MATTER OF DICKIE

MATTER OF DICKIE. N. Y. Supreme Court, First Department; Special Term, 1879. Inquisition of Lunacy. The recommendation of a jury in its verdict of sanity, on an inquisition of lunacy, that the alleged lunatic, from long confinement and its consequences, may require some temporary guardianship, is proper; and does not impair the legal effect of the verdict. In such a proceeding the supposed lunatic may appear and testify before the jury. Counsel may also sum up his case before the jury. Motion to confirm an inquisition of lunacy. » On December 9, 1877, a commission de lunático inquirendo was issued by Hon. John" R. Beady to William C. Traphagen, Esq., Edward Bradley,- M. D., and Mr. William A. Seaver, on the application of Mrs. Emma D. Van Vleck, a sister of Susan Dickie. ■ It was proved on the trial that on September 25, 1871, Miss Dickie was confined-in the Bloomingdale Asylum upon the certificates of Doctors William Han-ford White and Alfred C. Post. Dr. Post testified that she was, when committed, and continued to be, of unsound mind. Dr. White failed to answer the subpoenas. The resident physicians of the asylum, her brother and two sisters, testified that they approved of this proceeding and considered the asylum the proper place for her. The case for the prosecution was about closed when a conversation took place between Miss Dickie and the commissioners, which led them to doubt the evidence put in, and to ask the court that counsel be assigned her. The Hon. John It. Beady thereupon appointed Lewis L. Delafield, Esq., such counsel. The case was reopened. The prosecution re-examined their witnesses, and called as experts Doctors John C. Peters, McDonald and Charles W. Packard. Under the pressure of an order procured by Mr. Delafield, to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, Dr. William Hanford White testified: that at the time he certified to Miss Dickie’s insanity he had never prescribed for her, had never talked to her alone, had never seen her except in passing through her father’s house to his sick room ; that he was with her from five to fifteen minutes when he gave the certificate, that he could not give the month or the year, kept no record of such certificates ; that he was the physician and friend of Mrs. Van Vleck, was employed by her to give this certificate, was paid for it by her, and .could not tell how much he was paid. That within a month he had visited Miss Dickie at the asylum and found her insane ; one of the evidences being that she called him a devil, and said he ought to be in hell. In defense Mr. Delafield put Miss Dickie upon the stand. She was allowed to detail, against the exception of the prosecution, the story of her life for forty years, from her school days to date. She exhibited a tenacious memory, a fair education, and some knowledge of French, music and singing. She gave the story of her confinement. Said that she had always lived with her father, for whom she kept house. That ,her «ister, Mrs. Van Vleck, had coaxed her to leave him, offered great inducements to pay her a visit, which, against the advice of her friends, she accepted. Within a week the father was led to believe she was deranged; Mrs. Van Vleck procured the certificates and she was confined. Shortly after, the father became a lunatic, and died in that condition. Mrs. Van Vleck never saw her again for seven years, except once through a key-hole. Her story was corroborated by ladies who had been her schoolmates and intimate friends, for thirty years. Her letters, many of them written in the asylum, were put in evidence against the objection of the prosecution. Doctors William A. Hammond, Meredith Clymer and J. W. Ranney all testified without reserve that she was of sound mind. Mr. Delafield summed up the case to the jury against the exception of the prosecution. The jury found, by inquisition, “that the said Susan Dickie at the time of taking this inquisition is not a lunatic, is not an idiot, is not an imbecile, is not a person of unsound mind; and that she is capable of the government of herself and of the management of her lands, tenements, goods and chattels, and that she has never been either an idiot, lunatic, imbecile, or person of unsound mind. That the said Susan Dickie is not afflicted with mental alienation.” The inquisition then found her confinement in the asylum as aforesaid ; the death of her father, leaving her and his other children a. large fortune, and continued as follows : “ That all the said children approved of, and some of them were instrumental in, the confinement of the said Susan Dickie in the Bloomingdale Asylum for the period and in the manner aforesaid. That while the jurors find that the said Susan Dickie is- not of unsound mind, and is capable of managing her