Annual report of the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland : 4th 1862

  • Great Britain. General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland.
Date:
1862
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Annual report of the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland : 4th 1862. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    272/282 (page 244)
    lowing interlocutor :— Wick, 29th June 1860.—The Sheriff-Substitute having resumed consideration of the case, with the proof adduced, heard parties’ procurators, and advised the cause,—Finds that Margaret M‘Adie has been for several years a furious lunatic; and, in the opinion of Dr. Sinclair, under whose care she has been for several years, she is incurable: Finds that this opinion, founded upon long acquaintance with her condition, has not been rebutted by any contrary evidence: Finds that, in this state of matters, restraint is absolutely necessary for the safety of herself and the members of her family: Finds that the restraint actually employed under the advice and inspection of the family’s medical attendant is not established to be unduly stringent, and that it is proved she is well cared for: Finds that, in these circumstances, there are no sufficient grounds for depriving the family of her custody; and in the admitted inability of her family to bear the expense of her maintenance elsewhere than in their own home, there are no competent grounds for subjecting the parochial board in the expense of her removal and maintenance in an asylum; because there appears, as already found, no adequate reasons esta- blished for such an arrangement; and therefore, zn hoc statu, supersedes farther consideration of the application, reserves all questions of expenses, and decerns. (Signed) HAMILTON RussEL. Wick, 6th July 1860.—I oi against this interlocutor. (Signed) Joun M. Nimmo, for Petitioners. Against which the petitioners have appealed, and which they now submit to review. Before adverting to the grounds on which the judgment brought under re- view is based, the reclaimers would beg to say a few words in reference to your Lordship’s indicated opinion, that this judgment is final, and that it is mcompetent for your Lordship or the Supreme Court to review it. It respectfully appears to the reclaimers that this judgment can be final, only ifa privative jurisdiction is conferred on your Lordship’s Court; and it is a well established principle that the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Court is privative only if the judgment of that Court be statutorily declared final and conclusive, and the procedure has been throughout conform to the statutory provisions ; while there is no such declaration in the Statute under which this case has been brought before your Lordship’s Court. No doubt, the words in the -sections founded on in this case speak of the application being made to the “ Sheriff,” that word meaning the Sheriff of and acting in the county of which he is Sheriff, and including the Sheriff-Substitutes ; but that word in the Sheriff-Court Act is also declared to include a “ Sheriff-Substitute,” and it cannot be doubted a judg- ment pronounced under the last-mentioned Act by the Sheriff-Substitute, who is throughout only referred to as “ the Sheriff,” is reviewable by your Lordship. And it cannot be said that any case originating in the Sheriff-Court, and the judgment wherein of the Sheriff-Substitute is not declared to be final and con- clusive, can be carried to the Court of Session or any other Supreme Court per saltum from the Sheriff-Substitute. On these grounds, therefore, the reclaimers respectfully submit they are entitled to have your Lordship’s opinion and decision on the judgment submitted to review. The action is founded on the 43d and 77th sections of the. Lunacy Act, to which your Lordship is respectfully referred. It is not averred in the petition, and it nowhere appears from the proceedings, that the lunatic is a pauper. She and her husband do not appear in the process at all. The opposing litigant is the Inspector of Poor of the parish of Wick, the lunatic’s undoubted settlement, and he certainly has given most strenuous opposition; but he is called only for his interest, as representing the parish, which would have to pay the expenses of examination, removal, or maintenance of the lunatic if she has no adequate estate, and if such expense shall not be borne by her relations. The reelaimers believe it to be a fact that the lunatic’s husband is possessed of heritable property, and could afford, if not the whole, at least the greater part, of these expenses, so that really the interest of the inspector is a remote and contingent interest. ~