THE BARBER CASE. 
The Legal Responsibility of 
Epileptics. 
BY 1^' 
P. M. WISE, M. IX, 
Willard, N. Y. 
FROM 
Slmcrtcan Journal of Eitsamtj?, 
January, 1889. 
UTICA, N. Y. THE BARBER CASE. 
The Legal Responsibility of Epileptics. 
BY P. M. WISE, M. D., 
Medical Superintendent, Willard Asylum for the Insane, Willard, N. Y. 
The case about to be reported, presents some unique features 
that deserve a permanent record ; not only as an illustration of the 
conception of epilepsy and mental responsibility of epileptics, by 
the ordinary lay mind, as presented in the verdict of the jury, but 
as a verv marked instance of constancy in the transmission of one 
form of nervous disease, for three generations. 
Attention may also be properly directed to the weight given by 
expert to the absence of motive for the commission of 
the crime, as a measure of responsibility, and to the legal criteria 
of responsibility as laid down by the court in charging the jury. 
The antecedent history of the prisoner in connection with the char- 
acter of the crime and the weight of evidence favorable to irre- 
sponsibility, may well create surprise that at least a “ reasonable 
doubt” was not established. It is another instance to be added to 
the long record of cases, in which the American jury system may 
fairly be considered incompetent, to determine questions of a scien- 
tific nature. The fact that a coherent act may be committed by a 
person in the unconscious epileptic state, is incomprehensible to the 
average juryman. Such a statement of fact, whatever may be the 
authority enunciating it, is measured 
“ with a sense as cold 
As is a dead man’s nose.” 
TnE BARBER CASE. 
Richard Barber, aged 27 years, a native of Billingboro, Eng- 
land, emigrating to America at the age of 19, a resident of Ulysses, 
N. Y., was indicted on the 22d of March, for the murder of Ann 
Mason on the night of the 16th of March, 1888. He was brought 
to trial in the Tompkins Circuit of the Supreme Court, October 15, 
1888, Hon. Walter Lloyd Smith, Justice, presiding. There ap- 
peared for the people Clarence L. Smith, District Attorney, and 
David M. Dean, counsel; and for the defendant, George B. Davis 
and A. A. Hungerford, all of Ithaca. 2 
It appears that at the indictment, the prisoner pleaded “ not 
guilty” with the specification of insanity; that the Court appointed 
a Commission consisting of Drs. W. C. Wey, of Elmira, and Willis 
E. Ford, of Utica, and Hon. Marcus Lyon, to inquire into the san- 
ity of the prisoner. At the assembling of the Commission eleven 
days after the indictment, an examination led to the finding, that 
Barber, at the time of the alleged commission of the crime charged 
against him, and at the examination, was of sound mind. The 
Commission reported to the Court on April 19, and on the same 
day, the date of trial was fixed at June 6, 1888. But upon appli. 
cation of the defendant’s attorney, the Supreme Court issued a 
commission to take evidence in England, at the early home of Bar- 
ber, and where the immediate relatives of Barber resided, and set 
down the trial at a later date. 
These are, in brief, the technical preliminaries of the trial of 
Richard Barber, for the most atrocious and fiendish murder ever 
committed in Tompkins county. 
The only witness of the crime was Richard Mason, the husband 
of Ann Mason, the victim. It appears that Barber left the house 
at which he was living, in the early evening, with the avowed pur- 
pose of visiting the Masons, with whom he held the closest friendly 
relations, and whom he considered his “ best friends in America.” 
It was customary for him to make them occasional visits when lie 
was working within easy distance from them, and at such times 
would entertain Ann Mason by playing upon the accordeon. His 
affection for Ann Mason was well shown, in his purchase of a music 
box for her, costing about twenty-five dollars, notwithstanding he 
was extremely frugal and spent very little money for his own en- 
tertainment. This he intended to present to her before leaving for 
a distant place where he had engaged to work during the summer, 
lie gave as his reason, that as she liked music, and would miss his 
playing, she could then furnish her own music by “turning a 
crank.” This is related as an indication of the friendly feeling, 
then existing, between Barber and the Masons, on the eventful 
evening of the crime. 
