Is legal responsibility acquired by educated imbeciles? / by G.E. Shuttleworth.

  • Shuttleworth, G. E. (George Edward), 1842-1928.
Date:
[1884]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Is legal responsibility acquired by educated imbeciles? / by G.E. Shuttleworth. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by King’s College London. The original may be consulted at King’s College London.

    5/12 (page 3)
    said that the boys who witnessed the transaction were able to give evidence, he (the Coroner) should receive that evidence. It was for the Coroner to admit such evidence as he thought proper, and it was for the jury to decide afterwards upon the amount of credibility they would attach to that evidence/’ Accordingly as each imbecile witness was tendered for examina- tion I was called on to state that in my opinion he was “ cap- able of judging between truth and falsehood, and able to give credible testimony.” Three imbecile lads were consequently allowed to give evidence, and in one case in which speech (owing to partial paralysis) was indistinct, I was permitted to act to a certain extent as interpreter, the Coroner being also good enough to accept some of my suggestions as to the form in which his questions would be most intelligible to the wit- nesses. Under these circumstances the evidence of the lads, who were sworn in the usual way without special interroga- tion as to their views of an oath, was sufficiently clear and con- sistent to obtain credibility from the jury, who accordingly returned a verdict of manslaughter against the accused. At the magisterial inquiry which followed at the County Petty Sessions, the competency of the imbecile lads to give evidence was objected to by the solicitor for the defence, who quoted from Archbold the dictum that “ an idiot shall not be allowed to give evidence,” (this being founded upon “ Coke upon Littelton,” 6 B), and maintained that in the absence of any pre- cedent to the contrary “ a boy coming from an asylum for idiots could not give reliable evidence.” Fortunately the Bench was particularly strong in legal acumen, amongst the sitting magistrates being W. H. Higgin, Esq., Q.C., and E. B. Dawson, Esq., LL.B., both members of the Bar. The former, while admitting aprimd facie objection to the competency of a boy coming from an idiot asylum, said that, nevertheless, if he should be found on examination “to believe in the existence of a God, and to believe in a future state either of reward or punishment; if he knew what telling an untruth was, and if in kissing the Testament he knew what that kissing meant, although that boy did come from an idiot asylum still he might be a perfectly competent witness.” Mr. Dawson remarked “ that the authorities quoted by the solicitor for the defence were old ones, though they might be very good for the time in which they were written, when it was considered that a person suffer- ing from amentia could not be a credible witness nor his position improved ; but they knew that by the care which had been bestowed in recent years upon such persons, a degree of