Corcoran v. Jerrel
| Decision Date | 19 February 1919 |
| Docket Number | 32424 |
| Citation | 170 N.W. 776,185 Iowa 532 |
| Parties | ANNA CORCORAN, Appellant, v. B. O. JERREL, Appellee |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Mahaska District Court.--JOHN F. TALBOTT, Judge.
THIS is an action for damages claimed to have resulted from the publication of alleged libelous statements. The court, at the close of the evidence, sustained defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
C. W Prince, E. A. Harris, J. N. Beery, J. E. Westfall, and T. R Wilkie, for appellant.
Burrell & Devitt, and Dutcher, Davis & Hambrecht, for appellee.
On November 2, 1914, Daniel Corcoran, brother of plaintiff, caused an information, addressed to the commissioners of insanity, to be filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of Mahaska County, alleging that plaintiff was insane, and a fit subject for custody and treatment in the state hospital. A warrant was issued and delivered to the sheriff of said county, commanding him to take her into custody, and bring her before the commissioners. The return of the sheriff is not dated, but it certifies that he took plaintiff into custody. She was not, however, taken before the commissioners. Dr. J. C. Darranger, a practicing physician, was appointed by the board for that purpose, and made a personal examination of plaintiff and certified in writing to the commissioners that, in his opinion, she was a fit subject for custody and treatment at the hospital. The defendant, Dr. Jerrel, who had previously been employed as her physician, was subpoenaed, sworn, and examined upon the trial before the commissioners. His testimony was reduced to writing, and signed by him. He testified that, in his judgment, plaintiff was insane, and should be sent to the hospital for proper care and treatment. All of the above proceedings were had on the day the information was filed. On the following day, plaintiff was taken by the sheriff to the hospital at Mt. Pleasant, where she was confined for a period of about five months, when she was paroled to her mother; and later, she was discharged as cured. Plaintiff, in her petition, demands damages in a large sum, alleging that the statements uttered and signed by defendant before the commissioners were false, malicious, and libelous. The principal defense relied upon by counsel for appellee is that the statements complained of were made as a witness under oath upon the trial, and were, therefore, privileged.
Plaintiff seeks to avoid the plea of privilege upon the ground that no notice was served upon plaintiff of the proceedings before the commissioners, and that same were wholly void. It is conceded that no notice of the proceedings before the commissioners was served upon plaintiff, and that she was not taken before them. The statute does not require notice of the filing of an information alleging insanity, or of trial thereon, to be served upon the person whose sanity is to be investigated. Section 2265 of the Code provides that the accused shall be taken before the commissioners, unless they shall be of the opinion that to do so would probably be injurious, or attended with no advantage to the person alleged to be insane, in which case the hearing may be conducted without his presence. Any citizen of the county, or relative of the person alleged to be insane, may appear, and resist the application in person, or by counsel.
The record does not disclose an affirmative finding by the board that the condition of plaintiff was such that it would be injurious for her to be present at the trial, or that same would not be of advantage to her; but presumptively, such was the judgment and finding of the commissioners. While the legislature has not made provision for notice of the hearing before the commissioners, it has made ample provision for safeguarding persons thus accused. Section 2267 of the Code provides for an appeal from the finding of the commissioners to the district court, and Code Section 2268 requires that the accused be discharged from custody, pending such appeal unless the commissioners find that his condition is such that he cannot, with safety, be...
To continue reading
Request your trial