The Sun.
London, England, 1823-05-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, MAY 13.
IMPROPER TREATMENT OF A LUNATIC.
LEECH M. D. v. VEITeII,
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a Doctor of Me-
dicine, to recover from the defendant, who is also a Doctor of
Medicinel compensation in damages, for the injury sustained by
the plaintiff in consequence of the cruelty of the defendant's
servant; and also damages for the unskilful and negligent treat-
ment of the plaintiff by the defendant, whilst he was confined in
the defendant's lunatic asylum at the Rosalyn Cottages, Bromp-
.
ton.

Mr. SCARLET r, with whom was 31r.Wightman, havingstated
the case for the plaintiff; called witnesses, who proved that in
October 1821, the plaintiff being insane, was placed under the
care of the defendant, who has a private lunatic asylum at
Brampton. The plaintiff's principal keeper was a person
named Richards, who treated him very cruelly. On the 29th
of March 1822, the plaintiff; having a strait waistcoat on,
made his escape out of the house into the road, where he was
seen in that condition by a gentleman named Capper, who
.pursued him, and having come up with him, found hint
concealed in a ditch, from which he took him out, and asked
him what was the matter. The plaintiff' told him that he
was confined in that asylum, and was treated so cruelly that
he wished to make his escape from it. Just at that mo-
ment Richards, his keeper, came up and shaking his fists
in the plaintiff's face, said., "By o—, Doctor, you shall
catch it for this," and forced the plaintiff into the yard
before the house,.where, according to the evidence of the
defendant's servants, Richards knocked the plaintiff down se-
veral times, and then forcing him up stairs, knocked him
down in 'the dining room, strapped him on a chair, and prac-
tised many other cruelties upon him. The defendant, it ap-
peared, was a man who would not listen to any complaints from
one of his servants against the other ; at least, that was the rea-
son assigned by most of the witnesses who now came forward,
for not acquainting the defendant with the cruelty exercised
by Richards towards the plaintiff' and another patient, named
Hamilton, whom Richards used frequently to knock down,
and on one occasion blackened his eyes. On the Sunday after
the plaintiff attempted to escape, the defendant came to the cot-
tages, and having told Mary Wainwright that the plaintiff in-
formed him that Richards used him cruelly, asked her if it were
true; to which she replied, " the fact is so, but Richards is
listening and 1 can't tel you any more." Upon which the de-
fendant coolly observed, " Richards is a very good keeper, and
the Doctor can't expect to be treated like a school girl." The
plaintiff was then put under a course of mercury, which was
continued until Richards was discharged, and another keeper,
named Beresford, was employed in the month ofJune ; at which
time the tubbing in and the taking mercury internally were
discontinued—the plaintiff having at that time been under a
course (as the defendant and Richards informed Beresford)
neariy three months. When Beresford became the keeper of the
plaintiff he found him scarcely able to getin or out of bed, and a
horrible stench issued from his clothes, his bed, and from a closet
in which was a quantity of clothes 'soiled from mercury, some of
which must have been (judgingfrom the state in which they then
were) three months in the closet. The mode of treatment was,
the plaintiff rose at half-past four o'clock in the morning, took a
glass of black dose, took a long walk (about an hour's walk),
returned, had a breakfast of coffee; at dinner, either fish,
broth, or apple-dumpling, and took another long walk in the
cool of the evening. Durmg these walks the plaintiff was in
so weak a state that Beresford was afraid he would die some day
when he was out with him, and he was oftep obliged to rest
during his vialk for twenty minutes together. In the meantime
Mr. Capper having told several people.what he had witnessed,
and having applied to Mr. flails at Bow-street for a warrant to
apprehend the keepers, thestory reached the ears of the plaintiff's
family, and his father, sister, and brother, came to see him at
Rosslyn Cottages, about 12tlays after Beresford had taken charge
of him. The defendant directed Beresford to make the plaintiff
read a copy of his delusions six or seven times a day, and if he
'should hear any thing drop from the plaintiff's family, to cons-
-ninnicate it to hint (ddmiant), but not to take any notice of
Miss Leach because she was as mad as her brother. Beresford
made the plaintiff read the paper of his delusions so frequently,
that when his brother came lie was able to read it correctly, and
the defendant said, " You see he is now well ;" but the plaintiff
was not at that time well, as he told Beresford that he intended
to set him up as a snuff manufacturer in Hanway.yard, and to
become his partner. One of the plaintiff's delusions was that he
was a snuff manufacturer. The plaintiff was then removed to
Blandford-place, Regent's Park, and lieresford accompanied
'him at his request. On the 14th of July, 1822, Dr. Sutherland
was applied to visit the plaintiff' at Blandford-place, where he
found him in a state of great debility, apparently labouring under
the influence of mercury. Dr. Sutherland recommended a dif-
ferent treatment from that practised by the defendant. He
(Dr. S.) recommended the plaintiff to take nourishing things,
to keep still and quiet, and not to walk much ; and his delu-
sions were now almost completely removed, but so strongly was
the system acted upon by mercury, that the salivation in..some
degrees still continues. Although Dr. S. thought highly im-
proper that a person so strongly acted upon by mercury should
take long walks, yet he could not condemn the use of mercury,
by another gentleman whose hypothesis he did not know, net- 1
titer could he give an opinion upon the use of it until he knew
the state of the patient at the time it was administered—his
constiattion—the quantity administeredthe caution observed
in administering it, and the precautions taken against too much
exposure of the patient. He should know all these circum-
stances before he would venture an opinion in condemnation of
the treatment adopted by any medical man, but he had no
hesitation in saying, that if the use of mercury hid been pent.
vered in the plaintiff had not stamina sufficient to Suffer it. He
would be ginded by the state of the patient's bowels'as to the
use of opening medicine whilst in a Rune of salivation.
Mr. BROUGHAM, with whom was Mr. D. F. Josets ad.
impossible
saitbcl
eo considerable
defendant,abl e length,
whosaend livelihoodeontenddede
ptehnadt
eidt
dressedw
was utterly
upon his professional character, would suffer his servants to use
any of his patients in the way in which it was said the plaintiff
wits treated. ,With respect to the other part of the charge,
namely, that the elnintiti* was unskilfully treated, it was not
possible to bring, in the present case, or indeed in most cass,
any evidence to rebut that imputation, except evidence as to
general skill and ability, and he trusted that he should offer
evidence which would place beyond all doubt the medical skill
of the defendant.

