THE WELLINGTON LUNATIC ASYLUM INQUIRY.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2494, 18 March 1881, Page 2

THE WELLINGTON LUNATIC ASYLUM INQUIRY.

[By Telegraph.] Wellington, Match. 16. The case for the defence in connection with the Asylum inquiry is at length on the eve of completion. Yesterday afternoon witnessed the conclusion of Dr France’s examination, and the resumption of the examination-in-chief of Mr Whitchw, superintendent of the Asylum. Mr Whitclaw denied the allegations of the various witnesses called on the behalf of the complainant (J. H. Shaw)’ and endeavored to place a different comolexion on certain occurrences at the institution previously described. He was then cross-examined by Mr Chapman, who appeared for Mrs Kettle. The witness said—l had accounts of the sums of money which Miss Brigden obtained of me, and gave to Mrs Kettle, but cannot say whore they are now. I did not leave the whole of those accounts at the Asylum, but took some away with me, and could not be certain whether I still possess them. Perhaps I have mislaid them, perhaps lost them, perhaps burnt them since I left the Asylum. Mr Chapman—Do you mean to say you would burn accounts, relating to matters which are under inquiry before this Commission. Witness—The accounts are not under inquiry before this commission. Mr Chapman—The Commission is supposed to bo inquiring what has bccoino of the money due by the Government to your mother. The Chairman said the question was whether the superintendent actually burnt a written memo of the accounts referring to a matter that was being investigated. Witness—l could not say whether I have burnt any such memos. Certainly not intentionally. I shall endeavor to find them. Mr Chapman—Before to-morrow. Witness—l could not do that because I am not allowed to go to the Asylum. I did not say I took any accounts away from the Asylum. I said “ memoranda,” I have looked for them

already, and cannot find them. I left at the Asylum a statement of accounts showing moneys paid by mo to Mrs Kettle. I don’t think it would show the whole of the money paid to her by me. I may have omitted something. I have not a statement showing the whole of those payments, therefore I am not in a position to state the exact amount I paid to her within a considerable number of pounds. Mr Chapman—Then are we to understand that you have received all Mrs Kettle’s salary from time to time, and are not in a position to show how much you have given her ? Witness—That is so. Mr Chapman Have you received any other money belonging to your mother ? Witness—ls that before this Commission ? Mr Chapman Will you please an swer my question ? Witness —If it is before the Commission I will answer ; if not, I wont. Mr Chapman—Well, have you received a sum of £IOO or thereabouts from the executors of Lord Kinnaird ? Witness—lf that question is included in the Asylum inquiry I will answer ; if not, I won’t. Mr Chapman—You are unwilling to answer ? Witness —I refuse to answer. Mr Edwards —I advise the witness to answer. If he does not take my advice he must act for himself in the matter. (To witness)—you are injuring yourself, which I, as your counsel, won’t premit. If you refuse to answer, you must conduct the defence yourself. Mr Chapman then repeated the question. Witness—l have not received £IOO. Mr Chapman—Have you received any sum ? Witness—Mrs Kettle received it. Mr Chapman—Do you mean that Mrs Kettle received it into her own hands ? Witness —I gave her a cheque. Mr Chapman—On what bank ? Witness—The National. Mr Chapman—Has the cheque ever been presented ? Witness—Not by me. It stands to her credit entirely separate from any other account between us, but not in the bank. The Chairman—Then where does it stand ? Witness—ln my possession. She gave me the cheque back to take charge of. Shehasneverdemandedthe money (£9B) from me, and I am willing to pay it her as soon as she desires. Dr Skae told me that Mr Hall, the Premier, was satisfied that I had no impure motives in signing Mrs Kettle’s name to the vouchers. I am not aware that Mrs Kettle is without money at present, and is borrowing from her friends. There is a balance of a few pounds due to her on account of salary during the time she was laid up. There was an arrangement between herself and Miss Brigden that the latter was to receive £SO per annum for taking her place, so to speak, as matron. This arrangement was a family one, and not made known to the Inspector. To the Chairman (after a good deal of pressing)—l did not believe Miss Brigden was my cousin; she was cousin by adoption.—(Laughter). It was owing to an impression that she was my cousin that she was exceptionally treated at the institution, I never told my mother that I did not intend to pay her her raone}', nor that I would leave her destitute. When I saw her I asked her to sign a document received from the Audit department, acknowledging that she had received £286 13s 4d on account of vouchers which were not in her handwriting. I don’t remember asking Mrs Kettle to confirm my evidence, or to say Miss Brigden was my cousin. I told her she would be doing a great wrong to herself it she denied having said Miss Brigden was her niece. I could not say how much is due from me to Mrs Kettle on account of her salary. It might be anything from £1 to £25. Some remarkable particulars next transpired, regarding which the medical journal was again referred to, when the Chairman directed the Superintendent’s attention to an entry with regard to MTntosh’s seclusion in 1877, to which an addendum had been made in blackerlooking ink, making the entry read that M’lntosh had been kept in seclusion from day to day over a certain period “ except for the usual hours.” Witness said—l made the addition probably a week after the clerk made the entry itself. I frequently make additions of that kind. This particular entry has not been made since I heard MTntosh’s evidence at this inquiry. The Chairman—l have been looking through the book, and I found you have not found it necessary to supplement any extra except that in regard to MTntosh. Witness—This was an extreme case at that time, and a most particular one.

The Chairman—lsn’t it somewhat remarkable that the only mistake the clerk made was with regard to MTntosh.

Witness—l could not say, lam sure. Witness was here handed the journal, and asked to search for other entries to which additions had been made in this manner, and after some time discovered one to which the word “sash” had been added.

The commission adjourned-till Fridaynext, three days’ interval being neces* sary owing to pressure of judical business on Mr Shaw, E.M, the chairman. The only remaining witnesses for the defence are Warden Duggan and Dr Skae, inspector of Lunatic Asylums, the latter of whom will be called partly as an expert and partly as a deponent to facts.