People ex rel. Fullerton v. Gilbert

• Decision Date: 14 November 1885
• Citation: 3 N.E. 744,115 Ill. 59
• Parties: PEOPLE, etc., ex rel. FULLERTON v. GILBERT, Judge, etc.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

115 Ill. 59

3 N.E. 744

PEOPLE, etc., ex rel. FULLERTON

v.GILBERT, Judge, etc.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed November 14, 1885.

Appeal from appellate court, Second district.

Fowler Brothers, for appellant.

M. T. Molony, for appellee.

SHELDON, J.

This was a petition filed in the circuit court of La Salle county, for a writ of mandamus to HIRAM T. GILBERT, judge of the county court of La Salle county, commanding him to allow the relator, Richard J. Fullerton, an appeal to the circuit court of La Salle county from a finding that the latter was insane, in a proceeding had in the said county court. The petition alleges that in such proceeding to inquire into relator's alleged insanity he was brought before said county court, and a trial had; that having as many as 25 witnesses present to testify to his sanity, the court limited him to the calling of only five of such witnesses and two physicians; that after the jury had retired to consider of their verdict, and had been out some time without agreeing, the judge of said county court called the jury before him, and, in the absence of relator and his counsel, instructed the jury orally, and sent the jury back to consider further of their verdict; and that afterwards, the jury not agreeing upon their verdict, the said county judge again called the jury into his presence, and, after giving them further oral instructions, the jury again retired, and, under the direction of said county judge, took the relator with them to their room, and after their remaining about two hours with relator, and after further consideration, they returned their verdict, finding the relator to be insane, and a fit person to be sent to the state hospital, whereupon it was ordered by the said county court that the verdict be entered on record, that the clerk transmit a copy of the verdict to the superintendent of said hospital, and that the conservator of the relator pay all the costs of the proceeding out of the relator's estate; that thereupon the relator prayed an appeal to the circuit court of La Salle county, which was disallowed. The petition avers that the relator is sane. The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the petition, and dismissed the same. The appellate court for the Second district affirmed the judgment, and this appeal was taken to this court.

The sole question presented is whether the right of appeal from the finding and order in the county court exists in this proceeding to inquire into the alleged insanity of a person. That proceeding was had under chapter 85, Rev. St. 1874, p. 681, entitled ‘An act to revise the law in relation to the commitment and detention of lunatics,’ approved March 21, 1874, (in force July 1, 1874.) The act itself gives no right of appeal. But it is insisted that it is given by section 122 of the ‘Act to extend the jurisdiction of county courts, and to provide for the practice thereof,’ approved March 26, 1874,-in force July 1, 1874, (Rev. St. 1874, p. 344,)-it being that ‘appeals may be taken from the final orders, judgments, and decrees of the county courts to the circuit courts in all matters,’ with some exceptions which do not include this case. ‘Upon such appeal the case shall be tried de novo.’

Broad as is the language here used, we are not of the opinion that it embraces the matter of this proceeding in question. An appeal is not compatible with the nature of the proceeding. It respects an unfortunate class of persons who, from want of reason, are unable to take care of themselves, and where the state interposes for their protection and care. The proceeding is an...