Richard Mason was certified as insane at the time of Barber’s 
trial, and his testimony, perpetuated by order of the Court, at an 
examination of him on the I 8th of April, was read in evidence. 
In substance, Mason testified that at 9 p. m., on the 16th of March, 
as he was coming from his barn to the house, he saw Barber stand- 
ing near the back door of his house, when he invited him in. They 
engaged in conversation for about an hour, Mason asking Barber 3 
to remain all night and inviting him to take some apples. In 
Mason’s words, “ we were talking and visiting entirely pleasant; 
Barber and I were on the best of terms ; nothing had ever occurred 
between us; we were just as good friends as kittens.” Ann Mason 
had retired to bed in an adjoining room, previous to Barber’s 
coming into the house. Mason was standing up paring an apple to 
eat, and as he started to pass Barber to sit down the latter made a 
sudden assault upon him. “ He struck me on the back of the head 
three or four times and knocked me down and cut my head with 
something, I did not see what it was. He knocked me senseless on 
the floor. It seems to me I got up and turned around to him and 
said ‘did you strike me,’ and he said ‘ no,’ just as calm as could be, 
and I did not know where the blow came from. Then he struck 
me three or four times, and I fell in an opposite direction.” Mason 
then called to his wife in the adjoining room, but received no reply. 
“ Barber then went directly to my wife’s room and commenced 
pounding her. She hallooed murder and screamed quite loud. 
She screamed four or five times. I heard him continue pounding 
her, and heard her groan. The groanings and screamings ceased 
after a while, long enough for her to die.” Mason’s evidence made 
it appear that Barber came out and assaulted him again, and then 
returned to his wife’s room, repeating the assaults upon her and 
back again, at which time Mason had crawled underneath a high- 
legged bureau. He then asked Barber why he didn’t go away, 
without receiving a reply. His evidence at this point is a little 
confusing, but bears a presumption that considerable time elapsed, 
perhaps half an hour, before Barber left the house. He threw the 
hearth rug and cushion over Mason’s legs as he was lying under the 
table “ and put kerosene on them from the lamp, and set them on 
fire.” Mason kicked them off, when Barber “ picked up the rug 
and cushion and accordeon and put them on the table in the corner 
of the room, poured oil on them and set them on fire. Then he 
had the door knob in his hand and kept looking out, north and south. 
Then he kept watching the fire and when it got up to a pretty 
good headway, and in a few minutes I said, ‘ why don’t you go 
away. I can’t get out of here, but will lie here and perish and 
burn up with my wife.’ That is the last I saw of him. My wife 
lay in the room dead in bed, I expect. There was blood on the 
floor, piles of it. The lamp fell down and' great smoke rose up 
and flames and I crept out of doors to the wood pile in the 
orchard.” 4 
A small pile of kindling wood was lying in front of Mason and 
Barber, as they were conversing previous to the assault. The 
pieces were about sixteen inches long and two inches in thickness. 
The wounds inflicted upon Mason indicated that they were made 
by a piece of this wood, as there were no fractures, although there 
wrere many scalp wrounds. 
The fire soon attracted notice and brought assistance. Mason 
was removed to a neighboring house. The next seen of Barber 
was upon the highway, less than a mile from the burning house. 
He w'as met by a citizen of the village driving past him on his way 
to the fire, who knew of the tragedy and its author. He recognized 
Barber and stopped. Barber did not in any wray try to elude him 
and accepted his invitation to ride back to the village with him. 
