1862. Surrey Summer Assizes. At common law, and apart from the lu nacy statutes, a medical man may justify measures necessary to restrain a dan Guildford, coram Bramwell, B. SCOTT v. WAKEM. TRESPASS: in which the plaintiff complained that the defendant and others had entered the plaintiff's dwellinghouse, and assaulted and beat him, and caused him to be imprisoned and kept under personal restraint. Pleas: 1. That the defendant did what was complained gerous lunatic. of by the plaintiff's leave. So also, if he be called in to attend a per son suffering 2. That the plaintiff at the time was a dangerous lunatic, and threatening and attempting to murder his wife, and under delirium that the defendant necessarily entered the house and did what was complained of to put the plaintiff under reasonsuch measures able restraint, and to prevent him doing mischief to him tremens, he may justify as are reason ably necessary, self and others. either to cure him or to re so long as the 3. That the plaintiff at the time was suffering under a strain him from fit of delirium tremens, and that the defendant, as a surdoing mischief, geon, called in by the plaintiff to attend him in that disorder, did what was complained of as such surgeon with the authority of the plaintiff, and in what was necessary medical treatment. fit lasts, or return. The plaintiff denied these pleas, and likewise new assigned that the defendant had been guilty of more violence than necessary. This the defendant denied. M. Chambers and Prentice for the plaintiff. Parry, Serjt., and J. Lloyd, for the defendant. The plaintiff, who was addicted to drinking, and subject to fits of delirium tremens, had been attended by the defendant, a medical man, a few weeks before the day in question. On the 10th February, the plaintiff had been drinking, and, as there were loaded pistols in the room, the wife sent a servant out hastily to the police-station, as she said, merely to get the weapons unloaded. The police, how - ever, knowing something of the case, suggested to her to go to the defendant, as the medical man who had so lately attended; he being also the surgeon of the police division. There was a contest of evidence between her and the defendant, as to whether she actually did go to himshe denying that she had done so he declaring that she had. He, however, came, and afterwards sent a man to watch and take care of the plaintiff during the rest of the day and the night. The man remained there all night; and there was an utter conflict of evidence between the defendant and the plaintiff's wife, as to how he came to send him, and what he did when there, and how he came to remain there all night. But the evidence of the plaintiff's wife was that she did not send for the defendant, nor desire him to send the man; that her husband was asleep when he came; that the man had remained there against her will, and put a restraint upon the plaintiff and prevented his going out. Next day the plaintiff's ordinary medical man saw him, and declared him sane, and was called as a witness on his part. For the defence the defendant was called, and swore that the servant had come for him and desired his attendance, and that when he went he found the plaintiff threatening to shoot his wife, and two men holding him. He was, the witness said, in a fit of delirium tremens, and in a very dangerous state. He said the wife asked him to sign a certificate for his removal from the house, but he declined doing so, as, if a strait-waistcoat were put upon him in such a state, he might probably die of excitement. The wife also asked him to send some one to take care of him, and he sent Streets, an attendant, to do so. At 10 o'clock at night he went again, and found the plaintiff much better; and, though still incoherent in his language, not so violent. The defendant stated that the wife asked that Streets should not go away, lest the plaintiff should take to drinking again, and Streets remained at her re 1862. SCOTT v. WAKEM. 1862. SCOTT v. WAKEM. quest. Next morning he found the plaintiff better, though still trembling, and he asked defendant to explain to him what had occurred. The defendant said he told him what had taken place, and the plaintiff thanked him for what he had done. Cross-examined.