1862. HALL บ. SEMPLE. been present at the defendant's last interview with him in the presence of Dr. Webb, and by a number of neighbours and old friends, one of whom saw him on the night of his seizure, and by the police who saw him when being taken to the asylum. The plaintiff's relatives and friends knew nothing of the alleged delusions; as to which, indeed, two turned out to be no delusions at all, but strong impressions of actual facts, viz., the pawning and running into debt; and the third, as to the wife's adultery, was denied by himself, and none of the witnesses, except the wife and Guy, appeared to have any notion of its existence. Assuming it to exist, the evidence of the married daughter was sufficient to show that it would not be grounded on fact, but there was no other evidence that it would be irrational or insane (a). One of the medical witnesses for the plaintiff denied that mere delusions as to matters of fact which might occur (as a wife's unchastity) were necessarily symptoms of insanity, unless irrational (b); but he did not deny, and Dr. Griffiths, who was called for the plantiff, and declared that, so far as he could judge, he should consider him of sound mind, admitted, that such delusions, if they could be shown to be real, i, e. not mere effusions of rage or jealousy, but continuous and persistent, and also irrational, might be symptoms of insanity. Such seemed to be the effect of the plaintiff's medical evidence on the theory of the subject, and it did not differ materially from the defendant's medical evidence on the same subject; but Dr. (a) As to which, vide the case of Dyce Sombre, 1 Mac. & G. 116; that though indeed the existence of a delusion as to a wife's unchastity may be a symptom of insanity, it can only be so when, from the nature of the particular delusion and from all the circumstances of the case it is manifest, not merely that it is groundless but that it is irrational, and a concurrent symptom with others of an unsound and insane state of mind. In that case there was far more than a delusion as to that particular mat ter. (b) Fletcher v. Fletcher, 28 L. J., Q. B. 134; 1 E. & E. 420. Griffiths had never examined the plaintiff with a view to this particular question, and the opinions upon it in this case were purely hypothetical, inasmuch as there was not sufficient evidence that the delusion, sane or insane, ever really existed in the plaintiff's mind. For the defence, the defendant and Guy were called, and spoke to such facts as they had stated, and such words as they had heard uttered by the plaintiff, and such statements as the wife had made to them, and she was called to confirm their evidence, especially on the latter part. But no other relative of the plaintiff was called for the defence, nor any intimate friend of his; and the neighbours alluded to in the certificates, one or two of whom were called, appeared to be persons to whom the medical men had been referred by the wife, and were not intimate with the plaintiff. And it appeared that (except as above stated) the medical men had acted chiefly on the wife's statements to them, and that the defendant had chiefly acted on her statements and Guy's. Dr. Webb, being called for the defendant, admitted, on cross-examination, that he should not have signed the certificate on the facts as they appeared to have been presented to the defendant when he signed it. cause. Guy stated that the plaintiff seemed to labour under a "monomaniacal aversion" to his wife without any sufficient But Guy had, as the learned Judge stated, evidently espoused the wife's cause very strongly, having taken his idea of the case chiefly from her, and having seen the plaintiff only once or twice on occasions when she had called him in, and when the plaintiff was under great excitement, and there had been quarrels between them. And there was no other evidence that the aversion was irrational or "monomaniacal" than that the wife and one or two of her partisans stated that she was not to blame, whereas the daughter stated that she was. It had been contended in the course of the trial that if 1862. HALL บ. SEMPLE. 1862. HALL บ. SEMPLE. the forms of the act had been pursued-at all events if bonâ fide-it was sufficient (a). The learned JUDGE had intimated that he thought the question would not turn on malice or mala fides, but on negligence, and he therefore proposed to amend the second count by inserting instead of the word "maliciously" the word "negligently," and he also intimated that as it did not appear either that the defendant had any concern in the actual taking of the plaintiff, or with Guy's signing of the certificate, the first and third grounds of complaint failed, and it came therefore to the question whether the defendant had used reasonable care in finding out the truth before he gave his own certificate. At the close of the case, CROMPTON, J., thus summed up :-The learned counsel were right in regarding the case as one of very considerable importance, not only with reference to the personal liberty