On the way the driver invited Barber to go to a dance in the vil- 
lage with him, and he signified his willingness to do so. After 
reaching the livery barn and opening the doors for the driver, and 
without waiting for him, he walked away. The driver immediately 
gave notice to an officer near at hand and Barber was arrested 
within a few rods of the barn. He made no resistance or attempt 
at escape, and although surrounded in a few moments by a group 
of excited men who threatened to lynch him, he was calm and did 
not reply. Upon searching him a small amount of silver (less than 
one dollar) and a few trinkets w7ere found. He was immediately 
taken before Mason wTho identified him, and when accused of strik- 
ing Mason and his wife, he said “ I do not remember doing it.” 
This statement he has resolutely adhered to throughout the various 
examinations that have been held of him. Ingenuity has been ex- 
hausted in efforts to get some acknowledgment from him, that he 
had a recollection of the event of that night, but not even a shadow 
of an admission has been got from him. He pertinaciously ad- 
heres to the statement, “ I do not recollect doing it,” or, “ I suppose 
I must have done it, as everybody tells me I did, but I do not re- 
member it.” He stated, the last incident of that evening that he 
could recollect, was eating apples with Richard Mason. 
The evidence of Mason and the finding of the remains of Ann 
Mason in the burning house, established the corpus delicti. 
The line of defense rested chiefly on an inherited epileptic dia- 
thesis ; epilepsy in the prisoner until the age of nine years; symp- 
toms of nocturnal fits the preceding winter and the absence of 
motive for the crime. Without reference to the testimony obtained 
by the English Commission, or the defendant’s witnesses, the hy- 
pothetical question prepared by Mr. Davis, defendant’s counsel, 5 
and put to the experts, will follow. It contains the substance of 
the direct evidence, and is not only skillfully formulated, but pre- 
sents the evidence bearing upon the prisoner’s responsibility in a 
fair and impartial manner. Quite contrary to usage, the prosecu- 
tion did not present a hypothetical question in their cross-exami- 
nation. 
Question.—“ The defendant, Richard Barber, is twenty-seven 
years of age, and unmarried. He was born at Billingsboio, Eng- 
land, and there resided until nineteen years of age. Since that 
time he has resided in the vicinity of Trumansburgh, X. Y. 
“ Defendant’s great-grandfather, had hemiplegia, or paralysis, 
and was to a certain extent maniacal previous to his death. Ilis 
grandfather was affected by epilepsy and during one of these at- 
tacks inflicted great injury upon a friend who was trying to restrain 
him. His father’s brother was an epileptic, and died by falling 
into a ditch during an epileptic fit. Ilis aunt was an epileptic, be- 
came insane, and is now confined in a lunatic asylum at Lincoln- 
shire, England. Another aunt is a confirmed epileptic. His cousin 
developed epilepsy at the age of twenty, and has had epileptic fits 
many times since ; and when he has them, it requires several men 
to hold him until these attacks are over. Another cousin’s two 
children have been subject to epilepsy. His grandfather’s cousin 
was subject to epileptic fits, and committed suicide by hanging. 
The above named people were very violent during the attack of 
epilepsy. Ilis oldest sister died at the age of two years in an epi- 
leptic fit. Ilis sister next younger than the defendant died at the 
age of ten months, in an epileptic fit. His brother, aged twenty- 
three, had epileptic fits occasionally, up to the time of his leaving 
England three years ago. Ilis sisters, aged respectively twenty 
and eighteen, suffered severely from fits until about eight years 
of age. His brother, aged thirteen, also had fits until he was 
about eight years old. His brother, aged twelve, has been subject 
to fits all his life, and these fits were very violent. His brother, 
aged nine years, had epileptic fits until he was eight years old. 
