THE WELLINGTON LUNATIC ASYLUM INQUIRY.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2479, 1 March 1881, Page 4

THE WELLINGTON LUNATIC ASYLUM INQUIRY.

FBy Telegraph.]

Wellington, Feb. 2G

At the Lunatic Asylum inquiry Mrs .Kettle, Mother of Superintendant Whitelaw, swore she did not sign receipts for her salary, or authorise anybody to do so, nor had she received money due. She asseverated that the pay-sheets for her salary were never taken to her for signature, and that she never authorised anyone whomsoever to sign them on her behalf. She added : John (her son) knew very well that Miss Brigdon was not her niece, and I did not contradict the rumor, because I thought she would have more weight with the servants. If she were produced in Court, and swore that she was asked to sign the paysheet by me it would be an untruth. My health has been pretty good. It has certainly never been such as affects my eyesight to such an extent as to make me fancy on several occasions that things crawled over my bed at night. I have been compelled to give evidence at this inquiry, having been subpoened. It is not a very pleasant duty to perform. Dr Gillon, resident surgeon of the Wellington Hospital, said—Before I came to the colony I have had professional acquaintance with lunatic asylums in South Wales. A superintendant who is not a medical man would be guilty of impropriety in visiting female patients alone. It would be improper to put comparatively sane patients with the worst cases, either for punishment or anything else. It would be calculated to throw them back. It would be_ decidedly improper to' put on a straight jackct’for 14 days on a patient who refused to break stones. There were no straight jackets in the asylum I was connected with. When violent, patients were put in padded rooms, where they could do themselves no harm. They were also given sedatives, and occasionally the cold douche. I never heard of patients being punished at Horae. Correction was used in certain cases, but it was not punishment ; it was merely medical treatment.

George Richards, cabinetmaker said —About five months ago I was employed at the Asylum for about three days. A patient named Max Alexander, a perfectly harmless man, was left sitting in a chair at a table in the hall from 8 o’clock in the morning till 2 in the afternoon. He was saturated with water and the floor around him was wet. The weather was exceedingly cold that day. An attendant ordered two fellow patients to put on Alexander’s coat, as it was intended to take the latter out for a drive. They were unable to get it on for some minutes, and when Alexander fell on the floor, his fellow-patients kicked and struck him while the attendant, who was cutting up some tobacco, looked on and grinned. Alexander was helpless, and made no complaint. They then seized him by his arms, and dragged him like a bag of chaff to the cab. Threequarters of an hour after be came back, and was placed m the same position. The treatment he received was horrible. A companion of mine named Lower was an eye-witness of this affair. Adam Johnson, coalman, who was confined in the Asylum for two years and a-half, and released a fortnight ago, deposed that he had been ill-treated by three warders named Hooligan, Little, and Harvey. Agnes Robinson, aged 18, said ; I was 17 years of ago when I was first sent to the Asylum, and left 11 months ago. I was ill-treated by the female attendants. They kicked me till I was black and blue. Once I was put in a cell, where I was left for two nights without any bed or anything to eat. They then brought me out, and held me doff uin a cold bath till I was nearly dead. I was so stiff and cold that I could hardly move. Whitelaw once seized me in a brutal manner and put me in a cell. Mrs Higinfield, a patient was once thrown down on the floor by Miss M'Alroy and Miss Maloney, who then knelt on her.

Cross-examined—lt was only when I was ill that they ill treated me. They said I was violent. John G. Anderson, clerk in the Audit Department, said —I have examined the voucher for Mrs Kettle’s salary. Of the 32 vouchers, 17 appear to be signed by Miss Brigdon, judging from the signatures to her own voucher, and the remaining 15 I should say have been signed by Whitelaw. I attended the Asylum recently,and saw Whitelaw in the presence of his mother, when I asked for an explanation. I was instructed to do so by the Auditor-General. Whitelaw at once admitted that he had signed the salary abstract for Mrs Kettle. I asked him why he had done so, and he told me his mother had verbally authorised him to sign for her as she was quite unable to sign for herself. I inquired if he was quite sure that Mrs Kettle could not sign for herself, and he said, “Yes.” Happening to have one of her signatures in my possession, I asked him to explain that. He said it must have been done very lately. I did not express my dissatisfaction with the explanation of Whitelaw, but I felt thoroughly dissatisfied, nevertheless. His statement at this enquiry was to the effect that the “explanation he afterwards gave my superiors satisfied them.” I did not correct it. I asked Mrs Kettle several questions, to see whether she had authorised him to si"n for her. She seemed to be in a great state of agitation and burst out crying. I could not get her to answer the whole of my questions. She exclaimed, “ Oh, how 1 have been used.” There is a printed form published by the Treasury, to enable a person to receive another person’s salary. These forms are sent to the Audit Office, and the Audit Office will not pass the salary in the absence of such authority. The form has to be signed by the person who is entitled to the money. That had not been done in this case. Under no circumstance will the Audit Department allow one person to write another person’s name. In the case of a person who cannot write, a cross properly attested, ie sufficient. The Chairman—How do yon account for the fact that the matter went on as long as it ciid without the Audit Department raising any objection ? Witness— Being in a female bandwriting the signatures were not noticed, but were passed. The Chairman —But 15 of them were signed by Mr Whitelaw, you say ? Witness—The 15 other ones are certainly not altogether like Mr Whitelaw s handwriting, but on close examination, and by comparing them with his own signature, you can spe that they arc his. At first sight you might pass them with-

out thinking they were in Mr Whilelaw’s handwriting. They arc not in a female’s handwriting. The first 11 are signed apparently by Miss Brigdon. She first drew salary on March 1. 1878. and continued In do so up till December of tiic same year. Then she evasod to draw salary till a few mouths ago v, lien she was taken on again. The witness was not cross-examined. 'The complainant here announced that he would close his case, but would reserve his right to adduce rebutting evidence if he thought necessary to do so. Mr Chapman said he did not wish to call any witnesses. The Commissioners then .adjourned till Thursday next at 2 p.rn., when Mr Edwards will be called upon to begin the superintendent’s defence. In the meantime a transcription of the evidence was ordered to be placed in the custody of the Clerk of the I«.M. Court. —“ Otago Daily Times ” correspondent.