Blanchard v. Burbank

• Decision Date: 31 March 1885
• Citation: 16 Ill.App. 375,16 Bradw. 375
• Parties: HENRIETTA BLANCHARDv.AUGUSTUS J. BURBANK ET AL.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

16 Ill.App. 375

16 Bradw. 375

HENRIETTA BLANCHARD

v.AUGUSTUS J. BURBANK ET AL.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.

March Term, 1885.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

ERROR to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. ELLIOTT ANTHONY, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed April 28, 1885.

This was an action of trespass, for false imprisonment, brought by Henrietta Blanchard against Augustus J. Burbank, Joshua W. Carr, Anna Ewart and the Washingtonian Home of Chicago. The declaration charges the defendants with assaulting the plaintiff and taking her forcibly and against her will from her residence in the city of Chicago to the Martha Washington Home, an asylum for distracted and inebriate persons, situated at Ravenswood in Cook county, and there detaining and imprisoning her, forcibly and against her will, and without the verdict of any jury or the order of any court, and keeping her there imprisoned for the space of four months, and taking and carrying away $500 of her money and converting the same to their own use.

The defendants pleaded not guilty, and at the trial the jury found defendants Burbank and Carr guilty and assessed the plaintiff's damages against them at $500, and found defendants Anna Ewart and the Washingtonian Home not guilty. Both the plaintiff and defendants Burbank and Carr moved for a new trial, but the court overruled said motions and rendered judgment on the verdict.

The bill of exceptions does not purport to set forth the evidence given at the trial, but recites as follows:

“That on the trial the plaintiff, to maintain the issues on her part, gave evidence tending to show that she came to Chicago in September, 1882, leased a house, furnished the same, and resided therein until December 28, 1882; that defendants Burbank and Carr were house renting agents, and as such, leased said house to the plaintiff; that on or shortly before December 28, 1882, plaintiff was ill and at times delirious; that defendants Burbank and Carr were at plaintiff's house December 28, 1882, and Burbank then said to plaintiff that he had a friend in the country near Chicago, who would take the plaintiff into her house for a short time and kindly treat and care for her, and advised the plaintiff to go to such place, and plaintiff, relying upon said statements, consented to do so; that said Washingtonian Home of Chicago at that time had and possessed certain buildings and premises near Ravenswood, two miles north of Chicago, known as the Martha Washington Home, in which inebriated and opium-eating women were kept and cared for; that between June 1, 1882, and January, 1883, forty-four women were received as patients into said Home, three of whom were received from the Bridewell or House of Correction of the city of Chicago, seven from the Rehobeth Mission, connected with the Chicago Police Court, ten from justices' courts of Cook county, and twenty-four by regular admission, without the order of any court, and that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the existence of any such institution until she was received therein; that from December 28, 1882, to March, 1883, defendant Anna Ewart, was the matron of said Martha Washington Home.

That on the afternoon of December 28, 1882, defendants Carr and Burbank again came to plaintiff's residence, and plaintiff, believing that she was to be taken to the private residence of the friend of Mr. Burbank, in the country, began to make preparations to go, but before such preparations were completed she became unconscious, and while so unconscious, and without her consent, was placed in a carriage by said Carr and taken to and placed in said Martha Washington Home, on the evening of December 28, 1882, while still unconscious and without her consent; that she was received into said Home by said Anna Ewart; that said Carr then said to said Anna Ewart that plaintiff was insane; that she was not taken before any court, and no order of any court was made for her commitment to said Martha Washington Home, and that she was kept and confined in said Martha Washington Home against her consent and will, from December 28, 1882, to February 22, 1883; that she daily complained to said matron, Anna Ewart, of her confinement, and at times was violent by reason thereof.

