The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-17 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.
IN THE PATTER OF MARTHA ELIZA RHODES SHUTTLE•
lunatic( ld .1)-Mr.
gPhatrr up
p under at I'
watt hof ahl al ebgee s
coretTruus,wwuhiethhehnadreabeedn
andgranted,
sta t and
ed i thesuf:ittaunrnceretanda.t
MT
rhse.
aS hpuetnotlenwoofrtuhn
sow asuntad taken
dinto
dcums
royn, the
g 9
et Irto ganuledt
na
capable of governing her affairs, and improper to be at arge,
and was detained in York-house, Battersea,being
order of a duly
licensed house for the reception of lunatics, upon an
the Rev. Mr. Rowlett, rector of St. Peter's, Pimlico, and
two medical certificates, one of Mr. Wilmot, surgeon, which
stated that she was labouring under delusions, and was dirty
and indecent in the extreme ; and another of Mr. Giffard,
surgeon, which stated that he believed the was of unsound
mind from conversations Bo
th with her. It was signed by
Dr. Millingen. Mr. Parry en moved that Mrs. Shuttle-
worth ho discharged on the ground that the order and
medical certificates were insufficient and illegal, passing
by the question, whether she was insane or not. The order
and certificates were founded on the 8 and 9 Vic., c. 100,
sec. 45 and 46, the last act for the care and treatment of
lunatics, as that act was more restrictive of the liberty of
the subject than any previous one, it should be looked at
strictly, and ewe taken that no person was held in illegal
custody. With regard to the order—as Mr. Rowlett was i
only the minister of the parish, and not a relation of this
lunatic, it should be looked at strictly, although he might
have made it under the provisions of the mt. The act re-
euired sixteen facts to be stated, among others the age, re-
ligion, persuasion, I:e.. and these had not been set out.
At this stage of the proceedings, Mrs. Shuttleworth was
brought into court attended by two females, and on Dr.
Quail taking his seat next her, Sir J. Bayley, who ap.
peered on behalf of Dr. Millingen, appealed to the court
whether the prosecutor of the writ shoud sit next to and
communicate with the lady. Indeed she was suffering from
great bodily pain, and it would be more convenientwhich
if she were allowed to go out of court,
being assented to, Mr. Parry proceeded to urge
that even if the order was held to be sufficient, the medical
certifieetes were not. The 46th section of the act enacted
that the two certificates which were required by the 45th
section, should specify some fact on which the opinion, that a
person was a lunatic, was formed. The certificate of Mr.
Wilmot only stated that the patient suffered from delusions,
and was dirty and indecent in the extreme ; and these were
not facts, but only the opinion of the surgeon. The certifi-
cate of Mr. Giffard only stated that his opinion was founded
on conversations with the patient, and so far from mention-
ing any fact, the words " following facts," in the form of the
certificate, were struck out. In the case of Ft 11, 3 Dowling
and Lowndea' Reports, before Mr. Justice Patteson, his
lordship expressed an opinion that the statement in the cer-
tificate, that the patient " had a general suspicion of the
motives of every one," was hardly sufficient, and that was
far clearer than in the present case.—Sir John Bayley con-
tended that, although Dr. Millingen, in obedience to the
court, bad made a return to the writ, the present prosecutor,
Dr. Quail, was not the person to impeach it, on the applica-
tion not being made by Mrs. Shuttleworth herself or by her
authority. The case of Parker and others (the Canadian
misoners) and Meeson and Welsby, was in point. The affi-
davits did not state that appli ation had been made to her
for her consent. Dr. Quail might have applied to the Com-
missioners in Lunacy for leave to see her, and Dr. Millin-
gen had a right to refuse, unless that were done. Then, if
she was sane, as had been sworn, she could have consented
that he should come and ask for a writ on her behalf. The
writ ought never to have issued ; but at any rate this prose-
cutor was not the person to impeach the return. Even if
the certificates were defective, was it competent to any pri-
vate individual to come to the court to ask for the discharge
of an alleged lunatic, when the set vests the custody of luna-
ties in the Commissioners in Lunacy ? By the 45th section
It was said that every person who received and detained a
person without proper orders and certificates was guilty of
misdemeanour ; hut it did not say that if the certificate was
not in form it was void, or the custody illsgal ; and this was
material with reference to section 106, which gave the com-
missioners the power to prosecute for offences against the
set, and prohibited any one from prosecuting without their
consent, or that of the Attorney or Solicitor-General. The
only effect, therefore, of this keeping a person in custody
was a prosecution for a misdemeanour. It was doubtful
whether the court bad the power to discharge on a mere
defective certificate.
Mr. Justice Patteson : The language of the 45th section is
very strong—no person is to be received into custody without
medical certificates in the form laid down in the schedule ;
if it were done otherwise, it would be against the statute. I
do not know that the authority of the court to discharge is
restrained by the act; it only provides for the punishment of
the person who receives an alleged lunatic not in the manner
prescribed. The first part of the section makes the custody
illegal. Do you contend that if •person is prosecuted for this
illegality, the person in his custody may remain there ?