His cousin has been subject to epileptic fits. The defendant, Rich- 
ard Barber, had fits, which were accompanied by delirium and 
violence during the attack, and for a short time after, almost 
weekly and sometimes several in a week, until he was nine years 
old. That all the above named family are at times highly nervous 
and excitable. His grandfather and aunt were especially excitable, 
and passionate and impatient of control or contradiction. That 
simple indisposition in the above named family—feverish, stom- 6 
achic, catarrhal or otherwise, caused extreme nervousness, violence 
and delirium. That these convulsive attacks rendered said Barber 
temporarily maniacal, followed at times by great mental prostra- 
tion, and he was always very violent during these epileptic attacks 
and had to be restrained by force to prevent his doing an injury to 
himself and others ; the most violent part of the attack lasting 
about fifteen minutes and the entire attack about an hour or an 
hour and a half. While in England the said Barber was treated 
by Thomas Blasson, a physician, a great many times for epilepsy 
and convulsive seizures. He had over four hundred of these at- 
tacks before he was nine years old. The said Barber while living 
in England displayed a good-natured, pleasant disposition, was 
very kindhearted and a good, attentive, affectionate son and 
brother. He was temperate, steady, a regular attendant at church 
and an industrious workman. During the eight years Barber re- 
sided in this country, he has worked industriously most of the 
time out of doors; been regular and temperate in his habits and 
much respected by his acquaintances, and never committed or was 
accused of any crime, previous to the present one. While said 
Barber made his home at the house of Thomas Donahue for whom 
he had worked and with whom he had lived several years, he was 
severely afflicted with a certain skin disease which caused great ir- 
ritation and suffering. Said disease, on the application of ointment 
produced a raw condition of the skin, so that portions of his body 
at one time looked red, inflamed and the color of “ hog’s liver.” 
He complained of itching and smarting of the skin, and said that 
he felt as though there were “ bumble bees all over him.” Said 
irritation prevented him from sleeping nights. He had a haggard, 
pale look and it affected his general health and made him quite 
nervous. During the winter and a year or two before he 
complained a good deal of pain in his head, and was somewhat 
abstracted and moody and did not associate with young people 
to any extent. He could not sit in a warm room for any length of 
time and used to sit in a cold room or go to a chamber room by 
himself. The sheets of the bed during the winter were frequently 
soiled with blood and water, and the bed was frequently stained, 
as though wet with urine and semen. During the winter of 1887-8, 
the defendant had been afflicted with incontinence of urine during 
the night, although to no great extent.” 
(Here follows the relations of the defendant to Richard and Ann 
Mason and a description of the commission of the crime and the 
manner of his arrest, heretofore described.) 7 
“That he has been in jail since the 17th day of March, and that 
while in jail he was observed to have an epileptic fit, or petit 
mal, or light epileptic seizure, and has displayed some fury. 
“Fully considering the above facts ; the medical history of his 
family, and of the defendant; the character and details of the 
crime ; the acts of the prisoner subsequent thereto, what would be 
your opinion as an expert as to the condition of the accused at the 
time of the commission of the crime?” 
The answers to this qtiestion, given by expert witnesses sum- 
moned by defendant’s counsel, stand substantially as follows: 
Mr. F. B. Sanborn : The facts appear to me to indicate no other 
conclusion, than that the defendant was at the time of the commis- 
sion of the act, in what we call an epileptic fury. 
Dr. P. M. Wise : Assuming the crime was purposeless,—with- 
out a motive—it is my opinion he committed it while in the uncon- 
scious, epileptic state. 
Dr. II. E. Allison : If the act was motiveless, there would be a 
strong probability that it was performed by a person in the condi- 
tion of epilepsy. 
Dr. G. Alder Blumer : I should say unhesitatingly, and with a 
sense of conviction that nothing else could shake, that at the time 
of the commission of the alleged crime, he was suffering from ep- 
ileptic insanity. 
Dr. Robert T. Morris : I believe that he was then in a condition 
of mind known as epileptic insanity, or epileptic furor. 
Dr. M. D. Blaine: I should consider at the time of this crime, 
he was in a condition that may precede or follow an epileptic at- 
tack, called epileptic furor. 
Dr. John Kirkendall: Ilis mind was, at that time, under the in- 
fluence of petit mal, with the result afterward, of epileptic mania, 
which rendered him unconscious for the time being. 