That one evening, about February 10, 1883, said Anna Ewart went into the room where plaintiff was, and ordered plaintiff to take off and give her the dress plaintiff had on, which plaintiff refused to do; that said Anna Ewart, then being the matron and in charge of said Home, called a man servant of said Home and ordered him to take the plaintiff to the ‘padded room;’ that said servant then forcibly threw the plaintiff down, then picked her up in his arms and forcibly and against her will carried her into a vacant room known as a ‘padded room,’ and locked her therein alone; that said room was padded about the wall; that iron grates or netting were placed and fastened across the doors and windows; that said room was very dark, the only light in the same being the light from the hall through the iron grating; that plaintiff resisted to the utmost, the efforts of said man to place her in said room; that she was kept in said room forcibly and against her will nearly all night; that immediately after the arrival of the plaintiff at said Home her trunk was unpacked by order of said Anna Ewart; that her hat, muff and cloak were taken from her room to the room of said Anna Ewart, and placed in a closet and locked therein, and the key taken and carried by said matron, and said cloak, hat and muff were kept locked up by said Anna Ewart during all the time plaintiff was in said Home; that the plaintiff had upon her, when she was taken into said Home, $800 in currency; that a few days afterward all of said money was taken from her person by order of said Anna Ewart; that said Anna Ewart afterward claimed that the amount of money which plaintiff had on her person was $326 only, and not $800, and that the plaintiff was repaid the sum of $326 by said Anna, and no more.

That the defendants, to maintain the issues on their part, gave evidence tending to show that the plaintiff had for a long time prior to December 28, 1882, been in the habit of taking chloral, and was then under its influence, ill, nervous, unfit to do business or properly care for herself, and without friends or relatives in Chicago; that at the request of plaintiff, defendant Burbank attempted to secure for her admission into St. Luke's Hospital; that being refused, he called on Dr. Emma Gaston, the then physician of said Martha Washington Home, who visited the plaintiff and advised her to go to said Home as the best place to secure proper care and treatment; that plaintiff consented to go there; that an order for her admission was written by Dr. Gaston, and that no one said anything to the plaintiff about going or being taken to a friend of his in the country; that all the money plaintiff had when taken into the Home was $326, and that such money was safely kept, and, less the amount paid for plaintiff's board, was repaid to her by the Washingtonian Home soon after she left said Home.

That the night plaintiff was placed in a padded room, she refused to go to bed at the hour for retiring under the rules of the Home; that the matron requested and insisted that she should undress and go to bed; that the plaintiff refused, became violent, screamed, threatened to kill herself, and finally said matron did order her taken to the padded room; that the man who took her to said room, put his arms around her and carried her to said room carefully, using no violence and no more force than was necessary to carry her there; that she was kept in said room only three or four hours; that plaintiff was kindly and properly treated in said Home, and gained in health while there; that she had free access with the other inmates to all parts of the house; that she could at any time during the day have gone outside by unlocking the front or hall door, the key to which was kept in the lock.”

Both the plaintiff and defendants Burbank and Carr have assigned errors and ask for a reversal of the judgment.

Mr. FRANK BAKER and Mr. JAMES G. MILLER, for plaintiff in error; as to damages, cited Drohn v. Brewer, 77 Ill. 280; McNay v. Stratton, 9 Bradwell, 216; Sedgwick on Measure of Damages, 6th Ed. 35; Jasper v. Purnell, 67 Ill. 358; Johnson v. Camp, 51 Ill. 219; 2 Addison on Torts, Banks' Ed. 699; Alcorn v. Mitchell, 63 Ill. 553.

Messrs. BANGS & KIRKLAND and Mr. JAMES FRAKE, for defendants in error.BAILEY, J.

As the bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence given at the trial, it will be presumed that sufficient evidence was heard to sustain the verdict. The principal burden of the argument presented by the counsel for defendants Burbank and Carr is, to show that, as to their clients, the verdict is contrary to the evidence; but as the conclusive presumption of the law is against them on this proposition, it is unnecessary for us to consider the arguments by which they seek to support it.

They also urge that certain of the instructions given, as they claim, at the instance of their co-defendants, were erroneous and prejudicial to them, and that the judgment should be reversed for that reason. Some seventeen instructions were given for the defendants, and it is now insisted that the first eight were given at the instance of...