APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



285 



false imprisonment. To this the 

 defendant had pleaded a justifica- 

 tion — that the plaintiff' was a dan- 

 gerous lunatic, and committed to 

 his care, the first time under the 

 certificate of a physician, and a 

 second time by his friends. 



Mr. Topping said, if the jury 

 had attended to the record, no ob- 

 servations were required from him 

 on this important cause. The re- 

 cord disclosed, that the plaintiff 

 complained of a seven years' im- 

 prisonment in the mad-house of 

 defendant. The question was, 

 whether the plaintiff was a lunatic; 

 and he was sorry that, in a cause 

 of such importance, he had had so 

 little time to prepare — he had only 

 got the papers yesterday morning. 

 He had no doubt but from the jus- 

 tice of his lordship and the jury, 

 his client would not be allowed to 

 suffer from any infirmity of his. 

 The plaintiff was sixty years of 

 age, a clergyman, a married man, 

 and father of seven children. He 

 was vicar of Church Broughton. 

 There was some difference beween 

 his wife and him ; he was jealous ; 

 whether justly or not, was not 

 known. They, however, conti- 

 nued to live together ; and in Ja- 

 nuary, 1805, they came to London. 

 On the 3rd of January, in the dead 

 of the night, plaintiff was taken 

 from his bed, without any previous 

 intimation, by two of defendant's 

 servants, and taken to Whitmore- 

 house, Hoxton : this was the first 

 ground of complaint on the record. 

 He was released and went home, 

 where he lived quiet and unmo- 

 lested till October, 1806, when, 

 by the order of some person, which 

 defendant must shew, he was again 

 conveyed to the house of defen- 



dant, where he was confined till 

 April 13, 1813. It was wonderful 

 if plaintiff laboured under a dan- 

 gerous lunacy, that no statute of 

 lunacy was taken out. In conse- 

 quence of a gentleman of the pro- 

 fession having visited him, an ap» 

 plication was made for an habeas 

 corpus, which freed him from his 

 imprisonment. He had been since 

 examined by professional men,who 

 pronounced, that he had always 

 been sane, and still continues so. 

 The jury had to try two facts; 

 whether the imprisonment took 

 place ; about that there could be 

 no difficulty: the main and im- 

 portant fact was, whether plaintiff 

 was a person of that dangerous 

 description stated in defendant's 

 justification. He might content 

 himself with merely stating the 

 imprisonment, but he would deal 

 more fairly ; he was instructed that 

 he could lay evidence before the 

 jury, to prove his complete sanity. 

 He should prove by abundance of 

 persons, that plaintiff never shewed 

 signs of lunacy. If he were the 

 dangerous person stated in the 

 plea, it would be supposed, that 

 he would not be trusted with 

 any thing with which he could 

 injure himself or others ; but he 

 would prove that he was intrusted 

 with knives and razors. To prove 

 these facts, he should call keepers. 

 The second class of witnesses he 

 should call, were gentlemen who 

 had known him in the country; 

 they would prove that they had 

 never seen any signs of madness 

 about him. The last class were 

 medical men, who would prove, 

 that plaintiff had a mind as capable 

 of attending to the oflSces of life as 

 any person. If he was deceived ia 



