THE DISPOSAL OF DIPSOMANIACS.

Evening Star, Issue 7411, 5 January 1888, Page 2

THE DISPOSAL OF DIPSOMANIACS.

At the inquest on Mrs Ann Bcuchler, who had been found dead at Addington Gaol, Coroner Beetham informed the jury that the history of the case was somewhatpeculiar. The woman was arrested on Monday, and she was then at a lodging-house in a very bad state, suffering from drink. She was taken to tho police station, and a medical adviser sent for, and she was brought before the Bench on the following morning. It had come under his (the Coroner's) in dealing with two cases the previous week, where the persons, suffering from delirium tremens, were remanded for medical treatment to the Hospital, in accordance with the_ Act, that those persons were refused admittance to that institution, and were taken to Addington Gaol. There had been a difii' culty in this matter for sonic time. It was the opinion of the Government and of tho Justices (himself included) that the Addington Gaol was not a proper place to which to remove persons suffering from delirium tremens. No doubt they received the greatest care there, but they could not receive the necessary amount of medical supervision they should have in order to give them every chance of recovery. In accordance with the expressed wish of the Minister of Justice, he and other Magistrates had remanded prisoners to the Hospital. The Hospital authorities had always kicked against it, and refused to admit them. During last week two prisoners were refused admittance, the resident surgeon endorsing the warrants of committal with the refusal. This woman was in a very bad state, screaming and violent, and with those warrants in his mind ho (the Coroner) had thought it best to remand her to Addington, as she was not a fit subject to bo removed from place to place. On the same evening she died. Medical evidence would be given in regard to her death, as he had ordered a pod mortem examination to bo made. The Hospital authorities, it was only fair to say, had a certain amount of reason on their side, that they would not admit cases of delirium tremens, as they had no convenience for them. They had no separate ward, and the woman was violent and screaming; and they could imagine what effect her actions would have upon a ward full of patients. He hoped the jury would pay some attention to the waut of proper conveniences at the Hospital. The introduction of those conveniences the Hospital authorities were not inclined to undertake. The resident surgeon was acting in accordance with the instructions of the Hospital authorities, and though tho Magistrates had power to remand cases to the Hospital, they could not demand that the Hospital authorities could receive patients, as was the caso with the management of a gaol. One fully sympathised with the Hospital authorities in the position in which they wero placed.

The following evidence was then taken : James Coulter, boarding-house keeper in Manchester street, stated he recollected the deceased and her huaband coming to his house on the 22nd of last month. They remained till Sunday night, Ist January. The deceased had the appearance of drink upon her while she was at his house. He first noticed her on the 28th. She was drunk from then till Bhc went away. Witness did not know where the deceased got the drink from. He allowed none in the house. On Thursday her husband took her away and brought her back on Saturday, and begged witness to take them in. The deceased was violent and screaming. Next day she was also very bad and violent, and required to be put under restraint. Her husband was very patient and kind to his wife. On Sunday evening they took the decease to the police station in a cab, between ten and eleven o'clock. She was very drunk then. The deceased never complaind of anyone having ill-used her. Inspector Pender deposed that on the evening of Sunday January 1, Mr Beuchler came to the police station and left witness the letter produced. The letter was a request that the police should take charge of his wife for a few days, as she was beyond his control through drink. Witness told him that if he brought her to the Btation he would have her medically examined. The woman was brought in and put into tho padded cell. She was vory bad with drink. Witness did not think she was a fit subject to be placed with the patients in the Hospital. She was in a very weak state, but was violent. To the jury: Witness believed the Addington Gaol was a very good place to send a person in her state. He believed they received first-class treatment there. The husband of the deceased had asked witness to advise him what to do with his wife. She was in such a state that no one would take her in. Her husband had tried once to get her up country, but she got drink at a railway station and became helpless, Au endeavor had been made lo ascertain where she got the drink, but without succers.

