The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1888.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 4382, 5 November 1888, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1888.

Our attention was recently attracted to a paragraph in one of our contemporaries, which stated that a man I named Barber had petitioned Parliament for release from the Auckland Lunatic Asylum on the ground that he > was perfectly sane. The writer went , on to say that "it appears that his , request was refused, for he succeeded 3 in escaping, and was employed by a ' farmer for a considerable time, and nobody with whom ho came into contact had the slightest suspicion that he had ever been in a lunatic asylum, or was a fit subject for euch an institution. The man subsequently went to Queensland, where he is now engaged as a commission agent.and isjdoing well." "We do not vouch for the truth of all the statements in the paragraph, but they have been going the round of the newspapers, and, as far as we are aware, have not been contradicted. If, however, the escape was made, and immediately thereafter Barber worked on a farm as a useful and to all appearance a perfectly sane m:iu, aud if he is now sitting clothed and in his right mind, and carrying on a successful commission business in Queensland, there is some ground for suspicion that, even if he was at one time insane, he was at all events kept in the asylum longer than was necessary. We see by the reports of the Public Petitions Committee of last session that one Henry George Barber, of Auckland, did petition Parliament, and his case is thus referred to = — " The petitioner complains of improper treatment in the gaol, the hospital, and the lunatic asylum at Auckland, and prays for compensation. lam directed to report that this committee, having taken the evidence of Captain Hume and Doctor Macgregor, is of opinion that the petitioner has no claim against the colony." It will be observed that what was risked for was not release but compensation for improper treatment, the particulars of which arc not given. It would be interesting to learn whether the man was actually ia the asylum when the petition was written. There is evidently a little unpublished history in connection with the case, and the claim appears to have been rejected on the evidence of the Inspeotor of Prisons and the Inspector of Lunatic Asylums, the petitioner not being examined at all. And now another remarkable case at the Auckland asylum is forming the subject o£ newspaper comment and may possibly provide work for the legal profession. A telegram, which we publish in another column, refers to a matter which came before the Supreme Court in Auckland some time ago. A man named Fenwick, an inmate of the asylum, was brought before Mr Justice Gillies on an application by the lunatic's wife to be allowed to administer his estate. Fenwick was subjected to a lengthy examination,and the Court decided that he wns capable of managing his own affairs, and refused to allow the wife to administer. The telegram states that the Court ruled Fenwick to be "of unsound mind in regard to some matters." We have no recollection that Mr Justice Gillies committed himself positively on that point, and certainly when a remark was made about Fenwick being still detained in the asylum, the learned Judge hinted at the risk which would be incurred by anyone keeping Fenwick in confinement after the decision of the Court. Tbe telegram further says that, as Fenwick was declared capable of managing his affairs, " it would be naturally concluded that he had no right to be an inmate of the asylum, but no one will take the responsibility of releasing him, and consequently he has remained in the asylum ever since. Tbe Government appointed Colonel Haultain to make special inquiries into the matter, and his report has been sent to Wellington. It is understood that he does not recommend Fenwick's release." Obviously there is a screw loose somewhere, but without further information it is hard to say, whether it is in Fenwick's head, or the Judge's, or Colonel Haultain's. It is, however, perfectly clear that a man who is kept cooped up in a lunatic asylum, and of course subjected to the rules and discipline of the institution, cannot manage his affairs. The position would be a ludicrous one if it were not for the serious issues involved. What has happened to one man may happen to another, and the owner of property may be kept under lock and key, although a Judge of the Supreme Court has virtually pronounced him sane in the eye of the law. Wo may be wrong but it Beems to us that Mr Justice Gillies either went too far or not far enough. The Lunatics Act provides that if any Judge of the Supreme Court b:iß any cause to suspect that a person of sound mind, " or whose state of mind does not require that he should be confiued or detained," is detained in an asylum, he may order some person to examine the person so detained and to report to the Court. The Judge may then have the alleged lunatic brought before him, and "if upon the examination of such confined person and of any medical or other witness it shall appear to the satisfaction of Eiieli Judge that such person is of sound mind ***** he is hereby required to direct such person to be immediately discharged." It is a reasonable view to take of Fenwick's case that bis sanity ought to have been tested in the manner provided by the Act. If it had stood that, test au order for Mb discharge would have followed aB a matter of course ; if it bad broken down under the test the Court ought not to havo upheld Fenwick's capacity to manage his own affairs aa a ground for refusing the wife's application to administer. As the matter now stands the community is confronted with the absurdity of a person beiug confined ns as irresponsible lunatic, who is nevertheless pronounced by a Judge of the Supreme Court to be quite capable of going about his business and transacting it as well aa the ordinary run of mankind. Such being the circumHlanceß, Fcuwick, whoau examination

before the Court proved him to be an intelligent person, cannot fail to entertain the fixed belief that, whatever may be his own mental condition, the Banity of some of those who have had to do with his case is not altogether beyond question.