1862. HALL ບ. SEMPLE. guilty, the Act of 1853 allowing him so to plead, and to Chambers, Huddleston, and Prentice for the plaintiff. ant. The plaintiff was a respectable tradesman, fifty-six years of age, who had been married to his present wife and had carried on business in the same neighbourhood about thirty years, during the whole of which time one Dr. Griffiths had been his medical attendant for himself and family. He had several children, of whom the youngest at the time of the matter in question was about ten years old, another daughter was about twenty-one, and two daughters were grown up and married to persons named Wright and Harding. The plaintiff's marriage had proved very unhappy, and in the first month the most painful dissensions had taken place between him and his wife, which had continued down to the time in question. There were frequent disturbances and several separations. certificate as aforesaid, which shall "Sect. 46. That every physician, "Sect. 105. That if any action shall be brought against any person for anything done in pursuance of the act, the same shall be commenced within twelve calendar months. . . . And the defendant may, at his election, plead specially on the general issue 'Not guilty,' and give this act and the special matter in evidence at any trial; and that the same was done in pursuance and by the authority of this act." That the medical man, if he directed the confinement, would be liable as a trespasser, unless the man was a lunatic; see Anderson v. Burrows, 4 C. & P. 210, cited Fletcher v. Fletcher, 28 L. J., Q. B. 134; 1 E. & E. 420. In 1851, Dr. Griffiths attended the wife for some violence, but how caused he could not recollect. In 1856, the wife consulted one Guy, a surgeon in Golden Square, and also another medical man named Linton, and got from them certificates that her husband was of unsound mind. It did not appear, however, upon what examination, if any, these certificates had been given. Guy, who was examined on this trial, did not state, and Linton was not called as a witness, nor were the certificates produced; and they were not acted upon.. The dissensions and disturbances between the plaintiff and his wife became worse and worse, attracting a great deal of attention in the neighbourhood, often causing the shop to be closed and crowds to collect round it. For six or seven years past they had not cohabited as man and wife though living in the same house. There was contradictory evidence as to actual violence by the plaintiff towards his wife; but there was no doubt that they had a bitter mutual aversion, and that he used bad language towards her, and sometimes using such words as might, if seriously used, convey an imputation of adultery; but it appeared from the evidence that these epithets were rather used as words of abuse than as conveying any such charge. There were repeated applications to the police court both by husband and wife, and on one occasion she was bound over to keep the peace towards him. It was proved, and indeed admitted by the wife, that during this period she had repeatedly pawned goods out of the shop and also incurred debts. She accounted for this by stating that she and her children were in want of necessaries, but of this there was no evidence beyond her assertion; and it was contradicted by one of the married daughters and the neighbours and a son-in-law, and it came out that during this time she deposited sums in a savings bank. During this period, also, it appeared that the plaintiff 1862. HALL V. SEMPLE. 1862. HALL v. SEMPLE. was under the impression that the wife was often resorting to medical men with the view of having him confined as a lunatic, and it was a fact that latterly she had repeatedly resorted to Guy on occasions of alleged violence against her. On one of these occasions he followed her to Guy's and said to Guy, "Oh! you are one of her fellows, are you?" (a) On one occasion when Guy was called in by the wife to see her husband, it would seem that he had certainly been in a violent transport of passion and pulled down part of a mantel-piece and broken a looking-glass, &c. This was sworn to and not denied (although he denied all violence to his wife), and Guy was told of it at the time by the wife, and saw the results of the violence, though he did not actually witness it. In the course of these events Guy had evidently imbibed a strong impression in favour of the wife, and had taken her part warmly, but the defendant, in the meantime, was an utter stranger to them, and knew nothing either of the plaintiff, of his wife, or of Guy. On the 13th June, 1862, Guy was again called in by the wife to see her husband, the plaintiff, after a quarrel between them, and had a short interview with him, when the plaintiff was excited and treated him rudely, and told him he was a fool to mind what his wife said; adding some expression as to fellows always running after her, of whom (as Guy stated) he said that Guy himself was one; an expression which, as to the latter part of it, the plaintiff denied, and which Guy supposed to mean an imputation of adultery, but which probably referred to the wife's habit of bringing in medical men from time to time to look at him as if he were insane. (a) This was the expression chiefly relied on as showing a delusion on his part as to her adultery with Guy, but it plainly alluded to her frequent resort to medical men with a view to her husband's incarceration as a lunatic. It did not appear, but it is very probable, that since 1856 he had discovered her having resorted to Liuton and Guy. At this time there had been still no communication, either between the plaintiff's wife and the defendant, or between the defendant and Guy. On the 28th July, 1862, another quarrel having occurred between the plaintiff and his wife, she resorted to the defendant, a physician, who resided in the neighbourhood, and made various statements to him as to her husband, as that he slept with a drawn sword by his bedside and threatened to stab her; and further, that he laboured under the delusions that his wife was ruining him, and was improperly associating with other men. She begged him. to see him at once and he did so that same day. He saw the plaintiff at his own shop, found him excited and rude, and left in about ten minutes. At that brief interview the plaintiff said something about his wife running into debt and pawning goods, &c., and also said something as to fellows running after her or she after fellows, which the plaintiff said pointed to tallymen or tradesmen with whom she run up debts, and which the defendant supposed to mean an imputation of improper association with other men; but which probably referred to his wife's previous resort to Guy and other medical men for the purpose of having him confined as a lunatic. The plaintiff told the defendant his medical attendant was Dr. Griffiths. Next day, the 29th July, the defendant, at the wife's request, saw Guy and heard his account which confirmed hers, but had been chiefly derived from her own statements, except so far as the indications of violence had been observed by himself. The defendant and Guy on that day, without any further examination by either of them of the plaintiff, and without either of them resorting to Dr. Griffiths or to any member of the family, or to any intimate personal friend, signed the certificates that the plaintiff was of unsound mind. 1862. HALL v. SEMPLE. 1862. HALL บ. SEMPLE. The wife took these certificates to an asylum, the proprietor of which, one Elliott, was not there, but whose manager sent men at her instance, who, under the authority of the certificates, next night seized the plaintiff and forcibly carried him to the asylum. The defendant had no knowledge of this until after it had occurred, but he must have known of course that the wife meant to make use of the certificates. The wife's order for admission and the doctors' certificates were on printed forms on one and the same piece of paper. The defendant signed his certificate first, and left the paper with Guy, who signed afterwards and gave the paper to the wife, who then filled in her own order for admission into the asylum. Guy's certificate, it will be observed, being signed on the 29th July, and he not having seen the plaintiff since his interview on the 13th, was founded on an examination more than seven clear days previous, and so was invalid under the statute. But it did not distinctly appear that the defendant knew that, since the 13th of July, Guy had not seen the plaintiff, though it would rather appear that he did, because it was intended that Guy should see the plaintiff again on the same day, the 29th, and he went to the shop for the purpose but could not see him and then went back, and being pressed by the wife, signed his certificate-the defendant having already, as above mentioned, signed his. The order and the certificates were as follows: "Order for the Reception of a Private Patient. "I, the undersigned, hereby request you to receive my husband, Richard Hall, a person of unsound mind, as a patient into your house. |