Court Of Common Pleas, Fr...
( ietorC Lord Chief JuttiCe BEST. and a .SeAI.Jit . i Jair.i.,IA-wm opened the ca8e, It was, he said, an action brought by t'he plaintiff' to recover cor. ptensation in damages fa.r trespass and false imprisonment comsnitted by the defendants, in first send- ing hit to a watchliouse, ard afterwards having him. committed as a alunpatie to a private mad-house. Thsedsdce waha, thnat the detendant, A. Fletcher, was the minis- ter of' ardisseniling ehlapel, Into wthich the pslaintiff had forced hlim- 8ef and tlthere violently disturbed the congregation; that he then ternt for the other defefidants Who IS a surgeon, and who having cer.. tifieda hat be wat ani mfgna-prs1oi3, fIe was thereupon committed to a luinoatic asy,lun. TC thl4i tlhe; pLlatiff replied, that there was no catse tbr his comritmenht vtlen lunatic asylunm, and upon this itsue Mr.e Shergelr. TnAlY stated thin case to the jury. The plaintiff, lae bcaused wa brothe distonce in the defendan.s. He had kept a rspctaleschol b tie whfteofwhich he supported himself; butveinconsquene oanif te s couctvofdefendantc in cagstiog,upon him thke hiputatihn Cof p. inSanit antitat ging icaB a mad ean, his echo- pl,r hade onery one deserthe h, andf h s now deprived Of anY miVans ofrtupportc, fr omdr thsouhae. The lean ed Sergeant thend e. tailed lhe fact o in the case, as they afterwards proved bythe several wtnesses.I John rtiarkwcll...T was on duty as a constable at Mloorgate, or SunJay vNening, the 20th of Juxly, 1823. 1 know the chiapel of the defentaannt, Alexander Fletcher, It is called Albion Chapel. The pintiffe was broughit to the watch-house about the hour of e ht o'clock that evening. When I cahte in, I tbundc him there. Vi behavedt with grat violence like a drtinken man. I did not see the aefendant Alexander Fletcher at that time. The other defend- ant, Mr. Kniglio , I saw soon after. The plaintiff wa_ very violent .at first, but soon gre more cool and cohlerted. He was much more qukiet whehn Mr. Knighst eame in. Mir. Knight stated, that pllaintiff had fcaused a great disturbance in the chapel of defendant. I Oh. Served, that it' thie plainitiff was viven in charge to me, I would taake hiim to thie Compter. iMr. Knight, af'ter going back to the cha.- psi, once or twice sai the plointiff was insane, and that lie would give a certifoeate, in order to lave hini t:,ken to a proper place. I said Isiould tke hiim to the Coripyer, but air. Kniht objected to tui, and said lie shiould be taken eFlsewhtere. He (lid not feel plain- ti,' pulse. fie dlid niot remiaini tive minutes withi plaintifF at aniy one tinme. lie said lie considered plaintiff ;k lunatic, that he shoula be takeui to a mad-.house, and he (Knight) Would inidemnify all par- ties. A coachi was then sent fbr, andl twopersonsgotinto it. Plain- tiff andl I got in afterwards. No commiunication was nkade to plain- tiff's wife of what pasd Vhien plaintiff got into the coach, he exclaimned verv muc against his brother. Hiethen asked where we were taking hifm. He was told that lie was going home, but hie said be kneiv bctter, as he saw Slhoreditch church. He then said, he saw how it wvas. lHe saidi no mnore until we v.ot to the house. There. lie asked for papier, and wrote a note to hi- brother, buit I don't kniow if it was sent. He was very quiet and cullected whets lie was, in the hiouse. Cross-examined by Alr. Sergeant VAUGuAV.-I was told that plaintiff had been very violent in the chap4cl. Ile was not so violent as to miake me think it necessary to pinion him1. His coat was off when he ca.me to the watch-house. W'atXr was btnuglht, and he drank several times. He did not say that the water was poisoned. Alr. Kniglht might have felt his pulse, but I did not see him. The defendant, Air. A. Fletcher, is very muchl respected, and followed by a very large congregation. lross-examined by Mlr. Sergeant PELT (who appeared for hlr. Knight).-.llr. Kiuipht lives close by the watchhouse. Ile haslived there these two years. I toni't know who sent for Alr. Knight. When he carne. he made no inquiry as to what.happened. I knew him to be a medical man. By the CouRT.-TIc. plaintiff was very violent when he came in. He was throwing his armns about, and talking about his brother having robbed himt. I have seen many mad-people, but I did not think the plaiitiff was mad. He lookedf more like a man in liquor. Another witness (the son ot' the last) corroborated his testimony. jMr. Samiuel Fox.