of the subject-when a party is put under restraint in a case of this kind-but also with reference to the medical profession. On the one hand, it is of great importance that they should very carefully sign certificates of this kind, and that personal liberty should not be interfered with improperly by any abuse of the power which the law has entrusted to these parties; and, on the other hand, it is very important to the medical profession that if a person acts really bonâ fide under the authority of the act by which these duties are assigned to him, he should not be made responsible for a mere error in judgment or mistake of facts. It is also very important to the interests of the public that persons who are really lunatics should be immediately taken care of. Very often it is a difficult and delicate matter to be decided upon, and we all know what lamentable mischief sometimes arises through lunatics not being put under restraint at the proper time. Again and again we see in the Criminal Courts what lamentable con(a) Fletcher v. Fletcher, 28 L. J., Q. B. 134; 1 E. & E. 420. sequences ensue from even a few hours' delay. The case, therefore, in all its bearings is one of very great public importance, and I am sure, therefore, that you will, with great care, apply to the facts the law as I shall lay it down to you. If the plaintiff's case was well founded, no doubt it would be a sad thing if there were no redress. But that is assuming the absence of reasonable cause or reasonable care. And, on the other hand, it would be lamentable if, where no blame really attached to the medical man, he was to be ruined merely for having acted bonâ fide in the performance of the duty which the statute has imposed upon him. The statutes passed to regulate the confinement and care of lunatics have not put the powers of the act only into the hands of medical practitioners who have particularly devoted themselves to matters of the kind: and it is to be remembered, that very often it would be impracticable to call in such practitioners. The medical man must be called in at once, and is called upon to act at once (a); and the statutes seem to make very wise provisions for such cases, which it is very important to understand the effect of with reference to their bearing on the case before us. The statutes require that before any person shall be sent to an asylum two medical men shall each separately sign and give certificates, after due examination, and shall state in the certificates the facts upon which they have formed their opinion, distinguishing the facts they have stated of their own knowledge from those which they have heard from others. These certificates are to be the basis of the power to send a person to an asylum. The keeper of the asylum, however, is not to act upon these alone. The person who applies for them is obliged to come forward ostensibly and sign an order to the keeper of the asylum to receive the party thus certified to be a lunatic, (a) In cases of dangerous lunatics; as to which, see Scott v. Wakem, ante, p. 328; the statute is 1862. HALL v. SEMPLE. 1862. HALL V. SEMPLE. and also to subscribe a printed form with answers to certain questions. The keeper of the asylum is subject to very severe penalties if he receives a party without the proper order and certificates. So that there is the safeguard of having the certificates of the medical men, and also the further safeguard of knowing who the party is who is putting the patient under restraint. Then, when these documents go to the keeper of the lunatic asylum, he is to send them to the Commissioners in Lunacy, and they, having them before them, come in their regular visitations and see the party who is confined. These, you see, are the wise provisions made for the purpose of precaution, requiring the medical men to discharge a certain duty in making an examination of the party, and also requiring the party who is sending the patient to the asylum to sign a certain document containing the answers to certain questions; and all these documents are sent to the Commissioners. Now, the plaintiff originally shaped his case in two ways. The first charged the defendant with being a party to his arrest, and actually causing him to be seized and imprisoned. But I think that, looking at the whole of the evidence, there was hardly sufficient evidence to charge him in that way. The wife applied, and there is no evidence that before sending the husband to the asylum the defendant interfered in any way, except by going to see him and examining him, and going again to make a certain other inquiry. It would be hardly satisfactory to you to proceed upon that ground of complaint; and, indeed, it seems to have been virtually abandoned, and the real ground of complaint seems to be contained in the second count. That count charges that the defendant, being a physician, falsely and maliciously, and without reasonable cause, and with intent to cause the plaintiff to be put under restraint, as of unsound mind, did, as such physician, sign a certifi |