The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-04-09

be the plaintiffs loss OF time from her
calling as lecturer. her loss from inability,
II caused by the acts of the defendants.
from securing employment In her calling.
any mental and physical pain she has
suffered, and any insult and indignlty that
have been put upon her. the results Of the
defendants acts.
Law Points Of DE fcnsc.
The defendants points were submit
ted to the court and are as follows:
First--If the plaintiff was mentally un-
sound on Feb, %, 1891, and by reason there
OF was in danger OF inJurng herself or
others she might have been restrained
without u physican's certificate upon
grounds of humanity and reasonable ne
cesslty, and she cannot recover In this
action.
Second--If the plaintiff was not insane
on Feb. 25, f89l-nevertheless II the defend
ants used no unnecessary force and had
probable cause to believe her insane, and
that her detention In II hospital was neces-
sary for her protection or that of others.
she cannot recover I'm this action.
Thlrd-If the defendants acted under cir
cumstances such as would have induced
man of ordinary intelligence to have be-
lieved her insane and requiring treatment
In hospital they had reasonable ana
probable cause for their action, and If they
used only such force as her resistance
made necessary there can be no recovery
In this action.
Fourth-The sworn statement of plain
tiff's attending physician and of another
physician of over forty years practice,
ana of much experience with insane pa
tents, that they examined the plantiif
ana believed her of unsound mind and her
removal To an asylum necessary. was In
itself reasonable and probable cause to
the non-professional attendants sufficient
to Justify them In placing the defendant
In an asylum with such force as her re-
sistance made necessary and there can be
no recovery against them for such ac-
ton.
Fifth-lf the defendants had sufficient
reason to believe the plaintiff h lady of re-
ilnement ana high character, and also
had sufficient reason to believe her guilty
of conduct, at or shortly preceding her re
moval, which no such lady in the pos
session of sound mind could be guilty Of
these facts would also constitute reason
able ana probable cause for belief in her
mental unsoundness-and If her appear
ance was so wild and her words and con-
duct such as to lead two physicians of
ample experience to fear personal vio-
lence. her detention was proper and there
can be no recovery.
Sixth-The lunacy acts of April 20, 1862
and May &, 1SS3 being remedial, and there
fore to be construed literally, and having
been complied with by the defendants,
there can be no recovery against them
for doing the act authorized thereby, viz,
placing in an insane asylum n person al
legged to be insane.
Sevcnth-These statutes, In placing upon
the physicians the responsibility of de-
asylum, thereby relieve the defendants
from such responsibility; and there can be
no recovery against them for any al
legged mistake or fault of the physicians
I'm the performance of their duties
Eighth-The uncontradicted evidence
being that DIR. Underwood did not partici-
pate In the breaking open of the plaintiffs
door, nor in her removal, but only at
tended as an examining physician and
signed the medical certificate, there can
be no recovery against him in this ac-
ton, but as to him, the plaintiff must rely
on her separate suit against him for CIV
ing an alleged false certificate of insan-
ity now pending in this court.
Ninth-The removal of the plaintiff hav-
ing been legalized by the certificates OF
two qualified physicians made upon the
day of her removal; and there being no
evidence of malice or want of good faith
on the part of the defendants, or that the
force used was more than was necessary
by her determined resistance, there can he
no recovery in this action and verdict
should be for the defendants.
Tenth-lf plaintiff can recover at all in
this action, the damages should be purely
conmensatory, and the fact of removal
to and detention at an asylum, nor the
results merely of such removal and
detention, such as loss of time or
earning power or injury to her feelings
or. health occasioned by her removal and
detention are not elements of damags,
which should be confined to compensa-
tion for such excess of force, If any, as
was used in her removal beyond that
which her resistance made necessary. No
intention to injure the plaintiff being
shown, exemplary damages should not lie
| a n1yn rla