SEACLIFF ASYLUM INQUIRY.

Otago Witness, Issue 1956, 20 August 1891, Page 12

SEACLIFF ASYLUM INQUIRY.

The following report by Mr W. L. Simpson on the complaint made by Mr Emerson against Dr Truby King has been received by the Hon. A. J. Cadman, Minister in Charge of Hospitals, Asylums, and Charitable Aid : — Dnnedin, Auguit 12, 1891. Hon. A. J. Cadman. Sir,— l have' the honour to report that in termi of your request conveyed to me through the Inspectorgeneral of Asylums and Hospitals, I, as an offioial visitor of SeaoHff Asylum, made an Inquiry into certain of the statement* and allegations whloh appeared in the Globe newspaper, Dunedin, in respect to the conduct of the superintendent of that institution. The first oaie inquired into was that of Mr Thomas Emerson, whoie charges were taken as formulated in his letter of 20th May, 1890 to Dr Maogregor, and of 13th September 1890 to the then olonlal Secretary (Captain Hunell). Mr Emerson was summoned for the Ist August, and appeared. He formally protested against the inquiry, but gave I no reasons. He Intimated that he was prepared to answer all questions asked. Mr Emerson declined to be represented by a solicitor at first, but subsequently got one to watch the case for him. The following witnesses were examined, whose evidence, together with doouments produced, accompany this report, together with all offioial papers handed to me : —Thomas Emerson, Duncan Macgregor (inspeotor), Stella Fisher, Thursa Fenwiok, Frederic Tmby King (superintendent), Catherine Grundy, C. Breimer, the Yen. Archdeacon Edwards. I may here state that Mr Hmerson was asked if he had anyone he wished to bave summoned in support of hl» ease ; through his solicitor he.intimated that he declined to cay. It now therefore remains for me to give mv opinion on the case from the evidence given. The charges may shortly be stated in three Interrogatories :— 1. Did Or Truby King refuse Mr Emerson permission to see his wife through a vindictive or tyrannical spirit, or otherwise ? 2. Did Dr Trufc King make use of abusive and insulting language towards Mr Emerson on three different occasion!, as alleged ? 3 Had Mr Emerson any reason for styling Dr Truby King an unscrupulous, tyrannical, and vindictive person 9The first I answer in the negative The official correspondence between Mr Fmerscn and the pravioui superintendent, as also with Dr Truby King, the present superintendent, discloses the fact thst Mr Emerson was kept informed of his wife's state ; and that while the medical men considered it necessary to forbid the paMent seeing any friends, there were occaslous on wbioh they gave permission go friends to visit the patient. It is admitted by Mr Emerson that he occasionally was permitted to see his wife, and that several of these occasior s occurred after the differences on money matters arose between himself and Dr Truby King. Without, therefore, other evidence than the mere statement of Mr Bmeraon, after he had formed such strong opinions of the oharaoter of Dr Trnby King, I oan only come to the conclusion that on the occasions Mr Emerson was refused permission to see his wife there were valid and sufficient reasons for euoh refusal. In reference to the second question, was abusive und insulting language used on three different oocaslons by Pr King to Mr Bmerton. So far as regards the first occasion alleged -viz , 6»;h June 1889— I cannot accept Mr Emerson a statements. The cause of irritation- viz,, the maintenance money-had not arisen at this time. fiWßSsw,"a i aea;aftt«a TTlthMrßmewon. TU«ln»peotortwrferiMtowwan

had not then been lisued ; it was not limed until 25th September 1889 . Th« 30th October 1889 It the fint time I find Dr Truby King writing on this subject. M r Emerson's reply to that letter on lit November 1889, lead* to the belief that it was the first communication on thfl subject with Or Truby King, and this is confirmed by his letter of 25th November 18S9, in whioh he givei a detailed statement of hit circumstances. As regards the second occasion on whloh it Is alleged abusive language was uted — viz., 6th Pecember 1889, it is not denied by Dr Truby King that a conversation on the subject of maintenance may have taken pluce at this time with Mr Emerson, and there is no doubt it did, and was apparently of some length ; for Mr Bmerton seems to bave gone minutely into all hia olrcurastances with a view to get Dr Truby King to give up the Idea of taking the case to court, But, even if the language stated by Mr Bmerson to have been used by Dr Truby King, " You will have to pay ; you must pay," were used, and even oft-repeated, I do not think ft could, by the most sensitive, be termed abusive and insulting language. Ho doubt it was annoying, and certainly would be annoying to Mr Bmerion under the clroumstances, indicating as it did a determination to oarry out an intention. As regards the third occasion on whioh it li alleged abusive language was used— viz., 10th of May 1890— there is no doubt a heated conversation must have taken place on this occasion. At any rate, it bad the effect of making Mr Emerson heated, acoording to the evidence of another witness; and wheo the incidents of the meeting are considered it could not have been a oalm meeting. Dr Truby King was annoyed because he found that Mr Bmerson bad been disouasing matters with a Mr Breimer, a person who was paying to the Institution for the maintenance of bis wife; and the fact of Mr Bmerson intimating that he paid indirectly for the maintenance of his wife would not tend to decrease the doctor's annoyance while Mr Bmerson, on bis part, felt annoyed at being threatened to be taken before the magistrate a second time, and being told that by ol&iming the right as a taxpayer of having his wife in the institution, he was plaoing hinuelf in the position of a paup«r ; so that, in the absence of any independent evidence ai to what was actually said, it seems to me a natural conclusion to come to that stronger language may have been used than is admitted on the one part, while on the other a itronger interpretation may bave been given to the words than was intended, or than they would have conveyed to an independent person. Tn reference to the third question: Is Dr Truby King a vindictive, unscrupulous, tyrannioal person ? the only evidence of vindfcMvenesa is the bringing of the case before the magistrate on two different occasions. This, however, was done under the special instructions on both ocoasfoos of the bead of the department, so that the vindictiveness (if any) belongs so the department, and not to Dr Truby King. That Dr Truby King may have carried out his instructions with a greater zeal and more energy than is usually demonstrated by Government officials may be true, but as he was acting under special instructions he oannot be said to have done it vindictively. That the department had reason for bringing the first case there can be jno doubt, as, prim* faoie, It appeared from the books as if Mr Emerson had oome to some understanding to pay 5s a week and accounts had during Dr Eadford King's time been rendered regularly for these amounts ; aud it was not unreasonable to presume that a person earning 8s a day steady wage could pay a sum of 5s a week. But I think, in bringing the case a second time without any fresh evidenoe as to Mr Emerson's circumstances, and that at- the end of 14 days, for that was the inspector's orders (certainly Dr King delayed for some months), laid the department apen to a charge of vindiotlveneis. The department seems to forget that the Legislature has constituted the resident magistrate, and not the department, the judge of the capabilities of a person to pay maintenance, and that the responsibility of the department stops when the case has been placed before the magistrate. While on this subject of payment of maintenance, I would remark that it appears to me undesirable, in the interests of the institution, that the onus of obtaining payment of maintenance should be thrown on the medical superintendent.

That Dr Truby King has shown himself either tyrannioal or unscrupulous in anything he has done in this oaie there is not the slightest evidence.— I have, &c,

W. Latjbbncb Simpsok.