Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1857 edition. Excerpt: ... understood the question, because, on being invited to take what belonged to him, he carefully examined the box, and separated his own effects from the rest; but Dr. Itard of Paris, in a note on this passage, observes with reason, that no imperfectly educated Deaf Mute could clearly understand a question thus complicated, and loaded with pronouns. Brunning merely followed his instinct in claiming the box, and separating his own effects from the rest, without having any idea of the precise scope of the question placed before him. We have cited this case as an illustration of the danger of mutual misunderstandings in an examination by writing of a Deaf Mute who can only read and write very imperfectly. It may sometimes happen that a Deaf Mute criminal may, from a hope of escaping punishment, feign to know much less of writing than he does. He may be aware that ignorance, especially in his circumstances, excites compassion, and is held in some measure to excuse faults. In such cases, Dr. Itard advises to accuse him of a crime much more serious than, and altogether different from that actually charged against him. If he can really read and write, his surprise and indignation will break out at the false charge in a manner to show what degree of skill in written language he actually possesses. We will close this branch of the subject by giving at length an important case already referred to, the State of Connecticut v. De Wolf, (8 Conn. Rep. 93, ) as it relates not only to the manner of examining this class of witnesses, but includes other matters, touching their character, and the nature and effect of their testimony. The prisoner De Wolf (a young physician) was indicted for an attempt to commit a rape upon the person of a deaf and dumb girl, .