The Learned Counsel then called witnesses, who proved, that
in the spring of 1821 the plaintiff was fur three months under
the care of the defendant, who cured him and his mother of in-
sanity. The plaintiff went home, and after hiving been away
for some time had is relapse,. again returned to town, and came
to the house of his friend Lady Molesworth, Hertford-street,
May-fair, who introduced the family to the defendant, who was
introduced to her for that purpose by Dr. Wardwp, of Charles-
street, St. Janies's-square, and it was again agreed that the
plaintiff should he placed under the care of the defendant, and
lie was accordingly taken in a coach from Lady3lolesworth's
house to the Rosalyn Cottages. During the plaintiff's former
illness he was affected with iliver-coinplaint; and Dr. Wardrop,
who was then professionally consulted, agreed with the de-
fendant in the propriety of having the system strongly acted
upon by mercury, which was done, and a cure was effected,
when the plaintiff came to town in October or November 1021.
Dr. Wardrop was again consulted, and he agreed with the de-
fendant in the propriety of again applying mercury, as the
action of the liver was materially deranged. lie did not see
the plaintiff after the month of March—never after the mer-
cury was used ; but, as far as he could form an opinion he
thought the treatment of the defendant very judicious, and he
thought him exceedingly skilful in diseases of the mind, as be
had been for some time at the head of the Asylum for the Lu-
natics of the Navy. Lady Molesworth and her daughter saw
the plaintiff during his stay at Rosslyn Cottages, and although
they pressed him to say if be were badly treated, he always said,
No ; that he was treated as his case ought to be, that be was in-
debted to the defendant and to Richards, and that he was cer-
tain he should he soon quite recovered. 'A person who kept a
nursery.ground near the Rosalyn Cottages, frequently saw the
plaintiff walking in the ground, and be always thought him
treated with kindness and humanity ; and when he saw him
with Bereaford walking, he was certainly feeble, but well able
to walk. J. Cubits and Alexander 31,Nicholl, two of the
keepers at the Cottages, swore, that the plaintiff was treated in
the gentlest manner; and a gentleman, whose brother is now
illumine, and under the care of Richards, proved that lie treated
him in the gentlest manner. Dr. J. Ware, of the Medical
Department in the Victualling Board, and Dr. Burnett, coni,,,
missioner of the Sick and Hurt Office, knew the defendant for
ninny years, and believed hint to be a most skilful, judicious,
and humane physician.
Mr. SCAULETT, in rept, contended, that however skilful
the-defendant might be in profisaion, and however high hie I

character for humanity and kindness, yet still he was answerable
for the misconduct of his servant, and the injudichms use of a
violent medicine, which hal reduced the plaintiff almost to
death's door.

The Lonn CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the case for the
Jury, and left it to them to consider, first, whether the plain-
tiff had been subjected to undue severity on- the part of the de-
fendant's servant, for which, if satisfactorily made out, the
defendant was responsible; and, secondly, whether, notwith-
standing the high testimonials as tb the defendant's skill and
judgment,- there was any want of care on his part in the 4(.1.
ministration of medicines for the purpose of curing the disease?
The Jury consulted a considerable time, and found their vera
diet for the plaintiff--llamages, 501. The trial lasted the
whole day.