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.

    273/282 (page 245)
    r . . . / Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland. 245 ers to lodge in process the reports of Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Cockburn [dated res- pectively, 15th July 1858, 26th July 1859, and 18th May 1860], allowed the same to be seen by Dr. Sinclair and Dr. Smith, and appointed the parties to at- tend in Court on the following Friday at noon, to depone as to the lunatic’s eapa- bility of being removed in terms of the prayer of the petition, These reports were accordingly lodged, and afterwards submitted to Drs. Sinclair and Smith by the reclaimers. But when the Friday came (15th June 1860), the Sheriff-Sub- stitute stated that he thought the case was out of shape by these reports having been put in, and that they should be withdrawn from process ; but he pronounced no order to that effect, and his Lordship’s scruples were overcome by the reclaim- ers’ agent stating that he would not make the reports the bases of his examina- tion of Drs. Sinclair and Smith. Your Lordship will observe the defence is, that the lunatic “ is in such an in- firm condition as to render her removal impracticable and dangerous to her life ; and this was intimated to the petitioners in August 1858.” That such intima- tion was made to the reclaimers is not proved nor in any way admitted ; but sup- posing it had been made, the reclaimers considered the accompanying reasons, if any, to be insufficient, and, as they were entitled to do, instituted the present pro- ceedings ; and the interlocutor remitting to Drs. Sinclair and Smith, when viewed along with the remaining ground of defence, certainly infers most clearly that if these gentlemen gave evidence that the lunatic was capable of being removed, an order for her removal to an asylum would follow as a matter of course. And looking to the evidence of these gentlemen, it is perfectly clear the luna- tic can be removed without risk to her life. Dr. Sinclair’s sympathetic tend- encies are towards keeping her as she is, but Dr. Smith’s are towards her removal, “for the sake of humanity.” The Sheriff-Substitute seems to have been guided entirely by Dr. Sinclair’s evidence, for from it alone he seems to have grounds for his judgment, and this, notwithstanding Dr. Smith’s evidence was given as clearly and unhesitatingly as Dr. Sinclair’s. His lordship seems also to have overlooked the fact that, as the case came before him when the evidence of these gentlemen was sought for and given, every requisite of the 43d section of the Act, towards the removal of the lunatic, was admitted, or not seriously disputed, except the lunatic’s capability of removal ; for, as already said, the matter of intimation to the reclaimers is not proved, nor in any way ad- mitted. And these medical gentlemen, from personal examination, distinctly swear she may be removed without risk to her life. So that if the 43d section of the Act be to be given effect to in the county of Caithness, there can never be a more fit case than the present ; and the reclaimers therefore respectfully submit that this judgment is erroneous and unfounded. In conclusion, the reclaimers have just to remind your lordship that this judg- ment under review is an interlocutor disposing, in part at least, of the merits of the cause, seeing it refuses the main object of the prayer of the petition, and that it is therefore competent to bring it under your Lordshi, s review, in terms of the Sheriff Court Act (16 and 17 Victoria, cap. 80, sect. 19.) May it therefore please your Lordship to recall the judgment submitted to review, to find that the case of the reclaimers is established by the admissions made and evidence adduced, to grant an order for removal of the lunatic as prayed for, and to find the respondent liable in expen- ses; or to do otherwise as to your Lordship shall seem proper.—Ac- cording to Justice, etc. Copy INTERLOCUTOR, in causa, General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy v. M‘Adies and M‘Cormack. Edinburgh 9th August 1860.—The Sheriff having considered the appeal, and reclaiming petition for the petitioners, along with the closed record, proof, pro- ductions, and whole proceedings, and having advised the cause, dismisses said appeal, for the reasons set forth in the subjoined note, and decerns. (Signed) Gro. Dinawaut ForpyYce. p pendix H.