-I am asurgeon. I have two asylums for the reception of ltnatics, one at Hackney, and the other at Edmonton. I remember the 20tl of July last year. I was then at Edmonton. About ten o'clock at niglht I arrived at Hackney, and was infbrmed that plaintiff lhad been brought there. I asked for the cer- titicate which zwas brought with him. I saw it was not sufficient, ac- cording to the act of Parliament. to authorize mne to receive him, but as I understood that the plaintiff was then comfortab-e and quiet, I did not disturb him. I did not see the patient that evenipg, I saw him about 10 or 11 o'clock next morning. He was then incoherent. He remained under my care until next AMonday. Frort what I saw of him in that time, I did not think him insane. He was incoherent in his conversation, and labouring under great debility. He gave nie a very hurried and unconnected de-ail of his grievances. The grievanceshe spokeabout,wereconcerning histreatmentbyhis brother. Ineverputhimina strait waistcoat. It is usual to have seme written locument independentlyof themeedical certificate brought with lunatic atients. (One pboluceMd,Signed "A. Fletcher.") I saw MUr. Alexander It itcher on the second or third day after plaintiff came. I gave di- rections that Ile slhould see his wife. Dlr. Alexander Fletcher gave me orders to prevent his wife from having access to him. His wife sat in the room with hir whole hours. Mly daughters also con- versed with him respecting the Latin classics. Ile was acquainted with the classics, and so were my daughters, and they canversed en the subject. In a few days after Mr. Robert Fletcher's arrival, I received a paper from Mr. A. Fletcher, which he read to me: that paper I have since lost. bZr. Sergeant VAUGHAN objected to the contents of this paper being stated. Mr. Sergeant TADDY said he would only ask as to what conve2 sation passed between MIr. Alexander Fletcher and witness, without referring to the contents of the paper. Examination resumed.lr. A. Fletcher said he considered his brother labouring under frequent paroxysms orinsanity and at those periods he flew- to drink, and that rendered bim a compiete madmian. rie 2dded, that tie cowzdm-sd blm unsate t, In-ve thy --ngcm=nt of his own person; but that probably, if he were to go to some other country, lie might be weaned from the effects of liquor, arsd that it would be better for him. I don't recollect whether he (lid not mention in what capacity he wished him to go: I think he mentioned Van Diemen's Lantd as th.e place. He gave me directions to prohibit the access of Mrs. Fletcher to him. He seemed to think M,lrs. Fletcher was as fond of drinking as him- self, and that she excited him to drink. He told me that it would be better to have him leave the country, and thus get rid of his had connexions here. In the course of three days, I informed Air. Alexander Fletcher that I did not think his brother insane. I then discharged Air. Robert Fletcher. It was entirely on my own authority. I certainly did not consider him insane at that time. I considered hirm incoherent and not perfectly sane on ite morning after he was brought to my houze. He was labouring under great excitement of some kind or another-whether of disease or ofliquor I could not say. I have made up my mind since that, that it must have been the efFect of liquor operating on a mind otherwise sound. AIr. A. Fietclher did not come to my house since. Cross-examihed by hlr. SergeantVAusGAN.-Icouldnotsayof my own knowledge wbat was the cause of the excitement I found the plaintiff in. I do not know; some persons are mEre easily excited than others. Air. A. Fletcher told me that his brother was subject to frequent paroxysms of insanity; that a short time before this the plantiff had conducted himnsel in chapel in a most outrageous manner; that he was most obstreperous and violent; that he at- tempted to take off his clothes, ard used the most blasphemous and indecent language to his brother, who was then in the nulpit; that lie ferced his way into the chapel; that he took off'his coat and neckeloth, and wanted to fight the door-keepers; that he got by tbree into the body of the chapel, and used the most revolting and disgusting language to his brother, who was the minister of the place, ant alarmed the congregation. From what I heard, I hsd no oubt that a man who could have acted so, must have been insane at the time. The defendant, at the time he gave me this detail, cx- pressed great commiseration for the state of his brother's mind - spoke in high terms of his great talents and acquirements, and ex- pressed in the strongest terms his wish for his brother's restoration to a perfect state of mind; said he would give him a pension, and assist him if he went abroad; and regretted that his (plaintiffs) wife should be the cause of a great deal of his excess. By Air. Sergeant PELL.