I.—IB.

40

[g. obaig.

64. Was he going down in weight ? —He seemed to be, and he was not sleeping. 65. You did not notice appreciably that his weight was going down !- I had seen very little of -Johnston prior to that. 66. Had you formed any impression before you went to the police-station from your previous attendance on him that he w : as likely to become insane?— Yes, I had formed the impression from the fact that he was suffering from nervous breakdown, and any man suffering from nervous breakdown may become insane. 67. And you said he might recover? —He might recover. 68. What circumstances xvould lead him to recover?-—Rest. 69. You attended him there and were watching him?—l advised rest and freedom from mental worry. I prescribed sedatives—bromides —in order to soothe his nervous system, and advised him to take good food and not to xvork too hard. 70. Did he mention his financial troubles? —Not at that time, as far as 1 remember. 71. You were then sent for in the ordinary way to certify?—l was sent for to certify because he was showing signs of mental aberration. The police sent for me. 72. If you had had no previous knowledge of his condition through having attended him privately would you have formed the conclusion that day that he was insane? —I xvould. 73. You had sufficient evidence before you that day.—Yes. sufficient to satisfy me that the man ought to be taken care of. 74. Mr. Payne.] When you first commenced to treat Johnston you xvere treating him for nervous breakdown and petit mal for three weeks ?—-Yes. 75. On the day you examined and committed him xvas he any worse from the petit mal point of viexv than you had observed previously?—No, 1 saw no signs of petit mal. But why lay such stress on the petit mal? 76. But you saw signs of petit mal the day you committed him? —I never saxv petit mal at any time that I was seeing him. He had not an attack. 77. Not during the xvhole time?— Not during the whole time I was attending him. 78. Nor. on the day xou committed him?—He may have had an attack. I do not knoxv whether he had or not. 79. You did not see any sign of petit mal at all on the day you committed him? —No; but he was not committed to the asylum on the ground of having petit mal. You seem to be running away with the idea that every man who stands still in the street for a minute ought to be committed to the asylum. I merely mention in my certificate that "he is subject to the petit mal of epilepsy, and informs me that under a year ago under great financial stress he made up his mind to kill his wife and children. He did shoot his wife through the right arm as she lay asleep, but made no second attempt." 80. He xvas suffering from nervous breakdoxvn xvhen you first commenced to treat him?— Yes. 81. What xvere his signs of insanity the day you committed him?—lt is stated in the certificate: "Emotional and excitable. States that he has been hypnotized by his stepfather, and that since then he has been a different man." 82. What you committed him on, then, was his personal statement, was it?— His personal statement and my oxvn observation that he xvas emotional and excitable, and the statement that he shot his wife. 83. On the day you examined him, then, he was simply emotional and excitable?—Y'es. 84. Nothing further than that? —Oh, yes. There is the statement of his wife confirming the statement that he had shot her. From the fact of his being emotional and excitable plus the fact that he had previously attempted murder. I felt that I would not be justified in letting that man loose on the community. 85. Was he emotional and excitable when you first started to treat him? —Yes. 86. Hfc was a dangerous man then? —I would not say that every emotional and excitable man is dangerous. 87. But why did you c,ome to the conclusion that he was a dangerous man xvhen you committed him? —Because he admitted shooting his wife. 88. The first time you "got that knowledge was in the police-station?— Yes. 89. It has been suggested that he talked about shooting his wife when he was under chloroform. You had not any knoxvledge xvhatever of his shooting his wife before you examined him in the police-station?—l do not think so. 90. During the period you xvere treating him you had no knowledge whatever of that fact?— Ido not think I had. I had none that I can remember. 91. All that you committed him to the asylum on, then, was that he was emotional and excitable : the only facts observed by you were those?— When a man states that he has been hypnotized by his stepfather 92. But you ate supposed to find on the facts observed by yourself?— The facts observed by myself included the fact that he stated that he had been hypnotized by his stepfather. He might have stated that, he was a tea-kettle or a poached egg. They would all be facts observed by myself. 93. You take each statement made as a fact observed?—l do take it as a fact observed by myself. 94. He has put a different construction on the word " hypnotized " : he merely meant that his stepfather had influence over him. Did he convey that impression to you?— Yes, the impression that his stepfather had some serious poxver over him. 95. If I said that I had been hypnotized would you regard that as a fact observed by yourself?—lf it concerned me at all I would feel justified in investigating your mental condition a