiveless 
secreting and hoarding of articles of more or less value 
by miserly dements. He thought a person like the one 
described, of exacting disposition and arbitrary and 
unreasonable temper, could be easily led by any per- 
son who fell in with her prejudices, and humored her 
weakness; that such a condition was often taken advan- 
tage of by designing persons to further their own 
purposes. 
The above statement is written from memory, while 
the following resume of Dr. Cowles’ testimony is from 
brief notes taken at the trial. Dr. Cowles was the 
only expert called by the defense, except the family 
physcian and Dr. Folsom, who had seen the patient. 
Dr. Cowles gave a definition and description of senile 
dementia, and answered the hypothetical question of 
the defense, which was put to Dr. Folsom, that such 
a condition of things would not necessarily indicate 
senile dementia to his mind ; he thought the articles 
in her drawer would not contra-indicate sanity; 
neither would her living alone undoubtedly indicate 18 
Theo. W. Fisher. 
senile dementia; nor her quarrel with Mr. J., which was 
peculiar and not exactly like an ordinary misunder- 
standing. Economy is not a necessary evidence of 
insanity. A sustained quarrel is not consistent with the 
irritability of old age he thought, which involves the 
easily yieldings to the control of others. 
On cross-examination he said the condition of the bureau 
drawer was of little account, because the rest of the 
house was in good order; still he could not quite 
understand the reason for her tying things up in that 
way. A person may have capacity to manage property, 
and yet have an unreasonable prejudice, and show 
undue favoritism, indicating some mental unsoundness. 
Change in mode of life, if taking place suddenly, would 
indicate unsoundness; a slow change would suggest the 
necessity for further investigation. Cheap mode of life 
would show a loss of desire for display, and return to 
simplicity of living; thought such table-service not consis- 
tent with her position. Her breach with Mr. J., was a 
sign of strength of mind in her. 
Dr. Cowles was asked if he would always inform a 
patient that he was being examined as to his capacity 
to make a will. Dr. Fisher had testified that it was 
his invariable custom to do so, as it was necessary to 
inquire directly about heirs and property. Dr. Cowles 
said he might want to approach a case independently, 
and circumstances would determine whether he would 
inform a patient. He admitted that a person of strong 
will in certain directions, and of weak will in others, was 
more easily led by a person who humors this condi- 
tion. 
He agreed substantially with Dr. Fisher in his defini- 
tions of senile insanity. He described senility and said 
senile dementia is a further failure of mind and a greater 
loss of memory. Loss of perception impairs the judgment 
and understanding, and runs into disease of mind. Excess- 
ive impairment of mind becomes disease. Dr. Cowles 
dwelt more upon impairment of mind, though, admitting The Armstrong Case. 
19 
that alteration of character might be evidence of a dis- 
eased mind. 
The jury found for the plaintiff in fifteen out of six- 
teen exhibits. They found that, from 1873 to 1875, she 
was unduly influenced, but not of unsound mind, and 
that after 1875, for the last seven years of her life, she 
was both of unsound mind and unduly influenced. The 
result was a verdict against Mr. J. for $350,000 and inter- 
est amounting to half a million dollars in all. Against 
this Mr. J. could put in a claim for services for a long 
period of years, which claim would probably be adjusted 
by a master appointed by the Court. 
Whatever may be thought of the merits of this par- 
ticular case, it is true that there is often room for reason- 
able doubt as to the existence of senile dementia. It 
does not always show itself in the extreme form of men- 
tal impairment, or mental excitement and delusion, but 
may exist as a somewhat chronic alteration of character 
dependent on senile changes in the brain, and the exact 
point where these changes become pathological cannot be 
definitely ascertained. In such a case, experts might 
fairly differ, especially when obliged to give an opinion 
on a hypothetical case in which the presentation of evi- 
dence is emphasized—on the one hand for the plaintiff, 
on the other for the defense. It is sometimes this 
emphasis, which is just enough to turn the scale in the 
expert’s mind. 
The same array of facts may almost always be 
explained in two different ways, and present one mean- 
ing to one set of witnesses and another to the other set. 
It is hard even for an expert, less biased than the other 
witnesses, to get far enough away from a case to take a 
broad and comprehensive view of it. He is led to keep 
the points which tell for the side on which he is called 
in the foreground of his mind, where they obtain undue 
prominence, insensibly as it were. And the hypothetical 
question still further restricts him to a partial view of 
the case. 20 
Theo. W. Fisher. 
Taking a retrospective view of the Armstrong case, I 
cannot resist the belief that she was in some degree 
insane, and being so, her business adviser, Mr. J., 
should have refrained from dealing with her in the 
secret manner prescribed by her, or, if he could justify 
it to his conscience, he ought not to have been and, 
perhaps, was not surprised that it led to legal inves- 
tigation. A person who proposes in these days to 
leave large blocks of his property outside the natural 
line of descent and especially to put it in private 
hands, thereby losing the sympathy which is drawn 
out by public bequests, should make his intentions so 
public as to admit of no doubt, or expect to have 
them legally investigated after his death.