The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-03-22 00:00:00

MRS, WELDON AND DR. FORBES
WINSLOW.

The hearing of the action brought by Mrs. Weldon
against Dr. Forbes Wingow was resumed on Tues-
day, before Baron Huddlestone and a special jury,
in the Queen's Bench Division. This was the fifth
and concluding day of the hearing of this case. The
plaintiff Mrs. Georgina Weldon, brought an action
against Dr. Forbes Winslow for an alleged trespass in
having forcibly entered her house on April 14, 1878,
for assault, false imprisonment, and also for two
libels, laying hot. damages at £lO,OOO.
Mrs. Weldon conducted her case in person; Mr.
Edward Clarke, Q.C., and Mr. C. H. Anderson were
for the defendant.

The evidence having been concluded, Mr. Clarke
subraited that there was no case for the defendant to
answer. As to the trespass, Dr. Winslow, as the
keeper of a registered lunatic asylum, was protected
by the Act of 8 and 9 Victoria, as well as by the 16
and 17 Victoria, as he had acted on the order of Sir
Henry de Bathe and on the certificates of two duly-
qualified medical practitioners, who were bound to
examine the alleged lunatic separately. The learned
counsel, having referred to the section of those
statutes bearing on this question, said, as to the
alleged libel, Dr. Winslow's communication to Mr.
Weldon, after he had been consulted by the latter,
was privileged, and that Dr. Winslow's letter to the
British Medical Journal, in answer to repeated chal-
lenges by Mrs. Weldon in various newspapers, was
also privileged and made without malice. Mrs. Weldon
had herself acquitted him of personal malice, but
alleged he had an indirect motive in getting some
benefit for his mother and himself in case Mrs.
Weldon was placed in their asylum.
Mr. Anderson argued the point on the same side.
Mrs: Weldon replied, contending that although she
did not attribute personal malice to Dr. Winslow
nothing could have been more cruel than his whole
conduct to her in sending three persons into her
house to drag her from her bed and place her in a
lunatic asylum. To this death, or even murder,
would have been preferable, and she believed if she
had not got away that night she would never have
, been heard of again. During this trial she, who had
a number of little children dependent on her, had
been compelled to put into the witness box a number
of persons who would cut her throat if they could.
She submitted there was ample proof of express
malice. As his lordship had said a crossing-sweeper
I could sign an order and get two wretched miserable
I medical men to sign a certificate, and she would have
been consigned to a living tomb to pass the rest of
her days amongst lunatics. She would, however,
spare Dr. Winslow, and would say she did not believe
the persons confined in his asylum were lunatics.
On the conclusion of the arguments,
Baron Huddleston said: Under ordinary circum.
stances I might have taken time to consider my
judgment, but the facts are fully before my mind, and
I am bound to state the conclusion to which I have
arrived. Mrs. Weldon in her statement of claim
alleges that the defendant with other persons tres-
passed on her house, and she also makes two charges
of libel. She has pointed out the distinction between
the two kinds of trespasses, and truly says that as
regarded the first of them it was committed prior to I
the drawing up of the order. Now I say distinctly,
I wish I could treat this case apart from all techni-
cality, but I must express my astonishment that such
a state of things can exist, that an order can be made
by anybody, on the statement of anybody, and that
two gentlemen if they have only obtained a diploma,
provided they examine a patient separately and are
not related to keepers of lunatic asylums, and that on
this form being gone through any person can be com-
mitted to a lunatic asylum. It is somewhat startling—
it is positively shocking that if a pauper, or as Mrs.
Weldon puts it, a crossing-sweeper, should sign an
order and another crossing-sweeper should make a
statement, and that then two medical men who had
never had a day's practice in their lives and would for
a small sum of money granttheir certificates, a person
may be lodged in a private lunatic asylum, and that
this order and the statement and these certificates were
a perfect answer to any action. But still lam bound
,to obey the law. In the present case the order was
signed by General De Bathe, and I do not doubt that,
even if mistaken, he did not act wilfully. The order
was made in compliance with the Act of Parliament ;
the statement was made in compliance with the
schedule appended to the Act ; and the certificates were
legally drawn up. Whatever may be my opinion as
to Mrs. Weldon's state of mind, I cannot doubt that
there was a conscientious desire on the part of all
concerned to comply with the conditions of the
Act of Parliament. lam bound, however, to say
that the proceedings were strained a little, and
although I believe NE-. Weldon felt himself honestly
bound to take a medical opinion on Mrs. Weldon's
state of mind, and therefore consulted Dr. Winslow,
I think there was no occasion for all that precipitancy
which was evidenced on that Sunday in the visit paid
to her by Dr. Winslow and Dr. Winn—who naturally
did not state their names nor the object of their visit,
but came to the conclusion she was insane. I am
bound to say I think they were mistaken, and that
having seen her demeanour throughout the case, and
speaking as a layman and not as a doctor I
consider she is in the full possession of her senses,
and has conducted her case with judgment, intel-
ligence, and talent. But as to the trespass, if there
had been a trespass in point of law, whatever was
done by Dr. Winslow was done by the direction of
Mr. Weldon, and therefore claim for the trespass failed,
Mr. Weldon being, legally speaking, the owner of the
house. If, however, I were called upon to express an
opinion, which I am not, I should say that there was no
, need for all that precipitancy in the steps taken on that
Sunday one after the other, the drawing up of the
order by Mr. Weldon the statement made by
General De Bathe, the certificates signed by the two
medical men, and the carriage with keepers being
sent to carry her off to an asylum. Presuming Mrs.
'Weldon was eccentric, there was nothing to show she
was in a condition dangerous to herself or others.
, Technically, however, these trespasses were protected,
and I am bound to say that the letter written by Dr.
Winslow to Mr. Weldon was privileged. As to the
letter written by Dr. Winslow in his own defence in
• the British Medical Journal, Mrs. Weldon had ad-
mitted she had libelled everybody in the hope she
might be prosecuted, and thus be enabled to bring
her ease before the public. She could not complain
of Dr. Winslow's letter, and that I hold to be privi-
leged. The only question, therefore, that remains for
me is whether I should leave the question of malice
to the jury. It must be remembered that '
before Dr. Winslow was consulted by Mr. Weldon
he was a perfect stranger to Mrs. Weldon, who, how-
ever, said he wanted a patient who would bring £5OO
a year to his mother's asylum, of which he is the
medical attendant. Ido not think that a gentle-
man in Dr. Winslow's position would be influenced
by any such sordid motives; but this he would say,
that had it been proved that if anything in the
statement that had been made was untrue to his
knowledge, he could not rely on his privilege.
It seems to me there is no evidence on which I can
leave the question of malice to the jury, and under
these circumstances regretting that Mrs. Weldon
cannot obtain redress in this form of action for the
very serious inconveniences to which she has been
put, I do not see that she has made her case out,
and therefore I am bound to nonsuit her.

His lordship then entered judgment for a non-
suit, and certified for a special jury.
During the day, as throughout the trial, the court
was densely crowded, and large numbers of persons
could not obtain admission.