Schlencker v. The State. eral witnesses having testified of strange conduct on the part of the prisoner shortly before, and on the day of the homicide, a number of witnesses, not experts, however, were examined by the state as to his conduct and appearance in their presence on sundry occasions, both before and shortly after the shooting occurred. The opinions of these witnesses as to the prisoner's mental condition, based upon what they had personally observed, and then detailed to the jury, were admitted in evidence under the objection that they were incompetent evidence. That none but medical experts shall be permitted to give to the jury their opinions, based the testimony of other witnesses on the question of insanity, is, we believe, universally held. In this case, however, the witnesses were the neighbors and acquaintances of the prisoner, knew him well, and their opinions were formed from seeing and observing him for several months, almost daily. Opinions formed under these circumstances, although not those of medical men, are, nevertheless, entitled to respectful consideration by courts and juries, and we have seen no satisfactory reason for holding them to be incompetent evidence. We are aware that our conclusion on this point is in conflict with numerous authorities, but it is also sustained by many. upon In Grant v. Thompson, 4 Conn., 203, Chief Justice Hosmer, in commenting on this sort of evidence, said: "The best testimony the nature of the case admits of ought to be adduced, and on the subject of insanity, in my judgment, it consists in the representation of facts and the impressions which they make." And what impressions are so reliable as those made upon the minds of intelligent persons, who, in addition to being well acquainted with the alleged lunatic, have themselves witnessed the facts supposed to indicate mental derangement? Clark v. The State, 12 Ohio, Schlencker v. The State. 483. State v. Klinger, 46 Mo., 224. 54 Penna. St., 216. Titlow v. Titlow, And while on this branch of the case we desire to add that, although this defense of insanity was probably made in good faith, it does not seem to have anything substantial to rest upon. The evidence falls very far short of establishing its existence. That the prisoner was considerably intoxicated, and his mind somewhat clouded in consequence thereof, are doubtless true. But the fact that he was in a drunken state does not of itself render the act of shooting the deceased any the less criminal, nor is it available as an excuse. If, notwithstanding his intoxication, he were conscious that the act was wrong, he was a responsible agent, and answerable for all the consequences. charging upon this point the judge told the jury, in substance, that they were at liberty to take the fact of intoxication as a circumstance to show that the act of killing was not deliberate and premeditated. This was right, and suggested to the jury the full extent of the effect that might legitimately be given to it. People v. Rogers, 18 N. Y., 9. People v. Belencia, 21 Cal., 544. In Several of the instructions given to the jury are also made the basis of alleged errors, but we fail to perceive any just ground for the complaint made in this partic ular. The instruction most complained of was given at the request of the district attorney, and was in these words: "That settled insanity produced by intoxication affects the responsibility in the same way as insanity produced by any other cause. But insanity immediately produced by intoxication does not destroy responsibility when the patient, when sane and responsible, made himself voluntarily intoxicated." In the case of State v. Hundley, 46 Mo., 414, it appears that the court had instructed the jury "that if they be Schlencker v. The State. lieved from the evidence that the defendant was laboring under a temporary frenzy or insanity at the time. of the killing of Boyer, which was the immediate result of intoxicating liquors, or narcotics, he was guilty." And in commenting upon this instruction the court said: "This instruction was unobjectionable, for, as we have already seen, temporary insanity produced immediately by intoxication does not destroy responsibility where the accused, when sane and responsible, made himself voluntarily drunk. But the crime, to be punishable under such circumstances, must take place, and be the immediate result of a fit of intoxication, and while it lasts, and not the result of insanity remotely occasioned by previous bad habits." The only substantial difference between the law as thus pronounced and the instruction complained of is in the omission from the latter of the qualifying clause limiting responsibility to cases of temporary insanity or frenzy. But while, under different circumstances, this omission might have been a serious matter, it certainly was of no consequence under the testimony in this There was not a syllable of evidence of the existence of settled insanity. The utmost that was claimed, or that there was the least testimony to establish, was a mere temporary frenzy or condition of irresponsibility on the part of the prisoner. There is, therefore in this matter, no ground for complaint. case. Error is also alleged because of the refusal of the court to give several instructions to the jury requested on behalf of the prisoner. By the first of these it was sought to make his voluntary intoxication under certain circumstances a complete excuse for the homicide. There was no error in this refusal, for the court, as we have seen had already charged upon this point, and laid down the law correctly, recognizing the "well known and salutary maxim of our laws, that crimes Jones v. Null. committed under the influence of intoxication do not excuse the perpetrator from punishment." Beck's Medical Jurisprudence, vol. 1, page 333. Several others so requested were upon the subject of insanity. These, however, were substantially embodied in those already given by the court of its own motion, and it was unnecessary to repeat them. In conclusion we think the law of the case, so far as our attention has been called to it, was very fairly given to the jury, and that notwithstanding the errors assigned, and relied upon, the judgment should be affirmed. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 9 254 17 401 23 247 9 54 30 263 9 254 46 886 9 254 51 664 55 712 REBECCA JONES AND OTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, V. 1. Judicial Sale: APPRAISEMENT: PRACTICE. Where the sheriff causes real estate to be appraised under an order of sale, he should forthwith deposit a copy of the appraisement with the clerk of the district court. He must do so before the sale. 2. : RE-SALE OF PROPERTY. Where a purchaser at a judicial sale refuses to comply with his bid, the officer may bring an action for the purchase money, or he may at once re-sell the property, but he cannot wait until the sale is closed, and the bidders have departed, before again offering the property for sale. 8. Practice: FINAL JUDGMENT. No exception is necessary to a final order or judgment. ERROR to the district court for Gage county. NOTE. When not necessary to post notices of sale, see Parrat v. Neligh, 7 Neb., 456. See also note to case of Sessions v. Irwin, 5 Neb., 5.-REP. Jones v. Null. Colby & Hazlett (W. H. Ashby with them), for plaintiffs in error, cited Laws of Neb., 1875, p. 60. Mercer v. Doe, 6 Ind., 80. La Flume v. Jones, 5 Neb., 259. Merritt v. Borden, 2 Disn., 503. Mason & Whedon, for defendant in error. MAXWELL, CH. J. This is a proceeding to reverse an order of the district court of Gage county confirming a sale of certain real estate in said county. The sheriff's return to the order of sale states that a copy of the appraisement was forthwith deposited with the clerk of the district court of said county. The clerk's filing on the copy, however, shows it to have been filed on the 16th day of March, 1878, the sale having taken place on the 8th of that month. In La Flume v. Jones, 5 Neb., 259, it was held that where the record is silent as to when the appraisement was deposited with the clerk, it will be presumed that the sheriff did his duty, and deposited the copy within the time required by law. It was also held that it must be deposited before the sale. The sheriff should perform the duty enjoined upon him by the statute forthwith, and deposit a copy of the appraisement with the clerk of the court, so that it may be examined by those interested in the property, and by those desiring to purchase. The appraisement of property is one of the reasonable checks provided by the legislature against the oppression of the debtor and the sacrifice of his property. It is the policy of the law to encourage competition at judicial sales, and this can only be done by permitting bidders to examine the title and the amount of incumbrances on the property, as found by the appraisers. The duty of depositing a copy of |