A letter to the Right Honorable Lord Ashley relative to the case Nottidge versus Ripley / by T. T. Wingett.

  • Wingett, T. T.
Date:
1849
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A letter to the Right Honorable Lord Ashley relative to the case Nottidge versus Ripley / by T. T. Wingett. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    4/16 (page 4)
    Another object which I have in view in addressing your Lordship is, to show the degree of judicial irregu- larity to be attached to the Lord Chief Baron, which, in my humble opinion, has been greatly overrated and mis- placed by those who have opposed his decision. Upon the 6th July last, the case of John Russell versus William Russell was tried in the Sheriff Court of Dumfries. This was an inquisition proceeding under a Brieve of Furiosity—which is equivalent to a commission de lunadco inquirendo in England — directed to the Sheriff of the county, ordering diligent and faithful inquisition to be made if William Russell, sometime watchmaker in Langholm, thereafter in the United States of America, and now and for sometime past an inmate in the Crichton Institution, Dumfries, be mcompos mentis&c. &c. Seven medical witnesses were examined : five of whom deposed that William Russell was of unsound mind and incapable of managing his own affairs. The two others affirmed the contrary, however, and deposed to his sanity and competency to conduct his own affairs. Amongst the five who affirmed his insanity was Dr Brov/ne, the resident physician of the Crichton Institution, whom the learned Sheriff eulogised as one of the most eminent men in his pro- fession, and known all over Europe as such. His evidence ran as follows that—William Russell was a patient in the Crichton Institution, having been entered on the 4th February, 1840. He was afterwards liberated upon the 4th March of the same year. He was afterwards brought back upon the 30th December, 1841, and has continued a patient ever since. Has had opportunities of seeing him daily, and frequently more than once a day. The state of his mind when first received was such that witness regarded him as insane, and still regards him in a state of insanity. He was so divested of reason when brought first, that he was seen to uncover his person even in the presence of females. He is essentially the same still, but now under discipline. Could not sav that he entertained any hopes of his