Proceedings Medical Jurisprudence Society of Philadelphia 
THE INSANITY OF OSCAR HUGO WEBBER 
BY f 
J HENDRIE LLOYD MD 
/$ 
Read Novimbeh I3TH 1888 / THE INSANITY OF OSCAR HUGO WEBBER. 
By JAMES HENDRIK LLOYD, M.D., 
Visiting Physician to the Nervous and Insane Department of the l*hWntfetyhia Hospital. Instructor in Electro-Thera- 
peutics in University of Pennsylvania. 
Re id before the Medical Jurisprudence Society of Philadelphia, November 13th, 1888. 
On December 6th, 1886, William H. 
Martin, a jeweller, living at 1311 South 
street, Philadelphia, was shot and almost 
instantly killed by Oscar Hugo Webber, 
during an altercation between the two men 
in the former’s shop, under the following 
circumstances :— 
About eleven months before the fatal 
affair Webber had bought of Martin a com- 
mon, cheap clock, with which he had re- 
ceived a guarantee that it would be kept in 
good order for one year. Six months after 
the purchase Webber took the clock Jaack 
to the jeweller on the strength of this guar- 
antee, but not seeing Martin, who was ill, 
conducted a conversation with Mrs. Martin, 
during which the wife became angry, for 
what reasons, or because of what behavior 
or expressions of Webber’s, have never ap- 
peared. She reported this occurrence to 
her husband, who also became incensed. 
Four months later (November, 1886) Web- 
ber again returned the clock for repairs ; 
and ui>on December 6th, about 3 o’clock in 
the afternoon, he came again to get it. 
Martin was very busy at his work-table in 
an adjoining room. He went behind the 
counter and handed the clock, wrapped up 
in brown paper, to Webber, who asked to 
have the alarm set off so that he might see 
that it was all right. 'Phis was done. Then 
followed some angry conversation between 
the accused and Martin, who having in his 
mind the alleged insult offered to his wife, 
and being annoyed at the persistence of 
Webber in returning the clock under a bona 
fide guarantee, became aggressive toward 
the accused. The excited jeweller finally 
ordered Webber from the shop in a voice 
the tones of which were raised so high by 
anger that they attracted the attention of 
the daughter who was back in the kitchen. 
Going around the end Qf the counter he 
went to the door and held it open as he 
ordered the accused to leave the shop. 
Webber took the clock under his arm and 
walked toward the door with the intention 
of going out. When he reached the door 
Martin either struck or seized him to thrust 
him out, when Webber, losing all self-con- 
trol, drew a pistol from his pocket and fired 
four shots into Martin’s body. He then 
made no attempt to escape, but walked out 
of the door buttoning up his coat. The only 
effect of the quarrel visible was a scratch 
upon his face. He was soon followed by a 
crowd, and after he had walked a few paces 
into Broad street was arrested by a police- 
man. He was taken before a magistrate, 
admitted the shooting, and was imprisoned. 
At the trial of Webber, in October, 1887, 
the sole defence made by his counsel, Messrs. 
Fisher and Carr, was insanity. This was 
based upon the man’s history, as amply 
brought out by competent witnesses, and 
upon his mental condition during his im- 
prisonment, as reported upon by I)r. Chas. 
K. Mills and the writer, who were engaged 
to give expert testimony for the defence, 
and who visited him frequently in Moya- 
mensing Jail. The brief analysis of his case 
which I intend to make will be based upon 
this history and these examinations:— 
Webber was born in Germany, and came 
to this country in 1873. He was about 33 
years of age at his trial. He was a machinist 
and engineer. His employer,*Mueller, 
testified that he goodNxAn, an and 2 
steady. After seven years of faithful service, 
during which time he had married and had 
had two children, and had by thrift and 
sobriety saved up in ready money nearly 
two thousand dollars, his employer noticed 
a change in-him. He complained of not 
feeling well, and absented himself from work. 
He reappeared one day at a late hour in the 
afternoon, and instead of resuming his work, 
sought a private interview with Mr. Mueller, 
and confided to him his belief in the infi- 
delity of his wife. He said that he had seen 
men in the house, and had seen them jump 
the fence. He went away and returned 
another day, staying about his employer’s 
until evening. Mr. Mueller was so im- 
pressed with the delusional character of this 
belief that he tried to argue him out of it, 
for he had known and employed Webber’s 
wife before her marriage and had confidence 
in her character. His employer finally 
persuaded him, as a sick man, to go and see 
a doctor, and said in his testimony, “I 
noticed his expression and whole conversa- 
tion were like those of a man who is sus- 
picious and cannot be trusted.” About 
this time Mr. Mueller recommended him 
one evening»to go to a restaurant for supper, 
and afterward to seek a physician’s advice, 
suggesting his own family physician, Dr. 
Schrotz. That same evening Webber fol- 
lowed his employer home to a distant part 
of the city, and appeared at his door agitated 
and in fear. “I took him in,” testified 
Mr. Mueller; “my wife and sister-in-law 
pitied him. His condition was like, I don’t 
know what.” Webber told them that he 
had feared to finish his supper in the restau- 
rant, because he had been watched by three 
men, and he thought he would be poisoned. 
