JUDGMENT GIVEN FOR M.D. IN HARNETT CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17832, 28 April 1926, Page 1

JUDGMENT GIVEN FOR M.D. IN HARNETT CASE.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SUCCESSFULLY INVOKED. By Telegraph.——Pres» Assn.— Copyright. Aus. and N.Z. Cable Association. (Received April 28, 11.5 a.m.) LONDON, April 27. Mr Justice Horridge, in the case of Harnett, after hearing legal argument, entered judgment with costs in favour of defendant (Dr .Fisher), whose counsel pleaded the Statute of Limitations. Mr Justice Horridge said that defendant was liable for the consequences of his negligence, even though the actual order for detention was made by Justices. His Lordship disagreed with the contention that though the jury consicb ered Harnett sane, he should be viewed as a lunatic for the purposes construing the Statute of Limitations. - His Lordship’s duty was to construe the Statute, however regrettable the result.

Damages amounting to £SOO were awarded William Harnett, the well-to-do farmer, against Dr Fisher, on April 19, for wrongful declaration of insanity. The Judge, in summing up, declared that the case was of considerable importance to Harnett, also to doctors and the general public, because people liked to feel secure in the knowledge that everyone committed to an asylum was properly certified to. Harnett, plaintiff in the famous insanity case of 1924, claimed damages from Dr Henry Fisher, of Sittingbourne, for negligently certifying him insane in 1912. It was disclosed that Dr Fisher’s certificate was partly based on a statement by Harnett’s young brother that he had bad wrangles about religious matters with plaintiff, who was deeply steeped in sexual topics. The jury found that Harnett was not insane, and also that Dr Fisher did not act with reasonable care in declaring him insane. Argument on the jury’s verdict has since been proceeding. In 1924 Harnett sued Dr Bond, Lunacy Commissioner, and Dr Adam, keeper of an asylum, claiming damages for unlawful detention for nine years in the asylum. He was awarded £25,000—£15,000 from Dr Bond and £IO,OOO from'Dr Adam. As Dr Bond was a public servant, and was sued for action taken in the performance of his public duty, the State assumed responsibility for his share of the damages. The Court of Appeal sustained Dr Adam’s appeal against the judgment. The litigation at this stage had already cost £50,000. Harnett then appealed to the House of Lords, but the appeal was dismissed.