Dr. J. A. Lewis : IJe was in a condition of an epileptic in an at- 
tack of furor. The same opinion in substance was held by Drs. R. 
L. Smith, C A. Richards and M. B. Goodyear. 
The following are answers elicited from witnesses summoned by 
the people. 
Dr. Willis E. Ford: He might or might not be an epileptic. 
Dr. William C. Wey : I think he was a sane man. Your hypo- 
thetical question does not change my judgment. 
Dr. Floyd S. Crego : If there was no motive, I should think he 
was suffering from epileptic mania at that time, and was irrespons- 
ible. 8 
Several other physicians of the locality, testified substantially 
that Barber was sane and conscious, when he committed the crime. 
Drs. Ford and Wey, who, it will be seen give answers unfavor- 
able to the theory of irresponsibility, were members of the lunacy 
commission to examine Barber, relative to his insanity, in April. 
At that time neither the family history of the prisoner, the evi- 
dence of petit mal in the jail or of nocturnal epilepsy, the preced- 
ing winter, were before the commission. 
The prosecution, in rebuttal, endeavored to show, circumstantially, 
a motive on the part of Barber. It appears that Mason had about 
one hundred dollars in the house, but that this was known to Bar- 
ber -was not established, and there was no evidence showing that 
he had taken the money, or attempted to take it. His looking out 
of the door before leaving the house ; his occasional answers to 
Mason’s queries ; the absence of blood on his clothing, although 
Mason bled freely ; the discovery of foot prints of a number seven 
shoe in the snow two days after the event, leading in a zigzag di- 
rection away from the house, and occasionally turning as if the 
wearer was looking at the fire,* and the fact that he walked away 
from the barn in the village, instead of waiting for his companion 
to complete his engagement, were urged as facts supporting a 
theory of a knowledge of the act and a desire to escape. 
The experts of the first part did not consider any of these facts 
as inconsistent with an epileptic condition at the time of the com- 
mission of the crime, and they were united in not modifying their 
opinion, expressed in their answer to the hypothetical question of 
the defense. The prosecution drew from several of their expert wit- 
nesses an expression of belief that the fits from which Barber suf- 
fered “ weekly and sometimes twice a week ”—convulsive seizures 
that attacked him suddenly and left him in “ a condition of delii'ium 
and violence ” for from one to two hours—attacks that were wit- 
nessed more than forty times by a member of the Royal College 
of Surgeons of England and a practitioner for thirty-two years, and 
by him designated as “ severe epileptic fits,” and of which he had 
more than four hundred up to the age of nine years-, were “ worm 
fits,” or the ordinary eclampsia of childhood, and was not epilepsy. 
It is hardly necessary to comment upon such an opinion. The 
reader will have no difficulty in drawing an inference, and perhaps 
the court had this answer in mind when he gave to the jury the perti- 
* It was shown by actual measurement, at the trial, that the shoe the prisoner 
wore upon that night was a number nine, although the witnesses were positive the 
track was male by a number seven shoe. 9 
nent query, “ What weight is the opinion of the (expert) witness 
in any event upon the question ? ” 
There was no exception in the expert evidence offered by either 
side, that if the prisoner was, at the time of committing the crime 
in a condition of epileptic mania, he was unconscious of the act, 
'and consequently was not responsible. 
The judge in his charge to the jury was sufficiently specific in 
his definition of legal responsibility, but in the following instruc- 
tion,—and to the writer it appears justly so,—exception was taken 
by the defendant’s counsel. 
“You will therefore see that there may be a very broad differ- 
ence between what medical men define as insanity, and legal re- 
sponsibility. No matter how insane a man may be, no matter how 
much under the influence of an epileptic attack, or epileptic furor, 
no matter by what force impelled, resistible or irresistible, if this 
defendant at the time he did the act knew the nature and quality 
of the act, and knew that it was wrong, then, gentlemen of the jury, 
he is in the eye of the law legally responsible for the act that he 
has done, and if that act constitutes a crime, he must suffer the 
punishment which the law prescribes.” 