estate, at the same time, in consideration of her long confinement and compulsory withdrawal from the affairs of the. world, it .is possible that she may have lost some of the .power of resistance, and may .not at first be fully able to protect herself against imposture, or the machinations of ill-advised persons. That under these circumstances the jurors respectfully suggest that the court should nominate and appoint some suitable and competent person to watch over the' interests of the said Susan Dickie, to assist and advise her in the employment of suitable agents, for the- management of her estate, and in the expenditure of .her income, and in case of necessity to report to the court, in order- that further precautionary measures may be taken, if circumstances should show them to be required. " " " t • . . . . “The jurors further respectfully suggest that the evidence taken before them clearly establishes that no one of the brothers or sisters of the said Susan Dickie is a proper person to be nominated as aforesaid.” The motiondo confirm the inquisition was opposed for the following alleged irregularities, viz..: 1. The recommendation contained in the inquisition is inconsistent with its findings. 2. Mr. Delafield summed up to the jury. 3. Testimony was allowed under exception reaching back of the statutory limit of two years prior to the inquest. • . 4. " Miss Dickie was allowed to testify before the j ury. Lewis L. Delafield, for the motion. Edmund Randolph Robinson, and Alfred W. Lowerre, opposed. [MAJORITY — Brady, J.] Brady, J. The commissioners have displayed considerable interest and zeal in the investigation they were selected to conduct, and the court expresses its thanks for the faithful manner in which they have discharged their duties. Early in the progress of these proceedings, having been appointed by me, they advised me of their impressions that. Miss Dickie .was not insane or imbecile, and ^suggested that she should be protected by counsel. -1 sent for Mr.' Delafield,'and he readily. and cheerfully undertook the office. He was then invested with full power to act. He performed his duty with fidelity, displaying learning and. ability! The result is a declaration by the jury, after a.patient and thorough .trial, on which experts and acquaintances of hers were examined, that -.Miss Dickie was neither insane nor' imbecile.' It should be here stated that the inquisition is for the purpose of satisfying the ‘ com science of the court on the subject to which it relates. The finding mentioned, it is now said, should be set aside for irregularities ; .but the irregularities.complained 'of are in the interest of justice. She was conversed with before the jury. This is one objection. Her counsel was allowed to present his views of her case to the jury. This is another. The jury have suggested in their verdict that Miss Dickie may,- perhaps,' from her long.' confinement’, and. its consequences, require! some temporary guardianship ; this is another. . The objector is a sister of Miss Dickie, and therefore,, one standing in such relation to her as to warrant the belief that she would be exultant at her sister’s sanity and deliverance. Her interference seems to be for the purpose, however, expressed through her counsel, of having an. unqualified, decision on the .subject of her sister’.s: lunacy, so that she may be treated with, in perfect-safety.' Whether the extraordinary zeal thus displayed is commendable is a matter with which I have not to deal, but it is clearly unnecessary. ■ The jury have made an' absolute finding on the subject. The suggestion appended is natural and praiseworthy. Miss Dickie, from her long and-'unjust confinement, may require, guidance for a while, and as a late ward of this court she shall have the care of its protecting shield in every manner in which its jurisdiction can be invoked. Her counsel can seek, for her sake, and on her application, all its power in her behalf. This disposes of one objection. The appearance of Miss Dickie before the.jury was an important element in the investigation, and was decidedly proper. Her . demeanor and her capacity to understand and appreciate what was said were significant incidents. It was of her the jury were to deliberate, with the aid of proof to be submitted. The presentation of his views, by her counsel, was equally unobjectionable. In days gone by the services of counsel for the criminal were denied, but- the advance of civilization has swept away many of the relics of barbarism, of which this was one. Day by day the old and seemingly inexorable rules are crushed by the legal iconoclast, and better ones spring from the ruins. The legal doctrines' of one hundred years ago are in numerous instances utterly unfit for the intelligence of the present