The Press. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1898. HYPNOTISM IN COURT.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10144, 17 September 1898, Page 6

The Press. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1898. HYPNOTISM IN COURT.

A very interesting will case has recently been decided in the English Probate and Divorce Division. It was an action in which the testamentary dispositions of Mrs. Harriet Howard, widow of Mr. John Howard, of Chester, were in dispute. The plaintiff, Dr. George Kingsbury, propounded the last will of the deceased, dated November 10th, 1897, by which he and a number of charities came in for large legacies, the residue being left to the plaintiff. The defendant, eldest son of the deceased, denied that the will was properly executed, alleging among other things that it was obtained under hypnotic influence. The testatrix was an old lady who died w 1897, leaving about £90,000. She became acquainted with Dr. Kingsbury in 1883, and apparently took a great liking to him. She was at the same time on bad terms with her son. The latter, it appears, was very well off j he certainly

took no pains to ingratiate himself with his mother, but, on the contrary, be. hayed very badly to her. Dr. Kingsbury was Mrs. Howard's medical attendant and independently of the legacy she' treated him very liberally. On one occasion she lent him £10,000 for speculative purposes without any security merely taking his receipt for the nionov. On another occasion sho bought stables for him. He used to visit her as many as four or five times a day, professionally charging her a guinea a visit. In three or four months in IS9G, when sho was very ill, he received from her between £300 and £400 in fees. She urged him to give up general practice and become her consulting physician at a salary of £1000 a year, but he refused. Finally, on her death, ho found himself nfade residuary legatee in her will, so that he came in for the bulk of her fortune after payment of certain bequests to charities.

The main question on which tho action was fought was as to whether Dr. Kingsbury had induced his patient by hypnotic means to make her will in his favour. It appears that he is somewhat of an authority on hypnotism, having written a book on the subject. He was a member of the Committee of ihe British Medical Association appointed in 1893 tb investigate the phenomenon. According to his evidence the report of the Committee was entirely in accord with the expressions in his book, but it was not adopted by the Association. He admitted having twice attempted to hypnotise "his patient, but said that on both occasions Mrs. Howard's confidential servant was present, and the experiments failed. He declared positively that the only suggestions he made to her were that she should go to sleep and have a natural sieep, and that the pain in her head would be relieved. The theory for the defence—that is to say against the will—was that the plaintiff (Dr. Kingsbury) did succeed in hypnotising his patient, that having hypnotised her once she would become an easy prey to hypnosis on future occasions, and that if, while she was in a hypnotic condition, he suggested to her to make her will in his favour she would be compelled to do it. Unfortunately the scientific evidence as to the effects and limits of hypnotism was disappointingly meagre. Most of it came from Dr. Kingsbury himself. Sir W. Broadbent, who was called in as consultant ; during Mrs; Howard's illness, was examined as to hypnotism, but although he was the Chairman of the Committee on hypnotism already referred to, it appeared that he was really not an authority on the subject, and he cautiously refused to say'much about it. He stated that he had practised hypnotism, but it was eight or ten years since he had hypnotised anyone, although he had sent patients for hypnotic treatment. He had not time, he said, to practise hypnotism. He stated, however, that he thought Mrs. Howard a suitable subject for hypnotic treatment. He was asked by the Judge whether, supposing he had successfully hypnotised a person in 1894. and suggested to the person that she should make her will in his favour,' what probability there would be of her not losing the effect of that? To this the witness replied, none; the after effect of hypnotic suggestion was fugitive.' The evidence of Dr. Kingsbui*y Was far more definite. Hypnotism, he said, was of value in certain cases for therapeiftio purposes. The suggestion to the patient must first be made by word of mouth, but afterwards written words might remind and reconvey the hypnotism. He did not believe in hypnotism by thought transference. He had frequently found in his experience that a suggestion made to a patient when being put in a hypnOtio condition would have the, effect) of producing a natural sleep to relieve pain. He swore that this was the only suggestion ever made by him to Mrs. Howard, and that he never spoke a single word to her at that time of- her affairs. He admitted that he had referred in his book to "post hypnotism"—that is to say, to a case in which the effect continues after hypnotic sleep. For example, a subject with black hair was sent to sleep, and told that his hair would be turned red. Dr. Kingsbury then awakened him, and told him to look in the.glass. He did so, and was horrified, imagining, under the influence of suggestion, that his hair had actually turned red. Dr. Kingsbury denied that the effect lasted any considerable length of time after the hypnosis. He had known cases where harmless suggestions had been carried out after a month. That was the longest time in bis experience. There was a case of sixty-three days mentioned in his book, but that was a foreign case. The witness farther disputed the opinion held by some that the health and morals were undermined by hypnosis. . He bad produced hypnoses hundreds of times with no injurious effect either, morally, intellectually or physically, but on the contrary. .He denied most positively that gifts could be procured under hypnotic influence.. " Thati" he said, "is impossible, and has " never been done. Assuming for argu"ment, that another friend and myself " were deliberately. making experiments " for scientific purpbses, that he was act? " ing as a somnambulic subject, and as- " suming that we had agreed beforehand " that I would get him to sign certain "papers whioh he knew to be perfectly '"harmless, it would be all right; but "it would be absolutely impossible to "get him ito sign anything to which he " had an objection. There is not a singfc. " case on record of a man doing anything "against his own inclination." The case of hypnotic influence, it will be seen, rested largely on presumption, an against the positive evidence of the plaintiff. The learned Judge, in his, summing up, did not think it necessary to dwell upon this part of the case. As ■ to undue influence, he pointed out that there was nothing illegal in using influence to induce a person to make a will in your favdilr; the point rested on the word undue, and going on a previous decision he laid it down that the persuasion used must stop short of coercion and that the volition of the. testator, though biassed and impressed by the re-. lation in which he stands to the legatee, is not overborne and subjected to U ; ° domination of another. Under this direction tbe jury found tho will, so, that Dr. Kingsbury gets the money. Needless to say, however, the case has , excited some comment at Home, particularly in view of the large fees charged by the fortunate medical man, and it has even been suggested that some legislation should be introduced with a view to placing on bequests to medical attendants some restrictions, in tbe same way

that tho Statute of Mortmain was supposed to guard against the undue influence of the priest.