1.-18.

8

[B. M. BEATTIE.

66. You do not think it possible for him to have epilepsy without your being able to discover it? —Yes, a man may have a petit mal form of epilepsy without another discovering it. 67. Then is it possible that when the two doctors examined him at Waihi he had petit mal but did not have it when you examined him later? —No, I do not think it possible. If he had had it would be repeated subsequently. 68. You would say, then, that Johnston's own statement that he is epileptic, and the Waihi doctor's statement that he detected epilpsy, that both these statements are wrong?— Both Johnston and his wife told me that he had never had an epileptic fit in the whole of his history. 69. In his statement he said, " One day while I was at work I got an impression, a warning, all was not well at home.. I knew I was wanted at home, so I immediately ceased work and took the first boat for Melbourne. On arrival I found a man, an adventurer, was courting my mother—he wanted to marry her for her money." Would you say that statement was the statement of a man who was normal?— Yes. I think warnings of that kind come to any person. It is quite common. 70. You have his impression about the hypnotic influence? —I think the hypnotic influence as explained to me was the statement of a normal man. 71. Did he tell you that he had always been a poor man, but that he would be a rich man when he published a book on horticulture? —No. He told me that he had written a book on horticulture, but had not enough money to get it published. 72. Had you even seen the book?—No, but 1 understand he is an expert in fruitgrowing. 73. Do you think, when he went to shoot his wife, that he carefully felt the position of the heart and fired, that his wife woke up, and then he felt a presence intervene between himself and his wife—-do you think that is the statement of a man of normal brain? —That is a statement of a man with an ephemeral mind. One often finds statements made like that. I think the deliberate way in which Johnston went about this matter, and the way he considered the matter, and his subsequent conduct, showed that he was not mentally defective. 74. Mr. Isitt.] Do you regard as evidence that a man is abnormal the fact that he believed that some spirit interposed between himself and his cause of action?— Mr. Stead would have been quite insane in a case like that. 75. Hon. Mr. Fisher.] You look upon that as an act of a man with a normal mind?—No, I would not say that. There was a certain amount of abnormality, but certainly not a diseased brain. Any pathological condition did not exist. If a pathological condition was sufficiently serious as to produce a result like that it would be more or less permanent. 76. Was not that condition introduced by what you may call a brain-storm which existed at that particular time? —Yes. 77. Is it not possible that a similar brain-storm recurring would produce the same condition? —No, not necessarily. 78. You said that you had certified to patients being sane shortly after their committal?— Yes, in one or two instances. 79. Were those committals procured by the police?— Yes, in every case. 80. Do you suggest in those cases the medical certificates were wrong?—l suggest in those cases that the examination by the medical men was not sufficiently good, or else the facts brought before them were not accurate facts. I can give you a particular instance. A patient was committed to the Mental Hospital in Auckland about three weeks ago. Two doctors certified to the patient as fit for detention. 81. Do you remember the name of the patient?— Mrs. McKenzie. I did not think the certificate sufficiently strong to enable me to detain the patient. I rang up Mr. Kettle, the Magistrate, and asked what could be done in the matter, and he said nothing. I tried to get her into the Costley Home, and then handed her over to the police for further examination. Two other medical men refused to give a certificate, and the woman is now at large. 82. Where is she now? —At Rotorua. 83. You considered her sane?—l considered her an old woman suffering more or less from senile decay, but not sufficiently insane to be detained. 84. Do you know of any case in which you have certified to a person as being sane after committal and the patient has been released and subsequently proved to be insane?—l have no experience of any case of the kind excepting where insanity has supervened a long time after the discharge. 85. Have you ever certified to a patient as being sane and released him and he has been subsequently returned to the institution as insane? —Yes. but not immediately. I have never discharged a patient who has been immediately rearrested and committed to a mental hospital except in alcoholic cases. 86. Then your certificate that a man i 8 sane does not mean that there is nothing the matter with him —he may be a recurrent mental subject?—No, I do not think that, exactly, but you cannot say that when once a man has been discharged from a mental hospital that insanity will never recur. It may not recur for thirty years. 87. Have you ever had a patient in the Auckland Mental Hospital who has reached that stage of insanity when it could not be detected without the doctor knowing the history of the case? —No, I do not think so, if a doctor knew his work. 88. Do you think the two doctors who certified to the committal of Johnston at Waihi did not know their work? —I could not say that, because Dr. Craig was assistant at a mental hospital for some years. 89. Then he is practically an expert?— Yes. 90. Ihen you suggest by your evidence that he has either wilfully signed a committal form for some improper purpose or that he is ignorant of his work? — No. My contention is that he has