hour. Indeed, the Code brushed away a system of pleading and practice which was well adapted to legal science as such, but frequently subversive of justice, from errors in forms adopted by the pleader. Miss Dickie was entitled to have her case sifted to the last syllable, and her counsel would perhaps have failed in his duty had he not done what he did. The days for silence are pas hand gone, and speech, though we have too much of it at times, has become the ally of progress, and therefore of greatness. Men speak, and the press speaks, and good comes out of the custom. The time had arrived, too, when both should speak of our system relative to the examination, commitment, treatment and care of the imbecile and insane. This case suggests grave considerations. ' It appears that attendants, male and female, employed in the institution where Miss Dickie was confined—and doubtless it is so in others—become nervous and-are so far affected as to labor under delusions. Indeed it is well known that physicians in care of lunatics have themselves lost their reason from the effect of the duties incumbent upon them, and the association by which they were surrounded, and thus a diseased mind has had the superintendence and superior control of the lunatic until the infirmity was discovered. These incidents and the dictates of humanity seem to demand that a person sent to an asylum should, for a period of probation, be kept separate and apart from others similarly disturbed—isolated from the general community until the result is demonstrated that at least great doubts of a recovery exist. The surroundings should be of sane and not insane persons, because the inference is fairly warranted that temporary insanity is not lessened by contact with insane persons. It is also quite apparent that some system of personal supervision should be devised by which persons confined as lunatics should be examined by competent persons other than those who, accustomed to regard them as insane, would approach them with settled convictions or decided impressions of their mental condition. This procedure should bb at stated intervals. If this were a feature of our system, is it possible that Miss Dickie would have remained so long in confinement % There is another suggestion arising from this case and the results, and that is, that the laws should require a trial such as had herein, or a similar one, within thirty days after a subject is committed to any asylum. At present two physicians may certify that a person is insane, and on their approval by the court the supposed lunatic is sent to the asylum. His mental condition may be such as to demand instant confinement, it is true, but the right to treat him thus should be determined by some more formal and exhaustive process before his restraint should be declared indefinite. The laws require amendment. These suggestions are made from a' practical, not scientific, point of view. I make no pretense tó a scientific understand-. ing of insanity, its causes, manifestations or cure; but I am well advised, from my experience in the criminal branch of this court, that gentlemen learned on the subject differ very much about individual cases. The interposition of practical treatment in many things may aid the cause in which • they are believed to be interested,"viz., the 'restoration- óf • the mind. It cannot be denied, assuming the finding of'the 'jury in Miss Dickie’s case to be correct, that her long imprisonment is a disgrace to our boasted civilization, intelligence, science and justice, and imposes" upon us the duty of creating every possible preventive against a similar outrage, and disgrace. ' It is impossible, almost, to believe that it was the result of design, singly or by combination ; but if it were, the persons engaged in it should be severely punished. The subtle thing called insanity may bafflefeven vigilant'experience in the best directed efforts to discover'its existence;"and- bepresent though it would seem not to be. In this case we may be deceived; but applying the tests which human ingenuity-has" devised, "the declaration is legally and properly’ made ‘ that Miss Dickie is neither insane nor imbecile. " The objections aré therefore overruled ; the report of the commissioners accepted arid confirmed, and the supposed lunatic discharged from all custody and restraint. ' .. Since the preparation of this opinion I have been advised that a bill has been introduced in the legislature'making provision for a trial such as suggested heréin,: and the "reform-has therefore .begun. It-‘is-’to be hopéd" that: there will be an immediate general revision of the laws,' and a ’wiser and more practical system adopted.. Order entered accordingly. • - . = .. There was no appeal. See People ex rel. Garling v. Van Allen, 55 N. Y. 31.