Certainly we cannot see the force of this reasoning even through 
the spectacles of law. It stands as remote from the advanced posi- 
tion of Judge Montgomery, in the Daley case,* as that was from 
the time-wrorn precedent, the unscientific precedent established 
by the acceptance of Lord Erskine’s famous plea of one 
hundred years ago. Mark the difference! Judge Mont- 
gomery declares in his instruction to the jury, “ If he did 
know (i. e. the nature and quality of the act, and that the 
act was wrong) but by reason of the duress of such mental 
disease, he had so far lost the power to choose between the right 
and wrong, and to avoid doing the act in question, as that his free 
agency was at the time destroyed, and if so, if the homicide was 
so connected with such mental disease, in the relation of cause and 
effect as to have been the product of it solely ; if some controlling 
mental disease was in truth the acting power within him, which he 
could not resist, then he will not be responsible.” 
Judge Smith further charged the jury, “ that it is not necessary 
for the people to show to you that there was an adequate motive 
for this act. It is not necessary for the people to show you what 
his motive was, but they claim that the reason and the method 
■* A Judicial Advance—The Daley Case, by W. W. Godding, M. D., American 
Journal, of Insanity, October, 1888. 10 
and the plan and design, apparent in the act which he did, in itself 
indicate sanity, and indicate that there was motive for the act 
itself.” 
Surely, this ruling of the court eliminates one of the most import- 
ant tests of insanity and responsibility, in relation to the alleged 
morbid condition of the prisoner. From the medical expert’s stand- 
point, it was a reasonable and vital prayer of the defendant’s coun- 
sel, that the judge charge “ that motive is an essential element of 
the crime which cannot be presumed, but must be established by a 
preponderance of proof as much as any other element. It is in 
cases of circumstantial evidence that the motive often becomes not 
only material, but controlling, and in such cases the facts from 
which it may be inferred must be proved. It cannot be imagined 
any more than any other circumstance in the case. If the jury be- 
lieve the prosecution has not established any motive for the crime 
by competent and legal evidence and beyond reasonable doubt, it 
should be regarded as important on the question of epilepsy. The 
judge refused, however, to modify his charge. 
The law is supposed to have a certain preconceived standard 
of criminality. The mind of the alleged criminal must be in a 
condition to act voluntarily, of free will and with malice. “ He 
must ” says Foster “ be capable of committing an action flowing 
from a wicked and corrupt motive; he must be in a condition to 
act malo animo maid conscientid. If a man has no motive at all, 
or no power of discerning what motives are wicked, he cannot be 
said to act maliciously, in the legal sense of the word.” 
Judge Smith defined with great care and definiteness, the sev- 
eral degrees of crime for which the prisoner was indicted. Ilis in- 
structions as to questions of law and rules to be followed, were 
clear and concise. The jury, notwithstanding, returned a verdict 
of “ guilty of arson in the first degree,” a crime for which the pris- 
oner was not indicted. The judge reinstructed the jury, and they 
revised their verdict to “ guilty of murder in the first degree.” In 
polling the jury, one of the members stated in answer, “ Yes, I 
think her death was caused by burning.” This was quite contrary 
to the evidence, but is an indication, as was also the primary ver- 
dict, of the dazed condition and confusion of the minds of the 
jury, caused probably by the intricate questions they had to con- 
sider. Is it not reasonable to suppose that the mental responsibility 
of the prisoner, which was in fact the chief issue of the trial, was 
relegated to a secondary place ? 
