Keleher v. Putnam et al.

Trespass, for assault and false imprisonment. Plea,V&e general issue, with a brief statement. The plaintiff kept a small store in Manchester. Putnam, one of the defendants, was a county commissioner. The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff was afflicted with insane delusions, and disturbed her neighbors and the inmates of the house where she boarded. Physicians examined her, and said she ought to be cared for. Complaint being made to Putnam, he visited her, and, in answer to his inquiries, she informed him she had friends in Lawrence, Mass., and requested to be sent there.

He told her he would send a man with her. For that purpose he employed Reed, the other defendant, who called at the plaintiff’s store with a carriage, and told her he had come to take her to Lawrence. She manifested a disposition not to go, and Reed partly pushed and partly carried her into the carriage, which was driven to the depot, where they entered a car and were taken to Lawrence. There he delivered her to the city marshal, whom he informed of the circumstances. The court instructed the jury that if the ¿tested Putnam to take ngerous, or disturbing m the motive of placi he might be properly * ilic charge, the defen< ed. Verdict for the her to Lawrence, or if the neighborhood, and ¿ier in the custody of and nojU» rid lot liabj^and

A county commissioner has no ane persons by virtue of his office. The right erty is subject to some exceptions necessary to the' fare of society. At common law a private citizen, rant, may lawfully seize and detain another in certain cases. It is justifiable to hold a man to restrain him from mischief. It is lawful to interfere in an affray which endangers the lives of the combatants. Other instances are enumerated in Colby v. Jackson, 12 N. H. 526. Under the right of self-defence it is lawful to seize and restrain any person incapable of controlling his own actions, whose being at large endangers the safety of others But thi|¿s justifiable only when the urgency of the case demands immcdHrce, intervention. The right to exercise this summary remedy has its foundation in a reasonable necessity, and ceases with the necessity.; A dangerous maniac may be restrained temporarily until he can be safely released, or can be arrested upon legal process, or committedto the asylum under legal authority. But not every insane __~ _ _ "othing can be more harmless than some of'HH^^Kier^orms of"msanity. Nor is it any justification that the defa^Tants were, actuated by a desire to promote the plaintiff’s welfare. The right of personal liberty is deemed too sacred to be left to the determination of an irresponsible individual, however conscientious. The law gives these unfortunate persons the safeguards of legal proceedings and the care of responsible guardians. Davis v. Merrill, 47 N. H. 208; 22 Monthly Law Rep. 385; 6 South. Law Rev. (N. S.) 568; 3 Am. Law Rev. 193; Ray Insan., ss. 614-619. The legislature has established appropriate forms of proceeding for ascertaining their mental condition, imposing upon them, under the supervision of public functionaries, the restraint necessary to protect them from the imposition of others, and subjecting them to such treatment as may restore their reason. If the plaintiff requested to be taken to Lawrence, she revoked the license by resisting,the removal. The instructions given to the jury were erroneous. The question was, whether the plaintiff’s removal was reasonably necessary under the circumstances of the case. Cooley Torts 176-179; Addison Torts, e. 12, s. 2.