In re Thorp
| Decision Date | 03 August 1892 |
| Citation | 24 A. 991,64 Vt. 398 |
| Parties | In re THORP. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Franklin county court.
Petition by George W. Thorp for writ of habeas corpus. Granted.
F. W. McGettrick, for relator.
A. K. Brown, State's Atty., for the State.
The relator was, on the 19th day of March, 1891, an inmate of the asylum for the insane at Brattleboro, Vt.; and on that day Homer Goodhue and C?M. Ferrin, two of the three supervisors of the insane, ordered the relator discharged from said asylum upon condition that, in case it should become necessary to return him to the asylum, it might be done by a revocation of their order by one of them. The relator was thereupon discharged from the asylum. On the 21st day of August, 1891, said C. M. Ferrin revoked the order made by himself and said Homer Goodhue, and thereupon B. F. Kelley, sheriff of Franklin county, took the relator into custody for the purpose of returning him to the asylum. The relator brings this petition to procure his release from such custody.
R. L. § 2897, provides that the general assembly shall elect biennially three supervisors of the insane. No. 86 of the Acts of 1888 repeals this section, and provides for the appointment of such supervisors by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate. No. 48, § 4, of the Acts of 1882, as amended by No. 52, § 5, of the Acts of 1884, provides that idiots and persons non compos, who are not dangerous, shall not be confined in an asylum for the insane; and if any such persons are so confined, the supervisors of the insane shall cause them to be discharged. And the supervisors shall have authority to discharge conditionally such "incurable" persons as may, in their judgment, be safely and properly cared for in the place from whence they were committed; but such persons shall require only the revocation of their discharge by the supervisors for their recommitment to the asylum.
In discharging the relator from the asylum the supervisors could impose such conditions only as were authorized by the statute. The question passed upon by them related to the personal liberty of the relator; and when a majority of them had once adjudged that he be discharged, he could not again be deprived of his liberty except in the manner pointed out in the statute. The statute provides that when a person is discharged from an asylum conditionally, only a revocation of his discharge by the supervisors shall be required for his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mitchell Goslant v. Town of Calais
- Goslant v. Town of Calais
- Byers v. Solier, Superintendent of the State Hospital for the Insane
-
Daniels v. Hathaway
...given to three or more, the concurrence of a majority of such number shall be sufficient, and shall be required in its exercise. In Re Thorp, 64 Vt. 398, 24 Atl. Rep. 991, in construing this statute, the court held that the duties imposed and authority conferred by statute upon three superv......