sition had lasted five days, and though a majority of the jury had found that he was not insane, there were grounds for believing that they might have been mistaken. The learned counsel contended that Dr. Stilwell had done everything in his power to cure his patient of his delusions. It was true he did not give him medicine more than once, for the medicine to be successful in such cases did not enter by the mouth; nor did he endeavour to persuade him that he was labouring under delusions, for that would have made him worse. But he administered the best of all medicines for an alienated and suffering mind, he gave him air and exercise, he allowed him commerce with the external world in excursions to Windsor and other places, and permitted him to attend the service at the village church on a Sunday. What physic could be better for a suffering mind than that? He was debarred from the use of spirits, but wine was allowed in the establishment. He had all necessary medical attendance, and was visited by the Lunacy Commissioners, who knew all about his treatment, and might have been called by the plaintiff as his witnesses. The plaintiff's case rested on the eloquent speech of his counsel, Mr. James, and his attack on Dr. Conolly. It was a very important question for the public to know, whether they were to be debarred from consulting that gentleman, in emergencies like these, merely because he happened to be the head of a lunatic establishment like that of Hanwell. The certificate which Dr. Conolly had signed had no reference to the defendant's establishment. It was a general certificate of the plaintiff's unsoundness of mind, and might have been produced at any establishment. It was said Dr. Conolly was a regular medical attendant at the defendant's house; but that was not the case. The book produced contained forty names, but Dr. Conolly only attended a portion of them.

Mr. Justice Hill.-The number varies from fifteen to eighteen.

Mr. Chambers said that the fact that the number varied showed that he was not a regular medical attendant, but only a consulting physician. Dr. Stilwell himself was the regular medical attendant, and bis relative, Dr. James Stilwell, of Uxbridge. The payments made to Dr. Conolly did not make him a partner. It might as well be said that a barrister who received a retaining fee from the Bank of England or any commercial firm was a partner in the establishment, a proposition which was rather startling. Neither would his being paid by quarterly payments instead of by fees make Dr. Conolly a regular medical attendant. It was suggested that Dr. Conolly had acted from mercenary motives, and that because he received 7007. a-year from the establishment he would disgrace himself, and destroy his reputation by dishonourable acts. He (Mr. Chambers) treated that charge with the indignation it deserved; and he trusted the jury would not allow his honour to be attacked and his prospects blasted by such an imputation. It was not contrary to law for Dr. Conolly, as consulting physician, to sign such a certificate, so as to render himself guilty of a misdemeanour, which would subject him to three years' imprisonment, with hard labour. It was difficult when dealing with such a question to keep one's temper, though it was necessary for him (Mr. Chambers) to do so to the end. If Dr. Stilwell had made any misrepresentations respecting the plaintiff to Mrs. Ruck she might have been called as a witness. If any one was to blame in this matter, it was not the defendant, but Mr. and Mrs. Fisher, and Mr. Ackworth, and other members of the plaintiff's family, who ought to have interfered for his protection, and ought to have come forward now to disprove the charge of insanity. The learned counsel contended that the plaintiff had been taught to conceal the suspicions which he entertained of his wife. What had been his conduct since the commission? Mr. Jones tried to reconcile him to his wife, but he refused to be reconciled. Had he taken any notice of his six children? Had he seen or written to one of them? No. Yet he had not said one word against the kindness of Dr. Stilwell. The question, then, was,

whether the defendant (Dr. Stilwell) was to blame, either when he received the plaintiff or when he detained him? If there had been any fault in Dr. Stilwell's treatment of him, the plaintiff might have sued him in an action for that neglect; but there was no foundation for such a charge, and it would not have stood the slightest examination. The very existence of the defendant now rested on the result of the verdict. The friends of the plaintiff were of opinion that he had done his duty to him, and he (Mr. Chambers) prayed the jury not to ruin his reputation and destroy his prospects, for by doing that they would prevent men of respectability from undertaking the delicate charge of watching over gentlemen in the plaintiff's condition, and would throw those duties into the hands of men of an inferior class, and into more careless hands. He would leave the defendant's case in the hands of the jury, and feel that it was safe. The learned counsel's address, which was delivered with great earnestness, was followed by some applause.