The prisoner was sentenced to be hanged on the 18th of Decem- 
ber, 1888. Thus ended the remarkable trial of Richard Barber. 11 
Tt was the writer’s privilege to examine the prisoner, about two 
weeks after the commission of the crime. At that time epilepsy 
was not entertained by the prisoner’s counsel, as, a particular plea, 
as no history of it had been obtained. The great atrocity of the 
crime by a man without previous criminal tendencies, or without 
apparent motive, suggested insanity. I gave him a careful phys- 
ical examination. There were no external evidences of epilepsy, 
no abrasions of the tongue* or cicatrices about the head that he 
could not explain by wounds or accident. He still had the remains 
of the “skin disease” mentioned in the evidence, and he still suf- 
fered some from itching, but it was rapidly improving, as he in- 
formed me. He maintained as he did to the commissioners, that 
he never recollected having a fit, but that he suffered from head- 
ache in the morning and occasionally had “ dizzy spells.” He gave 
the stereotyped answer, that he recollected nothing about the trag- 
edy, and admitted that he must have done it, as everybody said he 
did, but he did not remember it. He said he knew the penalty of 
the crime ; expressed an apparently sincere affection for the victims 
and appeared somewhat moved, emotionally, while conversing 
about it. Ilis mental condition was dull, and he was abstracted. 
It sometimes required a sharp repetition of the question to gain an 
answer, which did not appear the result of voluntary reticence, but 
of dullness. At the trial he was uniformly composed and un- 
moved ; would sit in his chair with his head slightly inclined and 
gaze at the floor, as if he had no interest in the proceedings. The 
following report of his aspect at the trial are taken from the Ithaca 
Daily Journal. 
On the second day of the trial, “ Barber, the prisoner, appears as 
cool and unconcerned as any man in the room. At the close of 
yesterday’s proceedings he was surrounded by a curious and ad- 
miring crowd, composed largely of ladies. lie bore the curious 
gaze of the audience, and listened to their audible comments with 
the same stolid composure that has so far characterized him. He 
seems somewhat interested in the proceedings and a smile occasion- 
ally flits across his stoical features at the amusing bull of some ex- 
cited witness.” 
* The signification of an absence of scars upon the tongue as evidence against 
epileptic fits, at any time of life, was particularly dwelt upon by the people’s coun- 
sel. The expert witnesses, however, did not give this much weight, as it was main- 
tained that wounds by epileptic bites in youth, in so vascular an organ as the tongue 
would be likely to disappear. Dr. Blaine, of the Willard Asylum medical staff, ex- 
amined the tongues of seventy-two confirmed epileptics of years standing, resident 
in the Willard Asylum, who suffered from grand mal, and wounds or cicatrices 
■were found upon but twenty of them,—less than thirty per cent. 12 
After the verdict—“Barber received the verdict of the jury,, 
convicting him of the heinous crime, with the same stolid compo- 
sure and utter lack of feeling, which has characterized him through- 
out the trial.” 
After the sentence—“ Not a quiver of a muscle, nor any change 
of color was there to indicate to the hundreds of close observers 
that Richard Barber felt or appreciated the awful position he occu- 
pied before the court and before the people of Tompkins county. 
Calm and impassive, with no perceptible change in his stoical 
countenance, Barber received his sentence, and quietly followed 
the sheriff from the court room to the jail. From all evidences of 
feeling shown during the trial, he might have been the casual wit- 
ness of a drama instead of the chief actor in the tragedy.” 
Was Barber an epileptic during the winter of 1887-8? This 
question was of great import, and its affirmation’ was stoutly con- 
tested. The convulsions from which Barber had suffered in youth, 
had ceased at nine years of age. During the seventeen years in- 
terval, there was no evidence of epilepsy, until the past winter. 
The prosecution attempted to show by their expert witnesses, that 
it was improbable, admitting the convulsions in youth to have 
been epileptic, that a relapse after seventeen years of health, should 
have its primary manifestation in a homicidal act. While the 
defense claimed strong presumptive evidence that the prisoner had 
suffered from nocturnal epilepsy throughout the previous winter, 
they proved that during the said winter, he was nervous and at times 
stupid; that he would frequently appear in the morning “haggard 
and sourdooking ” and his hands would tremble; that he would 
rest his head in his hands, and would say it “hurt;” that some- 
times, “ in playing checkers he seemed to be stupefied, and didn’t 
know where to move, and stopped and pondered, and sometimes he 
would throw up his game and let it go; ” that at various times he 
“ wet the bed ;” that he looked “ tired and nervous ” and was heard 
at various times to “ talk in his sleep” and that his bed was occa- 
sionally in a very disordered condition. 
