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

• --- LAW I.NTAI.L4UIiNt:E. • •

COURT OF KINOi BENCH, MAT 13.
Piddle:es seitinks Vier Easier Term before Me Lord
Chief Jusiiee and a Conenion'Jary.

iI:W.CII. M. 0., V. VEITen, M.tr.
This was an eetion on the case far unskilful and
int-
prop r treatment I f the plaintiff whilst he W4ll under the
Care of defendant to be cured•ut insanity.
The nlaistes ra.e was runtlocted by Mr. SCARI.CTT
Ilia Mr. Wieurstax : and the defendant's by Mr.
BROCGIIAM and Mr. I). P. JONI:c.
It appeared from the case as opened, that the plaintiff,
who was a Doctor of Medicine, 1101iiiir I situation in
the Britielt Museum, was attacked in the latter pert of
1012, with an aberretion of min& In the month of
June he 17.411plaeed ender the care of the defend-
ant, a gentleman skilled in diseases of this description.
end removed tb a private ;Assyrian of the defendant, called
Roslyn Cottage, at Ilrompton, avliere be remaired until
June lttP24. It was alleged that doting this interval the
Plaintfff had been treated with gr at birslspess and
on-
rrreesary s •verity. lie wass•placed nesier the car of a
keeper named Iliebarde, who, according' to the evidence,
lad treated the Plaintiff *Rh consist-raids severity—
such as knnekin him down and beating him when he
attempted to make Lis cardiac Isom the boost, which he
Lid tried to do on too or three w•casionr. There was
tfo distinct evidenini that the defendant was cognizant of
these acts of severity. Tie graranten of the charo
against the defendant appesFed to have been an excessive
adminbtration of M-reary to core hint of his'unfortenate
malady. It was stated that when the Plaintiff was
placed tinder the fare of the Defendent, he was in good.
bodily health, and was very quiet in his disposition, het
that afterwards he bes•aw emaciated and debilitated
from the use of m-renry, and by na me ins recovered
front his disease. The acts of cruelty Wowed were at-
tributable erstirely to Itielterde, the keeper, who was, in
October 1.922, removed from 'the defendant's service.—
Tne raintilt app• tired to have been well fed fur apetson
Labouring under his unfortunate disease` After the
plaintiff had quitted the defendant's lions.. Ise was remov-
ed to Bath. where he was emisidetably recovered. The
object•of this action ,' as to recover a convene aim! in
damages for the unskilful and unkind treatment to Which
the plaintiff was alleged to have been subjected whilst
under the defendant's care. An attempt was made to
prove that another patient, named Hamilton, an inmate
' of the defendant's boast., had experience] similar treat-
ment, hut it did rat appear that the defendant was privy
to that cane of complaint, themitconduct being entirely
attributable to !Visitants, during the absence of his
master. The witnesses examined in support of the
pleintiff's case were principally servants who i ad been
successively in the defendant's service; and on ernes-
ex .mi nation, attempts were wadi to stew that they were
influenced by undue Motives towards their master. It
appeared front their statem, Ms,' that the defendant had
been informed from time to time of the conduct of Ri-
chards, Ina that be treated their' communications lightly
as being incredible. Amongst other witnesses examined
wire Dr. Powell and Pr. Ssitherland, who spoke to the
plaintilre debility from the use of mercury on the occa-
sions when they saw him, but Ail her of these gentlemen
verdured •to attribtite any iniproper treatment of the
plaintiff by the deferidant, being anacqnainted with the
state of the, patient's'body, at the time the medicine was
administe.cd. • '' •••
Mr. ItOOVCII.III addressed the Jury on behalf of the
defendant with his minal acuteness and eloquence, and
opened a strong case-of exculpation and defence.
Several witnesses, amongst whom were Ladv Moles-
worth, Miss Molesworth, three or four medical gentle-
men, and several perions residing in the iminedire
of Roslyn Cottage, who had an opportunity of ob-
serving the treatment experienced by the plaintiff, were
then examined to rapport three strong propositions;
first, that. the plaintilfhad been most kindle and skilfully
treated, according to his own acknowledgment, whilst
under the care of the defendant; secondly, that the de-
fendant was a gentleman of undoubted skill in his treat-
ment of went ti diseases, and atnaa of the most kind
!vaned and tender dilpositien; and thirdly, that the ac-
tual treatment of the plaintiff was most kind; attentive,
and effieient for the purpose of bis care. At the time
4 ht'ntilf was placed under the defendant's care be *as
troubled with a liver complaint, for which the mercury
was administered. Even the keeper, Richards, was ex-
culpated from the cruelty imputed to him ; and with re-
ern to the gentleman 'named Hamilton, Isis case nas re-
presented to be 'one of aggravated delirium, whirls
required the strongest measures of coercion to preserve
himself as well as those who attended hint, from fatal
vielenee.
Mr. ScaeLerr, in reply, contended, that however
skilful the defendant might be hi his profession. and
however high his character for humanity and kindness,
yet still he WAS. answerable for the misconduct of his
servant, an& the' injinctiions use. of a eio'ent medicine,
which had -reduced the plaintiff almost to death's door.
The Loon Ciller J ears ce slimmed up the case for the
Jul., aid left it to them to consider, lira, whether the
plaintiff '..••ol been rthjected to undue severity on the
part of tite defendant's servant, • for which, if satisfac-
torily made out, the defendant was responsible ; and, se-
condly. wheth'er, notwithstanding the high testimonial
as to the defendant's shill and judgment, there nits any
wsat of caream his part in the administration of medi-
cines for the purpose of curing tire disease ?
The .t stag consulted a eonsiderahle time, and found their
verdict for the'plaintiflarnages 50/. The trial lasted
the 'slide day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, 111.1 Y 13.
cst,:ist v. wan:nu%
Mr. Ferreint Pew. Stated that this was an action of
trespass brought againit the defendant for unlawfully
se-emz and taking the filsintifFs goods. The plaintiff
was a gentleman to the. service of Government, and the
defendant a bookseller. From circumstances, which
it was needless to 'newton, the plaintiff had been separat-
ed from his 'wife, who, if iypi,ared, bad contracted a debt
with the defendant. for the payment of which she, in
conjunction with another lady, had given a warrant of
attorney. She had, hoWeyer;disCharged the debt (which
•at first amonoted only to 3W.) by two payments, the
first of 201. and the second ut 1-0/.--4-These payments
were made by a' person named Wilkinson, who was
now nnfortunately dead, and wild had omitted to take
a receipt on the payment of the second sum of 101. After
Wilkinson's death; the Arteatlant bad chosen to enter•np
judgment on the wareartt iittorneY for the whole tum,
which he sobseq tenly levied under an execution, and
to recover hack which the present action was brought.
Desiree Green proved the gelatirn under a wa•ratit di-
geeted to bini to levy t'll.e.sum of 31:., together with She.
riff's pnunila4e., The house tias at No. 10, Duke-street,
Westaduster.'
Cross-examined.—l/id not know whether the plaintiff
Dad any prootrq in Lhe horse, or whether the whole be-
longed to firs Capper:.. ••• • •
Mr. Dade watithen pot into the box. He first stated
that be was the attorney of the plaintiff un the rem:ll.-
11i was they asiteil-by Sergeant Vaughan, whether
-.this •••• wet in' reality his oirn action, or whether Mr.
trapper mould be UAW. the costs ? gr. &lade Lay.
lig amid 41 diet be LA indemnified Mr. Capper, his
Jaitrailaie teased to Id Uri proceed farther is Lis rt.:-
• •
Mr. E4.oadr. a Perk of the EuLegaer, wu
Sea theldierwevf pratiselisg tin alit, sold Marra:ll.lA' it-
lerffrep:erri rtrit prima% bet ft strttd; that
;11.14 recitibv. rite re tirertir ,
.

