MENTAL HOSPITAL CASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19254, 19 August 1924, Page 7

MENTAL HOSPITAL CASE

REMARKABLE DISCLOSURES. ALLEGED INSANITY DISPROVED. (Per United Peeks Association.) ' AUCKLAND, August 18. An application for determination whether or not a certain man described as X, who had been committed to a mental hospital was insane, came before Mr Justice Stringer in the Supreme Court. , . ' In evidence the man’s son stated that he was 28 years of age. From childhood he had noticed peculiarities in his fathers manner. As witness grew older, and able to form his own opinions he found* that many things bis father said were incorrect. Questioned as to X’s delusions the son said that X could not keep on friendly terms with his neighbours for any length of lime. _ . Mr Justice Stringer: It is sometimes dithcult to do that. Witness: He seemed to take violent dislikes to people whom he liad seen only occasionally, and whom he had no reason to His Honor: How long ago are you speaking of? Witness: Approximately six years ago--: from tlie time we went to a farm in 1906 and extending to about 1918. Continuing, tlie eon said X had never attempted Ins mother’s Iffe in his presence. Witness referred to an instance of 18 year* ago. His Honor: We cannot go back 18 years. Mr Newberry, who appeared for the son (who opposed the application), said he would like to show that the delusions had gradually increased. His Honor: Many sane men under certain oircumstamcies liave offered violence to their wives. The son stated that when living at Tamaki his father accused his mother of unfaithfulness. The father made a trapdoor in his bedroom and at night would go down through the trapdoor and so got tender the mother's room. The father had holes under the mother’s bed etna would spend most of the night under the house poking sticks backwards and . forwards through the holes. Hia Honor :Tbu I enow this of your own knowledge. , Witness: I know regarding the holes ana the trapdoor. His Honor: You must not say what your mother told you. ' ,» Witness said his father belonged to-a religious sect known as flho Brethren. ness described an, instance when he interviewed his father on the farm concerning the condition of affairs at home. -,X - became violently angry, foamed at the mouth, and ordered witness off the place. ■ I , Mr Inder, who appeared in support ot the application, said he could not see the slightest suggestion that could support the idea of delusions. . , : His Honor: I cannot see anything myself. In evidence the wife of X stated: that from the first days of their married life X suffered from delusions. Over thevhertwl covering the past 10 years X had a dplusion. that his family wanted to rob him, X had threatened her life “many and mafiy ; a time,” Ho had said he would chop her head in two with an axe. He had accused her of trying to poison him, and. said her two sisters had attempted to poison their husbands. Two days before he/was committed he had threatened her life. -Ha had locked the back door on that occasion iflpd had bailed witness up in the passage, but she ran out by the front door before.ho could get his hands on her. He whs moody about the bouse, but made no further attack. On one particular night she he&rd taps on the side of the house and a man's voice called out: “Mrs X, I will do you no harm.” She saw her husband and a man talking. It was moonlight— As bright as day. Afterwards her husband denied mat he brought a man to the house, but she was told later that the man bad .brought two bottles of gin to get her to go odp , X had stated that the Brethren were friter her for no good purpose. £_ To Mr Inder: Witness believed tmifc X was not the father of her youngest child. X became aware of that just after its birth. Under further cross-examination the wife said X had at intervals been the beet of husbands. He had boon £ood . tex daughter and had not, as far as witness was aware, threatened her life. Witness did not; think X had threatened anybody else. X had accused her of unfaithfulness right from the start of her married life The two doctors who had signed tie order of commitment gave evidence in which they agreed that if the facts placed before them on examination bad been those they had heard in court their view would have been very much modified. If they had known that the alleged delusions were m same cases facts, it would have weighed verv much with them. ‘ ' Dr Beattie, medical superintendent of the Auckland Mental Hospital gave evidence that he found in effect that X had not shown any indications of insanity. Witness felt he was not justified in discharging X. so he wrote to Mr Inder and asked him to bring the case before the Supremo Court. Witness bad arrived at the conclusion that X was rot a fit subject to be detained. His Honor said he was quite satisfied that the opinion of Dr Beattie was correct. The evidence, adduced satisfied his Honor that if it hod been placed before a'magistrate he probably would never have mado an order. “This action certainly suggests to me,” said his Honor, “that there ought to be some further investigation into alleged delusions before a man can be summarily committed to a mental seems to me there ought to be some investigation as to these alleged delusions, because it is now admitted by the two medical men. who signed the certificate that the alleged delusion was in fact no delusion at all. Probably an investigation might have elicited that fact and the man would not have been committed.” His Honor said ha had nothing more to do but to direct that X be immediately discharged by the superintendent. The condition of affairs revealed was not calculated to make for comfort and a happy married life fo** the parties and some arrangement should be made for a separation: Mr Newberry said he intended to move immediately in that direction.