-The plaintiffrmight have gone on the -Wednesday after he came to my house, if he had pleased. I told him he would not be the worse for remaining with me till Mlonday, as it would save his nerves, but that he -was ouite at liberty to go i when he pleased. It was on the Wednesdav tfiat I got a more re, gular certificate froni Mir. Knight. The first was a written, the second was a printed certificate (according to the act of Parliament.} It stated that the undersigned (Mr. Knight) considered the plaintiff in that state of mind whichi required restraint in a house licensed to receive lunaticg, and authorized w4tness to receive him es such. Mr. John Hlopking examined by Sergeant TADDY.-r am a sur- geon, living at Ratcliffe.highway. I was caUed to see the pleintiffl in July, 1822, tbr the purpose of signingP a certificate, that he might be confined. I met the defendant (A. Fletcher) with Mrr Crow. He wanted to know in what state of mind I found his bro- ther. I iold him I found him quite rational. He (plWintiff')told me that there was a difference between him and his brotlier respect- ing some property. I told him (A. Fletcher) that I did not consi- der his brother in that state which would warrant my signing a cer- tificate for ilis confinement. WVhen I mentioned wlhat plaintiff had said about the dispute between him and defendant respecting pro- perty, he (defenqant) said it was in part true. I said that rendered my signing a certificate the less necessary. AIr. Fox recalled by the CouRT.-I understood from defendant that there was some difference between them about property, but, be said, the plaintiff was quite mistaken is thinking that tdere was any property of his (plaintiff's) in defendant's hands. S. Blackburne-I atn a schoolmaster. Plaintiff freqaently came to my house, and spoke to me of some unsettled accounts between him and his brother. There was some property left them by their uncle, the'Rev. AIr. GfilfiUan. I saw the brother (A. Fletcher) in consequence of what passed between plaintiff and myself. I told hIim thai a publication was about to be sent forth respecting the ac- counts between them, which, if true, would be very injurious to de- fendant's character. Defentlant said he would meet me; and if the plaintiff would put any q-.sestions tn him on she subject of the pro- perty, lie would answer themn. There was a neeting; some qtes- tions were asked and answered; and, at length, I proposed, by di- rection ol plaintiff, thant the whole matter between thtem shoulld be left to arbieradon. The defendant then said he would not, " until his brotler returned to the Lord," and then lamented, 'in very feel- iug terms, the departure of the plaintiff from religious propriety. Mily acquaintance with the plaintiff commenced in Scotland in 1812, where lie was a very much esteemed minister of a dissenting conKre- gation. I neversaw any thing in plaidtiff's conduct which was im- proper exeept when lie appeared to have taken liquor. I will not draw the disinctitin between the madness of drunkenness andother kind of madness. I have seen plaintiff act in that way that I would say he was drunk or mad. rhe questions and answers which passed between plaintiff and defendant were here put in and read, for the purpose of showing that there was a dispute respecting property between them.) 'Witness continued-.Tbmese ojestions and answers were given, I think, in the spring-in February, 1823. Oross-examijied by Air. Sergeant VAUGHrA2.-The habits which plaintiff has of late acquired, rcnder it impossible that I should con- tinue my acquaintance with him. Indeed, I have been obliged to forbid him m~y house. Robert IIedges.The plaintiffinstructed me'in the classics for aut six or seven months before the caase of this action. During !hat time, I never entertained the slightest idea that he was in any degree deranged in his mind. I went to see plaititiT when he was at Mr. Foa's, andleoundbim as cool and as much master of himself as I amn. I know Airs. Robert Fletcher. AIr. BIackburne here camLe back into the box, and stated-1 bope your Lordship will excuase te for uga.in presenting myself, but fhe ninie of the plaintiff's wife baving been mentioned,tndit having been statecl that sbe was as much p.dict" to drinking anher hus- -band, Ifeel it butjusticeto,that lastlto sfate,-thatthough lse was in frequent habitof coming toray house, I never saw any? ng - prOperin her condaut; I never saw her addicted t rtisrig or evek: perceived any thing in her -onduct orannern which wouria hinder me from choosing her as a companion for my wife. I have felt it to be an act of justtice to state this to theeCourt. Mrs. Janet Adam&.