T.RE ST.

sx•—

1=411i: _
then pn' into the box. Ile knew Mrs. Capper' and the
other laity, who had joined with her in grantipg this
warrant of attorney; her name was Abbeville. These
I Mies applied to witnee for a loan of AIL, to discharge
rn reeention then levied on their property. Witness ssifl
he rould not lend them the money, but he recommended
his friend (the defendant) to them for that purpose.—
Defendant advanced the money on their giving a warrant
or attorney: witness had received 201. in part payment
of Gott debt, from a person named Wilkinson ; that mo-
ney was paid to witness on account of the debt due
to the defendant, if the defendant would receive it, hut
if not, witness was to place it to the credit of the ladies
in their account with him, they being indebted to him
in a much larger RUM knew from Wright •that he had
taken steps to recover his 3111. ; never heard what he had
done with the property he had seised ; witness went to shew
thetherlrs oflleer the house, • when the execution was to
he pet itt ; thought the goods in the house wore Mrs. Abbe-
eille's.
Green wee recalled, and he stated that the affair was set,
tied. he believed, by the payment of a cheek ; but he could
not identify the check. The Sheriff's poundage amounted to
11. lis.
Mrs. Money, the sister of Mrs. Capper, proved that the
goods did not belong to Mn.e Abbeville, but to Mrs. Capper
the former was only a lodger in the house. Mrs. Capper
had been separated from her husband nearly twenty years ;
die was allowed , separate maintenance, out of which she
had purchased these good,.
• Mr. Edmonds was recalled—lie was defendant's ettorney,
and had received the amount of the execution from Mr. Gude,
by a check for the debt and expenses.
"Tiiis closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant VAVGFIAN, forthedefrodaht, asked his Lord-
ship
whether the plaintiff had made out his ease in such a
manner as to call on the defendant to answer it ? Ills Lord-
ship having answered in the affirmative; the Learned Ser-
geant addressed theJury,and contended that the pla i ntiff's ease
wits totally without foundation in justice. The wife of en
individual had contracted a debt, for which she had given her
warrant of attorney, and, by virtue of that instrument, her
goods had been taken into execution. This execution had
been discharged by her very friendly attorney, and she now
turned round upon the party with a declaration that she was
-a married women. and her very gallant eitorney, alter in-
demnify ing the husband, prevailed on him to permit his name
to be used, in order to defeat the just claim of en honest ere-
ditor. The uatnre of the ease was perfectly clear, and he
trusted the Jury would not enable the parties to succeed in
their oh: act.
Mr. Justice Bunirope.a chertked the Jurye--The action
was clearly maintainable in law as the goods were undoubt-
edly the property of the husband. On the lest Spring cir-
cuit a man was tried for burglary—the first count of the in-
dictment charged him with breaking Into tae dwelling-house
of the husband, and the second wits) breaking into that of the
wife. It appeared' n the evidence that the house in questioe
was Inhabited bye married wonisu who had long lived sepa-
rate from her husband, and who had furnished the house and
supported her Self by her separate maintenance. On this evi-
dence his Lordship doubted whether the house cook, be pro-
perly described as the house of the husband, and he had re-
d the point for the consideration of the twelve Judges,
who were unanimously of opinion that the counts were pro-
perly framed. On this case. therefore, the action uses main-
tainable its law, but it was for the Jury to say to what dama-
ges under ail the circumstances of the case they thought the
plaintiff entitled.
ThrJ ury set, reed a verdict for the plaintiff—Dame .es
One Fart:sing !