APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



293 



fendant that he believed she re- 

 ceived lunatic ladies ; she said she 

 did. He asked if she had any 

 room ; she said she had not, as she 

 could only accommodate three, 

 having only herself and maid to 

 look after them. He asked if she 

 thought she should soon have a 

 vacancy ; she said she thought she 

 should. He said he would call 

 again. On the 2nd of March he 

 called again ; she recollected him, 

 and said she had no vacancy. He 

 asked how she came to keep such 

 a house without a hcense. She was 

 much confused, and said she could 

 not afford to pay for a license, 

 which was 10/. : he said she had 

 incurred a penalty of 500Z. and 

 served her with the process : she 

 said she was not worth that sum, 

 and would be ruined. He asked if 

 Mr. Dunstan, master of St. Luke's 

 Hospital, kept the house; she said 

 he did not, he was the landlord, and 

 recommended patients, but had 

 nothing to do with the manage- 

 ment or profits of the house ; she 

 said no medical gentleman attend- 

 ed the house, her patients were 

 not ill-enough to require medical 

 assistance. 



S. Smithson went to defendant's 

 house, by the order of Mr. Dun- 

 stan, on the 16th of November, 

 1811; he and the defendant direct- 

 ed her to take a lady into the 

 country, whom defendant said she 

 had confined six months. There 

 were four ladies at that time in the 

 house of the defendant, some of 

 them had strait waistcoats, some 

 had locks; the lady, whom she 

 took away, was double waistcoated, 

 had a lock which crossed the two 

 wrists ; and at night she had a lock 

 on her legs. Witness took the 

 lady into the country, attended her 



¥L weeks, when she was nearly 

 well : she was at defendant's house 

 on the 30th of September for the 

 last time ; there were then five 

 ladies. 



Lord EUenborough. — The ques- 

 tion of cruelty ought not to be 

 mixed with the present question, 

 which was merely a civil action for 

 the breach of an act of parliament. 

 If any cruelty had been exercised, 

 it was the subject of a distinct in- 

 dictment. 



Mr. Marryat said, it might be a 

 question, whether the action was 

 brought against the proper person; 

 but he rejoiced that this action had 

 been brought, as it would notify 

 to the public, that such an act 

 exists, for this was the first action 

 that had been brought upon it. He 

 therefore thought, that the public 

 would be benefited, and the col- 

 lege deserved to be praised for 

 bringing the action. That the pe- 

 nalty had been incurred, the evi- 

 dence of Mr. Roberts had put be- 

 yond a doubt; but the question 

 was, who was the person to be 

 sued ? The person to be sued was 

 the person really keeping the 

 house, and the action would not 

 lie against a servant, not even an 

 upper servant. By the evidence of 

 S. Smithson, it appeared that Mr. 

 Dunstan was the owner. 



Lord EUenborough. — The act 

 says, * if any person shall upon any 

 pretence whatsoever, conceal, har- 

 bour, entertain, or confine in any 

 house ;' he sliould therefore hoUl, 

 that any person having the ma- 

 nagement of such house was 

 liable. 



Mr. Marryat. — Supposing that 

 she was merely the servant of Dun- 

 stan, would she still be liable? 



Lord EUenborough did not say 



