The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-07-27 00:00:00

WALKER v. the NOTTINGHAM BOARD

of GUARDIANS.
The above cause has been tried it Nottingham Assizes,
And was an action for false imprisonment of a very singular
character.

The plaintiff was a valuer and upholsterer carrying
on business in Nottingham. On Sunday afternoon, the
14th of April, of this year, Pilkington, a relieving
officer of the defendants' Board. called upon the plain-
tiff, and upon some pretext induced him to get into a
cab and drove him to the workhouse. It appeared
that the plaintiff's wife had complained to one Dr.
Stanger of her husband's intemperate and violent
habits. Upon this Dr. Stanger, who had attended
the plaintiff, certified that the plaintiff was " sub-
ject to uncontrollable fits of delirium, and that
the life of his wife was in jeopardy." The plain-
tiff was placed in the imbecile ward. There were
four lunatics in the ward. The plaintiff was compelled
to put on the dress worn by lunatic paupers. The dress
had been in use before and was dirty. He had to live
on workhouse fare, in consequence of which the plain-
tiff stated that hia health had suffered. The plaintiff was
not discharged till the 24th of April. It was not dis-
puted that the taking and detention of the plaintiff were
illegal, but the defendants denied that they had any know-
ledge of any illegality having been committed by any of
their officers until the 25th of April, when the house
committee discharged the plaintiff. To prove that this
detention was implicitly sanctioned by the defendants
Dr. Dunn, the medical officer to the Union, was
called. He stated that he visited the plaintiff the day
after his admission, and found him to be perfectly sane.
He accordingly made an entry in a book called
"Lunatic admissions and discharges" that the plaintiff
was "found not to be suffering under any form of
insanity." This book was laid before the defendants at
their weekly Board meetings on the 16th and '23rd of
April, and before the house ,tominittee at their weekly
meetings on the 18th and 25th of April. Dr. Dunn
stated that this book was given to him by the de-
fendants.

The case for the defendants was that, although there
was some irregularity in taking the plaintiff to the
workhouse anti there detaining him, yet the facts were
not brought to their knowledgeruntil the 25th of April,
when the house committee at once discharged the
plaintiff. The clerk to the Guardians, the Chairman
of the Board, and other Guardians were called, who
stated that they had visited the wards, and that no
complaint had been made to them by the pleintiff or
by any other person, and that the properbook in which
Dr. Dunn ought to have made his remark. on the
plaintiff's ease was a book called the " Workhouse
Medical Officer's Report book." In this book there
WM no mention of the case. As to the other book, no
entry from any such book had ever been read to the
Board at their meeting, and they had never heard of
any such book. It appeared, however, that it had been
the practice en some occasions for the officers of the de-
fendants to remove persons not legally certified to be
lunatics to the imbecile ward and there keep them, and
that in 1868 the attention of the defendants had been
drawn to this practice, and a committee had been all-
, pointed to inquire iuto the matter, but the Board took
' further steps.
I _

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. In answer
to his lordship's question whether the detention of the
plaintiff was brought to the knowledge of the defend-
ants, the jury said that the defendants might have in-
formed themselves of it on the 16th of April ; sad
the jury gave 20s. damages for the detention from the
16th to the 18th, and 408. for the detention from the
16th to the 25th.

His lordship gave the defendants leave to move to
enter a nonsuit on various points of law which were
taken during the progress of the cause.