834

MEDICINE AND THE LAW.

Bex v. Holt.

THE Court of Criminal Appeal had recently before itthe case of F. R. Holt, who was convicted of themurder, near Blackpool, of a woman with whom he hadbeen intimate. The facts have been so widely publishedthat they need not be gone into here. An unusualfeature of the case was an attempt on the part of thedefence to prove an alibi, and as an alternative defenceto show that at the time when the crime was committedHolt was insane, as insanity is defined for the purposesof the criminal law. As to the alibi and any question ofwhether Holt in fact shot Mrs. Breaks on Dec. 23rd,1919, on a sand dune near Blackpool, little or nothingwas heard in the Appeal Court. Among the grounds ofappeal it was argued that evidence had been wronglyadmitted upon points not connected with the pleaof insanity, but the court was not satisfied as

to any of the objections thus raised, and apartfrom them the main question of the conditionof the prisoner’s mind when he committed the act ofmurder was argued at length. Further than this, freshevidence as to his mental condition was tendered andallowed to be given. Any objection on the part of theCrown was withdrawn at the suggestion of the LordChief Justice, who pointed out that in the circumstancesthe court had a discretion to admit fresh evidence.Lord Reading was further of the opinion that it wasdesirable both from the point of view of the Crown andin the public interest that such evidence should besifted in open court. The fresh witnesses showed thatHolt had had a female cousin certified and confined ina private lunatic asylum, and that his paternal grand-father had suffered from delusions. A medical manwho in the month of December had played cardswith him had noticed his lack of power to con-

centrate his mind upon the game. This, however, ’’

was shortly after four days spent with Mrs. Breaks andthe prisoner had been a winner at whist, poker, andbridge. More important medical evidence was givenby Dr. B. Day, who had treated him in 1916 or early in1917 for syphilis in its secondary stage, and had con-sidered him then to be suffering from shell-shock. Dr.

Day’s application for a lumbar puncture to decide thepresence or absence of general paresis was refused. Incross-examination of this witness it was mentioned thatHolt had since been examined for insurance apparentlywithout syphilis being detected. Two other medicalwitnesses spoke of conditions observed in 1915 and 1919,and Dr. D. Blair, called as an expert who had heard theevidence given in the Court of Criminal Appeal, was ofthe opinion that Holt was suffering from delusionalinsanity before the date of the murder, and that at thetime of the murder he was suffering from generalparalysis of the insane. Dr. P. Smith was of the

opinion that Holt suffered from delusional insanityand was not of sound mind on Dec. 23rd, but thatthe indications were not manifest before Dec. 25th.In an argument founded upon the evidence, of whichthe above is a bare outline, and upon that given at thetrial, where at first an attempt was made to show thatthe prisoner was unfit to plead, Sir E. Marshall Hall,K.C., sought to go further than the well-known rule in1IcNaughton’s case. He argued in effect that if a

man through no fault of his own had an impairedmental condition affecting his will power he should bedeemed insane in respect of a crime from which normalwill power would have enabled him to abstain. Inother words, that, knowi the nature and quality ofhis acts and that he was doing wrong, he might beexcused on the ground that he was urged by an

irresistible impulse. In delivering the judgment of thecourt, dismissing the appeal on every ground, the LordChief Justice pointed out that the question of irresistibleimpulse had been left to the jury by Mr. Justice Greerat the trial, and that they had not accepted the con-tention of the defence as to its existence. On the

question whether the Court of Criminal Appeal, havingheard the fresh evidence adduced, should say that theprisoner was insane when he killed Mrs. Breaks, hislordship said that the new evidence had taken the case

no further than before. It was based on hypotheticalspeculation and the rule in McNaughton’s case mustbe observed. It was not enough that medical witnessesshould say that they considered the prisoner insane.

’Vegligence and Compen8ation.On April lst, in Edinburgh, the First Division of the

Court of Session gave judgment in two cases wherecompensation was claimed under the Workmen’s Com-pensation Act, in which there was negligence on thepart of the appellants. In both instances the personsinjured were miners, and the circumstances were

similar. Both had prepared blasting shots, and whenthese failed to explode up to time, the workmenreturned within the period prescribed by the regulationsas being unsafe, with the result that the shots went offand they sustained injuries, in one case fatal. Althoughthere was negligence the court held that the appellantswere entitled to compensation. The decision is of interestas it is apparently directly contrary to that given in theHouse of Lords on March 22nd in the case of Robertson v.Woodilee Coal and Coke Company, Ltd. Robertson waskilled by an explosion in a pit, which resulted from hisstriking a match. His widow was held to be unentitledto compensation, as the case was one in which thedoctrine of "added risk" was exemplified. The accidentresulted from his own action, with full knowledge ofthe prohibition against it, and of the danger his actionentailed.

’ ,

The City Coroner’8 T’iew8 on Jurie8.Dr. J. F. Waldo has issued his annual report as

coroner for the City and Southwark for 1919, which, asusual, contains some interesting facts and statistics,accompanied by opinions candidly expressed withregard to them. It is to be observed that the 35.5

inquests held in the City and Southwark in 1919 exceedby 46 the corresponding number for 1918. This appre-ciable increase, presumably to some extent, is due tothe greater volume of traffic caused by reviving business.At all events, it is greater in the City than in South-wark, 158 deaths having been inquired into in theformer as against 132 in 1918. Investigation satisfiedDr. Waldo in 79 cases that inquests were not required.He states that post-mortem examinations were orderedin 85 per cent. of the inquests held by him.

Among the comments upon matters concerning hisoffice expressed by the learned coroner, we are a littlesurprised to read a rather confidently expressed recom-mendation that the power to hold inquests without’juries, given by the Juries Act, 1918, should cease nowthat peace is established. We were under the im-

pression that coroners were, on the whole, well satisfiedwith the less cumbrous procedure involved in the

change, and that as they are obliged to have juries.to take some of the responsibility off their shouldersin cases of suspected murder or manslaughter theywould wish matters to continue as they are. Wealso believed, and, indeed, do believe, that in-

telligent and busy citizens liable to be summonedas jurors have no wish to see. repealed an Actadmittedly passed in the emergency of war. Withthose not intelligent and habitually without occupation,we should have thought that a coroner would gladlydispense. Dr. Waldo declares himself quite satisfiedwith the quality of the jurors whom he obtains inthe City, and therefore maintains that a fairlyintelligent jury, assisted ’and directed by a coroner,its a far better tribunal for the elucidation of truththan a coroner single-handed. This may be so tosome extent and in some cases. As a rule,however, we believe the coroner, particularly themedical coroner, would be fully equal to theoccasion. Juries of the more intelligent kind are

obtainable in precisely those places where theirmembers can least be spared from their businessoccupations. A man with a family to maintain, a busi-ness to reconstruct, and high prices and high taxes tocontend with may still have to sit on a jury, if a caseof possible murder or manslaughter requires his verdict.He would probably be glad to be freed even from thisinfrequent duty. He is ready, we feel confident, toleave the medical coroner, assisted by the medicalwitness, to clear the matter up.