Mr. Justice Hill then summed up the evidence to the jury. His Lordship said the action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages from the defendant for imprisoning him among lunatics from the 5th of November, 1857, to the 27th of August, 1858. The defendant said he was justified in what he did; and the question for the jury to determine was, whether he was justified. It would be their duty to dismiss from their minds a vast deal of what they had heard discussed respecting the policy of the law. That was a question neither for the jury nor the judge, whose duty was to administer the law as they found it. One thing, however, was clear-viz, that most elaborate provisions had been made by the law for the protection of those who were placed in the unfortunate position of being confined in lunatic asylums. All hnman laws, however, were imperfect, but their defects must be remedied by the Legislature. A great change had been made in modern times in the mode in which lunatics were treated. Harshness and bodily restraint had given way to gentleness and soothing kindness, and the absence of bodily violence; and one gentleman, Dr. Conolly, had been proved to have taken a prominent part in bringing about this amelioration. But the question now was, whether the plaintiff's detention was justified by law. The defendant was the licensed keeper of a licensed asylum, and he said the patient was brought to him with a written order for his reception, and accompanied by two certificates, signed by two medical men, in the form pointed out by the statute, and that he was justified and bound to take charge of him till he died, or was discharged in due course of law. The plaintiff said there was a provision in the statute which forbade a certificate to be signed by certain parties; that Dr. Conolly's certificate was in violation of the Act of Parliament; and that the certificate was illegal, and no justification. It would be a question for the Court, whether the certificate, though sufficient in point of form, was sufficient in point of law. The provision was, "that no physician, surgeon, or apothecary who, or whose father, brother, son, partner, or assistant, is wholly or partly the proprietor of, or a regular professional attendant in, a licensed house, or hospital, shall sign a certificate for the reception of a patient into such house or hospital," &c. (16 and 17 Victoria, cap. 96, sec. 12.) The question which he (Mr. Justice Hill) should leave to the jury would be, whether they were of opinion, upon the evidence, that Dr. Conolly was "partly the proprietor of, or a regular professional attendant in, Moorcroft House; and, if so, he should direct them to find a verdict for the plaintiff for such damages as they might be advised. If, on the other hand, they should be of opinion that he was neither, he (Mr. Justice Hill) should direct them to find a verdict for the defendant. There would also be two other questions, whether Dr. Conolly examined the plaintiff separately and apart from Mr. Barnett, and also whether Mr. Barnett was in actual practice as a surgeon. His Lordship proceeded to observe, that there could be no doubt that the plaintiff had been suffering from delirium tremens, and he (the plaintiff) said that Dr.

His

Conolly and Mr. Barnett were both present all the time he was being examined, but there was no other evidence on that point, and the question would be, whether the jury could rely on the plaintiff's evidence in contradiction of the certificates, which stated that the parties had examined him "separately from any other medical practitioner." The next question would be, whether Dr. Stilwell kept the plaintiff bona fide, or whether he kept him there for his own gain, and those questions would be very important in considering the question of damages. His Lordship then read the plaintiff's evidence as to his treatment by the defendant, which showed that his delusions continued up to the 26th of July, 1858, and also the evidence of the keepers and Mr. Wainwright on the same point. His Lordship then referred to the book kept at the defendant's establishment, from which it appeared that in the first quarter of the year 1857 Dr. Conolly had received 1521. 10s. from the defendant. Lordship thought that if Dr. Conolly had been partly the proprietor he would have received something out of every patient; but the book showed that he only received payments in respect of a certain number. It looked more like the case of a man who was a regular professional attendant in" the asylum. In the second quarter, ending June, 1857, Dr. Conolly received his consulting fee (25 guineas) and payments in respect of eighteen out of forty patients. In the quarter ending at Michaelmas, 1857, Dr. Conolly received his consulting fee (25 guineas) and payments in respect of eighteen patients, in varying sums, amounting in all to 1841. 78. 6d. In the quarter ending at Christmas, 1857, he received payments also in respect of eighteen patients. So, also, in the quarter ending in March, 1858, he received his consultation fee (25 guineas) and payments in respect of eighteen patients, and in that quarter Mr. Ruck's name appeared with 157. opposite it. In the quarter ending at Midsummer, 1858, Dr. Conolly received his consultation fee of 25 guineas and payments in respect of eighteen patients, Mr. Ruck's name having 157. opposite to it. It would be for the jury to say, upon that evidence, whether Dr. Conolly was or was not "a regular medical practitioner in" the asylum.

ap

Mr. James called his Lordship's attention to the fact that while 157. peared twice after Mr. Ruck's name, Dr. Conolly had not attended him at all. Mr. Justice Hill said that was certainly Mr. Kuck's evidence, but one of the witnesses said that Dr. Conolly spoke to him, and asked him how he did. His Lordship told the jury that, whether they thought Dr. Conolly was "in part a proprietor" or a "regular professional attendant" in the asylum, in either case they ought to find their verdict for the plaintiff, with such damages as they might think reasonable; but if they thought otherwise, they ought to find for the defendant.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and on their return into court found that, if receiving the money as shown in the book made Dr. Conolly a part proprietor, they found the fact of receiving the money. They found that Dr. Conolly was the regular professional attendant, with 5007. damages.

As to Barnett's not being in practice, the jury found they had not sufficient evidence that he was not, nor had they sufficient evidence to satisfy them that the plaintiff had not been examined separately by Mr. Barnett and Dr. Conolly. Mr. Justice Hill then directed the jury to find their verdict for the plaintiff, with 5001. damages, which was done accordingly.

Verdict for the plaintiff-Damages, 5007.

KANT, psychology of, by Professor Hop-| PARALYSIS, General, on, 253
pus, 39, 483

Kempelen's automaton chess-player,

LANE; Robinson v. Robinson and Lane, Prisons, intermediate system of disci.

Stupidity, artificial production of, in
schools, 186

Suicide, æsthetics of, 582

method and statistics of, 209
distribution of, in England, 470
Episode of, lix.

Sussex lunatic asylum, 463

TERRINGTON v. Terrington and John-
son, 441

VAUCANSON'S duck, xxxvii.

WITCHCRAFT in Sweden, i.

END OF VOL. XII.