J. was another fine looking man of some twenty-eight years, gentlemanly appearing, with a good education, kindly disposed, usually of good habits, honest, so far as known, except in two cases, and those in much the same way. He would hire a team for a ride, go to a hotel and put up, exchange or sell the horse, or harness, or carriage, or all together, wander about awhile, and then return home for his father to help settle the matter, making no effort to escape arrest. The first time he was arrested, but not convicted, as neighbors pleaded in his behalf. The second time he was sent to prison. On this trial neighbors urged the father to put in the plea of insanity, but he refused, as so many were resorting to that. Still, all said that he had the best of reasons, as his own brother, or the young man's uncle died in an insane asylum, and those exceptional acts of his must have been performed through an insane impulse. Receiving a pardon previous to the close of his sentence, he went into good employment, worked steadily about a year, and took the same step again, when the court put him under guardianship, instead of sending him to prison, which was no doubt the most judicious course; for if kept from that horse hiring, he will doubtless be all right, as he has never manifested any inclination to wrong except in that particular point, and that only when his mind was evidently unhinged. There were others who exhibited each his peculiarity. Some of these, could we look within their mental structure and there take a just survey, would perhaps be found possessed of such a native taint, or bias, or disorder, that their wrong doings, for which they were in prison, would be regarded in the light of misfortunes rather than crimes. This subject of hereditary mental taint or disorder, in connection with wrong doing, opens to the phrenologist a wide and important field for investigation. But when he is forced to the conclusion that the one has acted from a disordered impulse of mind, uncontrollable, and he therefore not responsible for his acts, it can make no difference with the fact that the wrong doer must be restrained and put where he can not trespass upon the rights of others. It will rather lead to the questions of where he shall be confined, how employed, after what manner treated, and in what light regarded; perhaps showing clearly the need of important modifications in our present system of prison management.