Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1910-02-02
sane INSTITUTION in bis state, but does


sane institution in his state, but does
not specify that he is disqualified to
testify in cases in which he may be
interested, and accordingly DR.. Circuit
will appear at st. Johnsbury, Will
Jamestown and Randolph to give evil
dence within these probate districts.
DR.. Grout said that Governor Prouty, |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT j. G. Sargent and |
State Auditor Horace F. Graham lad |
discussed the methods of procedure in |
recommitting patients, but that no
statement had been made. He said !
had certain suggestions. made during |
the conference been adopted, IAN
avalanche would have been precipi
tated." When asked in what way the
suggestions would affect the question
he could say no more than he had said.
DR.. Grout said that the majority of
state patients at Waterbury would be
recommitted during the coming week,
and the methods adopted some time
ago would be followed.
Judge Frank E. Alfred of the pro-
bate court for the district of Orleans
told the Reformer Tuesday evening
that he believed it illegal to
restrain a person without jury trial
and he was perfectly willing to accept
for his authority Judge George M.
| Powers of the supreme bench. Judge
| Alfred cited the case of Beatrix
| Thompson, who was found not guilty
| of a murderous assault in county
court by reason of insanity. Judge
| Powers refused to commit the woman
to an institution for the insane IS an
insane person, but did order her con-
fined at Waterbury as a prisoner
awaiting trial, as to her sanity. Judge
Alfred was called upon last week to
| give hearing in his court on case
/ where the patient. woman, was
confined in the Brattleboro Retreat.
He directed Superintendent Lawton
of the Retreat to produce the woman
in court at Newport and was informed
that the patients condition was such
| as to make it necessary to transport
her in a baggage car in charge of two
| male attendants and woman nurse
and such a trip would result in many
disagreeable scenes. In view of the
situation as explained by DR.. Lawton,
Judge Alfred waived the appearance of
the patient in his court but wrote
Superintendent Lawton he should in
sist that every person committed from
his court personally appear before him
for trial by jury. He said that
whenever it was feasible to adjourn
court to the place where the persons
were confined he was willing to do So.
Probate Judge A. F. Schwenk of
Brattleboro says that according to an
opinion of the encouragement it is
optional with the judges of probate
whether the patient is brought be-
fore the court or not. This opinion
is held by the majority of the judges
+ of probate in the state and it is
! pointed out that the physical condition
, of many of the patients is such as tC
+ make it great hardship for them tC
! be brought into court and in many
/ cases the producing of such persons il
+ court would result in many disagree
y able scenes.
d Judge Alfred Corrects Reformer.
! Editor Reformer:
My attention has been called to a.
q article in your issue of the 14th inst.
a regarding commitments of the in
r sane now confined in the Brattlebor
v Retreat and state hospital at Water
!. bury, in which you quote me as say
h ing in recent conversation 20
q had with me over the tele
= phone, that l ''have issued an ulti
y matum to superintendent of insan
n institutions in Vermont that all ps
4 tients to be recommitted in his (my
IA court must appear before him (me( y
- that I, believed it illegal to RI
~ strain person in an insane asylul
IS without trial by jury" and that
II "should insist that every perso
~ committed from his (my) court pei
&c &c sonally appear before hin (me) for
jury trial.
- In the above l certainly thin
W YOU must have misunderstood m
~ and that your article, as | am quoted
a.. fairly gives your readers to understar
~ that have already issued an ''ultim;
~ tum to superintendent of insane inst
-; ie buttons in Vermont that all parties
~ be recommitted in his court apes
20 before him ND =
nc This would indicate that / had a
-, ready issued general order, whiG
~ is far from the fact, as | do not issl
al a., an order in any case until it comes b
nh fore me.
en Further, your article indicates tn
&C all persons confined as above, who
" cases come before me for recommi
-. ~ ment must have trial by jury, WIZ
~ did not intend to be so understot
Dy at all. What intended you to unde
~ stand my position to be was that {
~ such persons should personally appe
~ before the court that they might
AZ informed of their legal rights. al
20 be given the opportunity
re- call for trial by jury if they desire
az and, not calling for trial by jul
~ the court would proceed to hear {
-. ~ case; in other words that it is Who'll
70 for the petitionee to determi
e whether the cause should be tried
s4r jury, and, in the absence of the pc
i Ls tionee so determining, the case wou
ne ne be tried by court, and such cour
~, "a would give the petitionee all of his
~ her legal rights.
VI Tn Wow IF tho fornUoinU I +rI-