He left the restaurant, averring that the 
three men followed him, and in order to 
throw them off his track he ran from one 
street to another. Dr. Schrotz was sent for, 
visited the excited man and prescribed for 
him. The patient was not satisfied until he 
had caused himself to vomit in order to dis- 
lodge the poison from his stomach. He 
was then taken to bed by his kind-hearted 
employer and wife. At midnight Webber 
aroused Mr. Mueller and his wife by knock- 
ing at their door, and said that the men who 
followed him had got in the window'. His 
host arose, went down stairs, lit the gas, and 
searched the house, to convince him of his 
error. At 4 o’clock in the morning he 
again knocked and begged to be allowed to 
stay in Mr. Mueller’s room. At six o’clock 
the thing was repeated. During the follow- 
ing week he hung around his employer’s 
factory, but did not work. He complained, 
and reiterated his suspicions of his wife. 
At the end of another week Mr. Mueller was 
in doubt about engaging him again “ on ac- 
count of his acting,” but he pitied the man 
and directed another man to see if he 
attended to his work right. All went well 
then for two months, when Webber proposed 
to his employer that he be taken into part- 
nership in the business. He was put off 
with a non-committal reply. He had given 
his employer $1600 to keep for him, which 
was returned to him, and in January, 1886, 
about eleven months before the tragedy, he 
finally quit Mr. Mueller’s employ. There 
was no reason why he should give up a posi- 
tion in which he had worked long and ac- 
ceptably, and he had no plan of support in 
view, except one or two chimerical schemes, 
as will be seen. 
Dr. Schrotz testified that he had found 
Webber, on the visit referred to above, very 
much excited and declaring that he feared 
men who followed him all the time. The 
Doctor warned Mr. Mueller’s wife that 
Webber might be noisy at night. Dr. 
Schrotz also stated that Webber came to 
him two months afterward, and asked him 
for a certificate of sound mind, and the 
Doctor further states, “At that time he 
was out of his mind, suffering from hallu- 
cinations. When I saw him he undoubtedly 
was not in his right mind.” 
Dr. Lamparter testified that he had been 
Webber’s family physician for nine years, 
and had attended the prisoner, his wife, 3 
child, father, mother, and sister. He had 
seen the prisoner in August preceding the 
homicide, and had found him much excited. 
Webber told him that his brother was in the 
house with his (Webber’s) wife; that he had 
caught him once and would have shot him 
then, but his brother got out of the keyhole. 
Dr. Lamparter told some of Webber’s rela- 
tives, two weeks before the shooting, that 
the prisoner was insane and ought to be put 
in the asylum at Norristown. He also tes- 
tified that Webber’s sister was suffering with 
epilepsy. 
Several competent witnesses, acquaint- 
ances of Webber’s, testified to the change 
in his character and habits before and about 
the time of his leaving his old employer. 
All of them noted his changed appearance 
and expression, saw that he was melancholy, 
morose or irritable, and heard him express 
suspicions of being followed by men, of 
attempts made to poison him, of his family 
conspiring against him, and of the unfaith- 
fulness of his wife. One of them had even 
watched him narrowly to see if he had been 
drinking and if he staggered, as the only 
explanation of his rambling talk and insane 
look, but the prisoner had always been sober 
and not even a moderate drinker. There 
was no testimony of his ever being drunk. 
One or two of these witnesses had expressed 
decided opinions, several months before the 
shooting, that Webber was losing his mind. 
It was also testified that after leaving Mr. 
Mueller he had a variety of schemes for 
starting in business; that he had gone to 
New York and to Chicago to set up a fac- 
tory of straw goods although having only 
$1600, and that he had also some intention 
of starting a bakery, and going into the in- 
surance business. 
The period between Webber’s leaving 
Mr. Mueller and the killing of Martin was 
eleven months, and was fully covered by 
the testimony of his brothers, mother and 
wife. He was voluntarily out of employ- 
ment, attempting to further his various 
abortive schemes, and was becoming more 
and more insanely suspicious of his family 
and jealous of his wife. The contrast with 
his former steady and industrious habits and 
affectionate and dutiful domestic life could 
not have been more marked. He accused 
his family of robbing him. He kept up a 
constant espionage upon his wife, resorting 
to tricks and contrivances to detect her in 
her alleged amours; boring holes through 
doors, jumping suddenly in at the parlor 
windows from the street, and standing over 
her with a pistol in his hand as she slept. 
He accused her again and again of chloro- 
forming him and of changing her paramours 
into cats and dogs. His language to her 
was harsh and brutal, and a neighbor fre- 
quently heard the unfortunate woman’s 
cries. He was insomnious and in poor phy- 
sical condition. This finally culminated, 
three months before the shooting, in his 
driving his wife from his house. Mrs. 
Webber in her extremity appealed to the 
Guardians of the Poor, and when she repre- 
sented his case to them she was told he 
must be insane, and was supplied with a 
blank certificate of insanity at their office 
and was told to have it filled up. This cer- 
tificate was shown in evidence. During 
these last three months little is known of 
him. He seems to have immured himself 
in his house with his children, supporting 
himself with the money which he had left. 