It is well known that epileptics, after an interval of some years’ 
freedom from convulsions, have changed manifestations of the 
disease. Barber had not lost the predisposition which he in- 
herited, but with increasing strength and vigor, and years of 
healthy ont-door occupation, the fits ’were suspended. What 
more reasonable presumption, claimed the defense, than that epi- 
lepsy, to which he was still predisposed, should be the expression 
of a nervous condition resulting from ill-health? 13 
We have in the case of Barber, probably, as marked an instance 
-of the transmission of a purely epileptic neurosis, as there is on 
record. Eighteen consanguineous relatives suffer from epilepsy; 
and there is no manifestation of other varieties of nervous disease 
except the resultant insanity, delirium and morbid irritability. 
Barber himself has had more than four hundred attacks of haut 
mal. 
This man, after a winter of siiffering, irritation and insomnia, 
during which he presents evidence of nocturnal fits, visits his near- 
est and best friends, in the evening. Without any apparent motive 
or object, and without any preparation for his deadly work, he 
seizes the nearest thing at hand—a small piece of wood—and 
commences a vigorous but unskillful assault upon his friend. Ilis 
will and consciousness might have been suspended, and yet his 
special senses might have been acute. The calls of his friend to 
his wife in an adjoining room attract him to her, and he continues 
his assaults upon her. The lowest nature of the man has no voli- 
tional restraint. His tendency is to destroy, and he brings oil and 
fire to his aid, but it is at hand and is not prepared for his purposes. 
Though acting apparently rationally, he is destitute of a normal 
recognition of his outward relations and feelings. He passes to 
the door and gazes out. Returns and watches his fiendish work. 
The increasing fire suggests complete destruction, and the demoni- 
acal nature—the nature of every man whose volition is inhibited— 
is content; and he passes away apparently in answer to the prayer 
■of his victim. 
Is it unreasonable to assume that this act, which is inconsistent 
with every instinct of conscious humanity, is the symptomatic 
expression of an epileptic neurosis ? 
He wanders about aimlessly, and the increasing brightness of 
the fire may attract his attention. Consciousness returns, and were 
he at rest, stupor and sleep would follow ; but the bracing air of 
the cool March night, restores him to a low degree of wakefulness. 
He finds himself upon the highway and is accosted by a passing 
individual. He is asked about the fire. He does not know—under 
the assumption, of course he does not. Ilis mental daze leads him 
to acquiesce to every proposition. Will he ride to the village ? 
Yes. Will he go to the dance? Yes. Will he open the barn 
doors ? Yes. And then, in his confusion, he wanders away, but 
does not run, or attempt to elude the officers who rush after him 
and seize him roughly, or answer to the gibes and threats of the 
crowd, for it is incomprehensible to him, and he cannot yet recog- 14 
nize fully the outward relation of things. He is taken before his 
living victim and accused of the crime, which he does not deny. It 
is all a blank to him. He does not comprehend or reply. Is it a 
dream ? Aids ! no ; he is roughly seized and with a shout of pro- 
fanity, he is asked why he does not reply, and then he makes the 
only reply he could, under the assumption ; “ I cannot remember 
doing it.” 
This is one picture, but there is yet another. He may have had 
an undiscovered motive, and if he did, and the commission of the 
crime was premeditated, it would be wholly inconsistent with the 
theory of the defense. Even epileptics have criminal [tendencies,, 
and commit criminal acts at moments when they are mentally and 
legally responsible. So there remains a doubt, butjit is“a “ reason- 
able, rational ” one, and the prisoner should have had the benefit 
of it. '