Is there any authority given to the commissioners to dis-
charge ?—Sir J. Bayley: There is a power given them by the
76th section to discharge persons improperly confined. The
learned gentleman w s proceeding to comment on the affi-
davits, when Mr. Justice Patteson said : The case on the
other side was rested on the insufficient orders and certificates,
and not on the question of insanity.—Sir J. Bayley : Can it
be asked to discharge a person who is insane, and who, it is
said, is dangerous to be left at large ?
Mr. Justice Patteson : She is in the custody of a stranger.
—Sir J. Bayley : It is competent to me to lay the circum-
stances before the court which make it unjustifiable to
order the discharge of the lunatic.
Mr. Justice Patteson: It might have been material to
answer Dr. Quail's affidavit, in which he says she is of sound
mind ; but it is not contended he is right.—Sir J. Bayley :
I say that the proceeding on his part is disgraceful.—Mr.
Parry : This is not au issue between Dr. Quail and Dr. Mil-
Hagen. It is admitted by the returns that she is not of
sound mind.
Mr. Justice Patteson : It is conceded that she is of un-
sound mind. I cannot go into other questions, which might
be offensive.—Sir J. Bayley : I am entitled to read any
affidavits, in order that Mr. Rowlett's interference may be
justified. He has been said to be a stranger, who had no
right to interfere.
Idr. Justice Patteson: It is admitted that although he is a
stranger, he may be a proper person, and the order is not
impeached on that ground. The whole question is, whether
the order and certificates are sufficient; and if they are not,
what is the consequence ?—Sir J. Bayley contended that as
regarded the not tilling up the form in the order in some
particulars, Mr. Rowlett might have had no knowledge on
those points.
Mr. Justice Pelletal At any rate, it might have been
stated that those facts were not known, otherwise I must
infer that he did not choose to state them, and comply with
the act. What do you say to the second certificate 1 Can
it be said that when it is merely stated that the opinion was
formed from conversation, that any facts are stated.—Sir J.
Bayley : There is certaiuly some difficulty in that, but it is
a question in what sense the term • fact" is used in
the act.
Mr. Justice Patteson : The meaning is obvious ; some fact
must be specified which came under the medical man's own
observation. To the first certificate there is not so much
objection.—Sir J. Bayley: Even if the certificates are defec-
tive, the Court would not discharge the lunatic, but re-
mand her to her former custody. I-have affidavits made in
the last two days, which swear she is insane, and it would
be dangerous to discharge such •person.
Mr. Justice Patteson: I think the second certificate is
clearly defective ; but, with regard to the other, it may be
sufficient. I wish it to be understood that this is not the
way in which an order should be filled up. The act states
fifteen matters to which an answer is required, and they
ought all to be answered in some way or the other • if not
directly, the reasons why they are not should be stated. At
this matter was before Mr. Justice Erie at Chambers, I will
consult !Am.—His lordship then left the court for that pur-
pose. On his return, he stated that he had spoken to Mr.
Justice Erie, as well as to the Lord Chief Justice, and they
were of opinion that the certificates might possibly do, and
that the statement that the opinion was founded on
a conversation with the patient was sufficient. He was
unwilling, when it was clear that the person was a lunatic,
to act on his own impression on the hearing. Considering
how important it was that there should be a decision on the
point, he thought it better that the cases should be adjourned
and brought before the full court to-mo rrow morning, if it
could be done by consent. If not, acting on his own opinion,
he must discharge the lunatic and give lea ve to apply to the
full court. He thought it dangerous to say that this certifi-
cate was sufficient, but as the other judges thought it was,
he did not wish to be bound by his own n minion, and had
rather have it disceseed by them.
After a rather animated discussion between the counsel it
was at length agreed that the matter should be brought be-
fore the full court to-morrow morning.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.
Before Mr. Commissioner Harris.
IN RE SAMFELL.—CONTEMPT OF COURT.—The case of
this insolvent stood adjourned to this day, for the pu.Me‘e of
obtaining the evidence of a Mr. Stephen, of Rupert-.street,
Haymarket. The usual process had been served upon that
person, but he disobeyed it. Mr. Cooke now applied thr a
rule nisi to show cause why an attachment should not be
issued against him fur his non-compliance with the procc'e
of the Court.—Ordered.
I then

POLICE. -YESTERDAY. ESTERDAT.
MANSION-HOUSE.—Henry Gibbs and John Ireland
were charged with burglary. Air. J. Death, shopman to
Mr. W. G. Mott, of No. 55, Chcapaide, jeweller, stated that
between three and four o'clock on Saturday ho heard a
knocking and smashing at the window, and saw the glass