James Donaldson, gaoler at Addington, stated that the aceeascd was brought to the gaol about four o'clock the previous day. She had been remanded for eight days on account of helpless drunkenness. Witness handed her over to the matron of the female division and gave her instructions regarding the woman's treatment. The matron reported that the woman had been in a filthystate when admitted. After being cleaned the deceased felt much better. Witness visited the deceased between six and seven o'clock and had a conversation with her. She spoke very rationally, and showed no signs of ddir'mm tremens at that time. Witness ordered the matron to give her milk and beef tea. Witness was instructed by the medical officer of the gaol to adopt this treatment in all cases where the prisoners were suffering from the effects of drink. About twenty minutes past eight the matron reported favorably of the deceased. She had gone to bed, and was comfortable and all right. Witness had had the deceased placed ill a large cell, along with two well-con-ducted prisoners to look after her. At B,lf> p.m. witness was aroused, and went to the deceased's cell with tho matron, and found she was in a fit. After trying ineffectually to revive her, witness telephoned for the doctor. Tho doctor arrived half an hour afterwards, but the woman was then dead. Witness saw the deceased at the Court, and he told Dr Nedwill that he had a woman coming up, and that she was in a very bad state, and that he would very likely have to bo sent for. The woman was apparently getting on so well that witness did not think it necessary to send for the doctor.

To the Coroner: Witness had had some experience in treating persons suffering from drink. Witness did his best with the case, but he had not proper accommodation or proper nurses for such cases. Witness did not think the gaol was a proper place for persons suffering from drink. Witness took two previous cases to the Hospital, but the Hospital authority 8 refused to admit them. The resident surgeon wrote a memorandum on the warrant, stating that he had received instructions from the Hospital authorities not to admit persons suffering from the effects of drink. If a patient of this class were admitted to the Hospital, witness would be responsible to a certain extent, as tho Act said " they shall bo deemed to be in the custody of the gaoler." If a separate building were erected on the Hospital grounds it would be the most suitable place for those patients. Mary Bowern, one of the inmates of the cell with the deceased, gave corroborative evidence. The deceased complained that her husband had ill-used her. W. M. Miller, secretary to the North Canterbury Hospital Board, deposed that he knew it was the Board's with that prisonets suffering from the effects of drink should not be admitted to the Hospital. There was no accommodation, ard they had not the necessary nursing power. It would be ex ■ tremely dangerous to admit such persons into an ordinary ward. There was no other convenience but the ordinary wards. The wish of tho Board had been expressed by resolution.

Dr Symes stated that he recollected being called to the police station a little before eleven on Sunday night. The deceased was in the padded cell, and was unmistakeably under the influence of drink. She had evidently been drinking for some days. In his opinion it was a case for remand for medical treatment, and he gave a certificate to that effect. The treatment prescribed by Mr Donaldson was very suitable, but ho would recommend that the beef tea should be given in small quantities. The deceased ' was too noisy for admission to the Hospital. There was no convenience for such persons ut the Hospital. If a separate building were ercoled and extra nursos provided, there would not be any objection to the admission of such patients. Witnesn did not think that persons would have any better chance of recovery even under those circumstances than at Addington under the present treatment, principally because the building for their reception would have to be so isolated that

the nurses would be left much by them-'; selves. They sometimes had delirious cases in the Hospital, but they were not so bad as' persons suffering from the effects of alcohol. They had to do tho best they could with them. The bruises on the body of the deceased were simply such as might have occurred through the deceased knocking herself abouti He would not take auy notice of what the deceased had said to the witness Bowern. The deceased was taken as much care of as possible in the lock-up. In a private house she would have had a little more comfort. Under any circumstances the death of the deceased was inevitable. Ho was quite suro that death had not been accelerated by her treatment at the lock-up or at Addington Gaol. Inspector Pender said he had known MrBcuchler for some years, and ho was a most respectable man. The jury, after a retirement of half an hour, returned with a verdict of "Death from fatty degeneration of the heart." They added the following rider i—" We are of opinion that Addington Gaol is not a fit and proper place to send dipsomaniacs to. We respectfully submit that tho Government should take immediate steps to make provision for such patients."—' Press.'