The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-04-09

calling as a lecturer, her loss from inabil-
ity IL caused by the acts OF the defend
ants, from securing employment In her
| calling, any mental and physical pain she
has suffered, and any insult and indignity
that has been put upon her, the results of
the defendants acts.
The law points of the defendants were
more lengthy, and read as follows:
First-Under the law and the evidence
In this case, the verdict of the Jury must
be for the defendants.
Second-That If the jury believe that
medical certificate valid in every way un-
der the act of assembly, with the excep-
tion that one of the physicians making
1t had not practiced medicine for the
space Of five years, was executed on the
25th day of February, 1891, and that the
same accompanied the plaintiff to the asy-
lum; that upon that day the authorities
Of the asylum noticing this defect, called
in q physician of over five years practice
in medicine, who executed legal certi-
ficate on that day, then this constitutes
valid certificate under the act, and the
plaintiff cannot recover unless the Jury
find that the defendants acted maliciously
and without reasonable or proper cause.
and this, too, even though the jury should
find that the plaintiff was sane at the
time,
A VALID CERTIFICATE.
Third-That the written certificate of
Drs. Underwood and Oglesby offered in
evidence by the defendants, is a valid
certificate under the law; and, unless the
defendants corruptly, and without prob
able cause or by motive other than the good
of the plaintiff at the time she was taken
to the asylum. the jury must find in ia
vor of the defendants even though the
plaintiff was sane at the time.
Fourth--It is not violation of the law
of Pennsylvania to restrain an insane per-
son of her liberty without oath or affirma-
tion.
Fifth-1f the jury believe that on the 25th
day of February, 1891, the door of the
plaintiff was forced open and that she was
removed by the defendants to the Dan
vile asylum. they using no more force
than was necessary; that at the time the
safety of herself or of her family, or OF
her friends. or of her neghbors required
that she should be restrained for a time
in said institution or some other of like
nature; and that such restraint was nee
essary for her restoration or was con-
ducive thereto, then the verdict of the
jury should be in favor of the defendants.
Sixth-If the jury find that the defend
ants acted in good faith, conscientiously
believing that the plaintiff, Anna f. Dick
inson, was deranged on February 20, 1891
and that she required for her recovery
medical treatment under restraint, and
that actuated by such belief, they en-
tered the room of the plaintiff and took
her to the Danvi,le asylum, using no more
force than was necessary, then the plain
tiff cannot recover, and the verdict must
be in favor of the defendants.
Seventh-If the jury believe that the de-
PENDANTS acted under circumstances which
would have induced person of ordinary
reason and prudence to believe the plain
tiff insane and requiring medical treat
ment in an asylum, and their only motive
was to restore her to health and sound
ness to her family, then the plaintiff can
not recover.
NO EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION.
Eighth-There is not evidence in this
case that the defendants corruptly, or oy
motives other than the good of the party,
restrained her of her liberty.
Ninth-That there is not sufficient evil
dence In this case to show a conspiracy
among any of the defendants to unjustly
deprive the plaintiff of her liberty.
Tenth-If the jury believe that on the
25th day of February, 1891, the defendants
were friends of the plaintiff, then they
cannot be held responsible in damages for
their taking the plaintiff to the Danville
asylum against her will, If they acted in
good faith with proper motives, without
unnecessary force, and had probable cause
to believe the plaintiff to have been insane
at the time and this, too, even though the
plaintiff was at the time sane.
Eleventh-The measure of damages in
this case can be no more than the pecu-
MARY loss and the direct mental suffering
of the plaintiff, which reasonably flows
from the act of the defendants.
On the first of the defendants law
points asking for binding instructions
to the jury, Mr.. Dawson made an ex-
haustive argument to the court. He
reviewed the manner in which the
plaintiff was committed to the asylum
and said that it conformed exactly to
the requirements of the acts of assem-
bly, on the subject, and therefore
thought it the duty of the court to in
struct the jury to find for the defend
ants. He also referred at length to the
other law points and quoted the deci-
sions Of Pennsylvania and other courts
to show that the defendants are ex-
onerated by the law of Pennsylvania
from any responsibility as a result of
the commitment of the plaintiff to the
Danville asylum.
MR.. NOSBURG'S ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Vosburg also made an argu-
ment. Judge Acheson was in doubt as
to whether the act of assembly was
broad enough to permit the amendment
of the certificate of commitment after
the plaintiff was in the insane asylum.
He could see that such amendment
could be legally made, but that it could
relieve the defendants from RESPONSE
bility for the acts done under the de-
fective certificate namely, the seizing
of the plaintiff and the conveying of
her to the asylum was a point he was
not entirely clear on.
Mr.. Vosburg's argument was made
with a view to convincing the court
that a correction of a certificate of
commitment, such as was made in
the Dickinson case at Danville, covers
the acts that were made prior to the
correction.
II confess that am impressed by the
argument of counsel" said Judge
Acheson after Mr.. Vosburg had con-
cluded, but l am not convinced that
the correction of the certificate even
so early as the evening of Feb. 25, alb
solutely protects the defendants from
what they did prior to that, So much
time has been taken in investigating
the case that in view of all the circum-
stances, l believe ! will send the case
to the jury to ascertain just what the
truth is in this cause. Had the point
been raised earlier in the trial and l
had time to thoroughly investigate the
point raised, l might have been more
impressed by it, but as 1t is l think /
will let the jury pass upon the facts"