-I wAs thqobearerof a. communication-from defendant to plaintiff iu the winter of 1822. It was in writing. r have not that paper with me; I tik it is at home. I have seen it this day. tfere the witness got unwell, and was allowedi to lave *.he Court Aor a short time.) Ir. Crarlsthrn Sm.tb._I had two sons at lMlr. Robert Fletcher'. academy last year. I took them away because the wewas noattend. anee. i paid aguinteaaquarterforonechild,and l8s. fortheother. IlIrs. Lnrden.-uad a child at the plridnff's School, for which she paul ls. a week. Charles Niehols...4 was one of the head boys at The plairatiff's school. There were about 440 or 50 boys at the sch1ool at the time this aft'air happened. The number was daily reduced after this, until there were only 12left. Plaintifftbengave up theschool. Mrs. Adams now came back into the box, and produced the letter which the defendant had written to her, requestingher to com- municate with the laintiff. It was dated in December, 1822, and requested the witneas to inform the plaintiff, that as thete was no c ance of his sucCceding in this country, he had better go abroad, where by a di$ercut course of life, and the blessing of God, he might rse to great emninence end usefulness. He effered to give hm ery assistance for that purpose. Er. Ebenezer Temple.-I was present when Mirs. RoberA Fletcher called at defendant's house. the was in tears. The defend- ant refused to see her. It *vas'while her husband wasc in confinemient. Cross.examined by Air. Sergeant VrATUG31AN.-I was in defend- ant's house about a week before plaintiff was pat into confinement. Plaintiffcame and kr ock,rd vio!ently at the door. e mnade a great noise and disturbance, and took an oath, that " he waoid not move from the spot till he had stabbed the d-cd bypocrite." He took off his coat, and was about to take off his small clothes, until I dissuaded him. This was on the graqs plot before the door. Theplain- tiff rolled himself along tde grass, and feamed at the mouth. Mly opinion was, that he was nmad, and I did not thinl; it safe for him to be at large. I have seen him since lie was at l;r. Fox's, and he conducted himself very violently. He on one occasion called out to his brother in L3tin. lie stid, " nWooo fratermina 7weum." I have seen him since within the last fortmight. The LoxtD CHIEF JUSTICE here suggested that it would be ad- visable for the plaintift to withdraw a jeror. It *vould be impessia ble to resibt such evidence as this. Mr. Sergeant TADDY,aSter consulting for a short time with the attorney in the case, consented that a juror should be withdrawn. The LORD CHiEF J USTICE.-. tlinlk, after Wlhat we have heard, this is the wisest course. You have done, brother Taddy, as much in the cause as any genitleman could do, but it is intlposEible that you, CanI carry the cisse farther. A j uror was then withdraivn. Ai7r. Sergeant VAUGH uAN.-My Lord, I feel it but justice to my client to state, that, trom the commenceniest of this a5'sir, lie h.s shown the g:reatest rommisetaiio, for this unfoirtunate plaintiff He was on every occasion willing, and is still willing, to give him every assistance. lie has been very reluctantly dragged heae, and if he has allowed the case to proceed thus far, it is because he felt it net cessrary for the justification ot'his character; and thoutgh he mig-ht be certain of a xerdlict, yet, troin a feeling of pity for the situation of this unhappy man, he now consents todie witbdrawal of ffi<uror. Air. Sergeant PELL.-1, inY Lord. have the honour of appXring for the defendant (Alr. Kinight), who is a highly respectable orfes- sional gentleman. He bas been included in this action, and he had no other course left but to defend it. From what the jury have beard, there was no doubt tbat that defence would have secured hir'a ver. dict; and if henowconsented to have a jurorwithdrawn, it wasr orly from a wish to sooth this unfortunate gentleman, who appeared be- fore them as a plaintiff. The LORD CHIEF J tJST TC E.-I think both the derendantshave acted with great propriety, and have shown a very humehe forbear- ance in consenting to let the case rest here. The case seemed to exci-e very great interest, and the Court was crowdedl in every part during its progress. COURT OP COMAON PLEAS. FftTnAV JnyU. 92. FLETCHEfI V. FLFTCi ltI-&s V---