THE LUNACY ACT.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3179, 6 September 1881, Page 2

THE LUNACY ACT.

[To the Editor of the Daily Telegraph.] Sir,—Can yoa inform the public whether the Colonial Lunacy Act differs from the Imperial Act of 1853, and by virtue of which our worthy K.M. ha_, on tbe 3rd instant, committed the unfortunate George Clarke to the Lunatic Asylum P The facts in connection with this case are as follows: —Clarke had been for seme time an indoor patient of the Hospital, but on showing mental aberration he was, on the 12th ultimo, on Dr. MeDzies 1 representation, removed from the Hospital to the Lunatic Asylum. Drs. de Lisle and Caro were ordered to examine Clarke as to insanity; on the 18th of August the former reported that Clarke suffered from hallucination resulting from a disease not being lunacy, whereas Dr. Caro reported the man as insane. On the 19th ultimo the R.M. instead of adopting Dr. Caro's suggestion, and following the practice prevailing elsewhere, and formerly acted upon by the Napier Bench under Mr Kenny's magistracy {vide the Weekly Mercury, July 19th, 1879, re John Farrell), viz., to instruct a third medical man to examine Clarke, he remanded the man for a week to enable Dr de Lisle to make a further examination. But lo! on the 27th ultimo, a fortnight after the first remand, Dr de Lisle was still not convinced of Clarke's insanity. Dr Hitchings, the medical superintendent of the Asylum, had, however, stated in the meanwhile that Clarke was a most dangerous lunatic. In consequence of this additional clashing of opinion, Dr Hitchings was given another week to investigate this remarkable case, and, according to the papers, the R.M. on that occasion expressed his intention of summoning two fresh medical men in tbe event of Dr Hitchings adhering to his opinion. At the eleventh hour, however, Dr. de Lisle thought fit to change his mind, and to send in, as the result of his third week's study, a report contradictory of his previous one. Now, fcir in justice to the general sane public, I would like to learn how the R.M. could convict Clarke solely on Dr. de Lisle's altered certificate. According to section 45 ot the Imperial Lunacy Act each of the appointed medical men must examine the alleged lunatic not more than seven days prior to his committal. Dr. Caro's examination, on the strength of which he issued his certificate of lunacy, took place before the 18th ultimo. But his certificate was of course neuteralised by Dr. de Lisle's dessenting report, so that there was then indeed hardly sufficient reason for detaining Clarke any longer, and he would probably have been discharged at once if Dr. Menzies had not expressed his strong conviction of the man's unfortunate condition, and refused to readmit him to the Hospital. Dr. Caro's certificate being thus virtually invalidated, not only by Dr. de Lisle's difference of opinion, but also by Auction of time, there was on the 3rd instant nothing before the bench to enable it to commit Clarke except Dr. de Lisle's altered report.—l am, &c, Lex. September 5,1881.