His wife’s character was exonerated by 
all who knew her, and several whom he ac- 
cused as her paramours testified under oath 
to their innocence. All the testimony of his 
insanity was uncontradicted; and theprose- 
cution offered as witnesses of his soundness 
of mind only the policeman who arrested 
him, the magistrate who committed him and 
the deputy-coroner who officiated at the 
inquest. He was nevertheless promptly 
found guilty and sentenced to be hung. 
Webber was examined five times in prison, 
both by Dr. Mills and myself. Some of 
these visits were made by us together and 
some separately. From copious notes of 
these examinations I desire to present a 4 
There was no evidence at any visit of simu- 
lation or parade of symptoms ; the man was 
natural in manner, only reserved, suspicious, 
and often in ill-humor. 
The class of insanity to which Webber 
evidently belongs, and of which he is a very 
typical example, is monomania, or primary 
delusional insanity. He has a series of the 
most common and characteristic delusions 
of persecution. In the more recent phrase- 
ology of the schools he is a paranoiac. This 
differentiation which, in its sharp outlines 
and practical utility, we owe mostly to the 
Germans, includes the large body of the 
criminal insane. It is based essentially upon 
the recognition of an hereditary or neurotic 
constitution, tending to degeneration of 
mental faculties and the formation of fixed, 
systematized delusions. These delusions are 
apt to be of an alternately expansive and 
depressive type, leading to impracticable 
schemes and projects on the one hand and to 
suspicions and resentful conduct on the other. 
Such erroneous ideas are firmly fixed and have 
a logical coherence and plausibility which 
cannot be shaken or abashed. These lunatics 
are by far the most dangerous to themselves, 
to their families and to society. While they 
are often not difficult to recognize they be- 
come, for some inexplicable reason, the 
theme about which wage many of the con- 
troversies in our courts of law. Webber is 
of this class a type—and if his disease is 
to merit no recognition in our criminal pro- 
cedures, I had almost said that the medical 
jurisprudence of insanity may as well be 
erased from our books, or be preserved only 
to gratify scientific curiosity, or to be util- 
ized by a more enlightened age. 
The connection of Webber’s delusions 
with his crime ought not to be made a test 
of his responsibility. It has been quite con- 
clusively shown that the mind of this un- 
fortunate man had been for a long period 
gradually undermined by a train of most 
depressive and irritating delusions; that 
these delusions had attached first to one 
person and then to another, from his wife 
brief summary. It can be stated in general 
terms that the prisoner preserved always a 
suspicious manner, great reserve in his 
answers, and showed occasional irritability 
of temper. His answers were quite peculiar ; 
they were always evasive and sometimes 
rambling, and it was difficult often to say 
whether this was the result of a confirmed, 
suspicious mental bias, or whether it por- 
trayed a mind weakened to the verge of 
incoherence. My own opinion, after careful 
observation, was that the prisoner could 
have answered the questions much better, but 
that he was in a condition of chronic distrust 
and had no confidence in any person who 
was admitted to his cell. It is significant 
that he received his lawyers in precisely the 
same way as his doctors, and never gave 
them any assistance in preparing his case. 
He refused to inspect the jury list. His 
manner at times was rather boastful when 
the subject of his trial was broached, and 
he remarked once in a supercilious and con- 
temptous way that we would see when the 
trial came—as though he would take care of 
himself, and had some denouement in view. 
When one of his lawyers, losing patience, 
told him he was acting like a fool, he became 
very angry and said he expected to be treated 
like a gentleman. He was told that some 
people said he was insane, to which he 
replied in an unaffected way, and with 
perfect truth, that it was enough to make 
him insane to keep him where he then was. 
He would say nothing about his delusions or 
the shooting of Martin ; or express any re- 
gret for the act. He was at times very irri- 
table and unapproachable, displaying a 
decided insane manner and expression. 
Upon the second visit, when I entered his 
cell alone, he immediately became very rest- 
less and menacing ; would answer no ques- 
tions, and ordered me to leave him. Upon 
the third visit he was found chained to the 
floor, evidently because his keepers had 
cause to fear him. On this occasion he was 
perfectly mute, which seemed to me to be 
partly in resentment of his harsh treatment. 5 
to the strangers whom he met by chance in 
a public saloon. What persons and how 
many had come within the apprehension of 
that diseased mind it is not within the pro- 
vince of any man to say. No one can 
fathom the depths of another’s soul; and 
no one can tell to what extent this man’s 
will-jiower or self-control was perverted 
during those gloomy months when his mind 
inhaled the upas of insane suspicion and 
distrust. To hold him responsible for one 
act when his whole career fora twelvemonth 
was a succession of insane deeds, would be 
to the last degree unreasonable and unjust. 
In conclusion I desire to say that Web- 
ber’s defence was conducted by his faithful 
counsel with learning, zeal and discretion ; 
that science enlisted in his behalf with truth, 
moderation and justice; and that this man 
stands convicted to-day by the force of a 
wrong public sentiment and an antiquated 
judicial procedure.