-The witness stated that he thought the plaintiff insane at the time, but had not signed a certificate. of insanity; because, if he had given a certificate of insanity, the police would have acted on it,-at least, so he understood at the station; and he abstained from signing the certificate from consideration for the plaintiff, and lest he should be forcibly removed to the station. He had also signed many certificates for the removal of persons, not paupers, as insane. On such occasions, he was usually sent for by some member of the family, and generally examined the whole of the family. He then saw the lunatic alone, and another medical man saw him alone. Then the certificate was signed, which was required to be signed by two medical men. The person was then usually taken to a private asylum. A person suffering from delirium tremens might be taken, by any one who did not understand the disease, as a madman. A person suffering under delirium tremens often woke up better when once he got to sleep. He had not inquired after the plaintiff's ordinary medical attendant, nor had he ever thought about it. Pressed as to whether he did not think it important, before treating a person as a lunatic, or of unsound mind, to see the ordinary medical attendant, he said he did not think it important in a case of delirium tremens. In a case like this he said there could be no doubt. He was pressed a great deal as to whether it was not difficult to know whether a man was suffering under delirium tremens, and said he did not think there was such difficulty with reference to the whole history of the case. When pressed still further upon this answer, whether it might not be desirable to see the regular medical attendant, he admitted that it might be desirable to do so. He had treated the plaintiff for delirium tremens, giving him opium, morphia, &c. The witness stated he was often called in in the same sudden manner in similar cases, and treated them in the same way, and said that if he had not known this to be a case of delirium tremens he should have thought it was a case of madness. On re-examination, he stated that the plaintiff was a confirmed drunkard, and the history of the case went far to show what it really was. Sleep did not necessarily restore a person under an attack of delirium tremens; on the contrary, he might, if disturbed in sleep, wake up worse, and in a state of mania destroy himself. In answer to the learned JUDGE, The witness stated that a person, while suffering under an acute attack of delirium tremens, was really in a state of delirium. The evidence of the defendant was confirmed by his assistant, so far as regarded the previous state of the plaintiff. Streets was also called, who described himself as an attendant on insane or nervous gentlemen, and said he had been employed in that capacity for many years by medical men, and had been employed in many cases of delirium tremens, and said he had been employed on this occasion by the defendant, whom he had known for some time. He had known patients in delirium tremens wake up suddenly from sleep and attack people. He went upstairs to see the plaintiff at the request of the women who were at his residence. He thought Mrs. Scott, the plaintiff's wife, was one of them. He found the plaintiff standing in the middle of the room undressed-with nothing but his trousers-washing himself. The witness described the plaintiff's conversation with him, which, according to his account, was senseless and irrational. He said that when the plaintiff went to bed the 1862. SCOTT v. WAKEM. 1862. SCOTT v. WAKEM. wife asked him to stay in the house, and he remained downstairs all night, she being with her husband. There was no further disturbance during the night, and all was quiet. Next day the witness saw the plaintiff, who thanked him for his kindness, and said that the defendant had asked him to give him 10s., but he should give him a sovereign. In answer to the learned JUDge, The witness said that when he first saw the plaintiff he was quietly washing himself, and he could not say he was excited, but he seemed a little excited when he saw a stranger. A policeman confirmed the evidence of the defendant, that the woman had come for him, saying that the plaintiff was out of his mind, threatening to shoot his wife, &c. The woman first saw the police about it, and they suggested that she should go to the defendant, as she said he had before attended the plaintiff. The policeman said he told her if he gave a certificate that he was out of his mind then the police would remove him. The woman, on this, went towards the defendant's house. Parry, Serjt., in summing up the case for the defendant, said he hoped the jury would be of opinion that he had substantially proved the defences he had opened. The learned BARON remarked that it might be doubtful whether the latter of the pleas was proved, alleging that the defendant had been sent for by the plaintiff. Parry, Serjt., submitted that in substance it was proved, as surely the wife was the agent of the husband, to send for medical aid in case of an emergency; and the plea, if necessary, might be amended; but an amendment would not alter the substance of the case. And as, while the fit of delirium tremens lasted, the plaintiff was insane, the substance of the case seemed the same on both pleas. BRAMWELL, B., in summing up the case to the jury, said that, if the defendant had made out that the plaintiff |