Schutte v. Schutte

• Decision Date: 21 September 1920
• Docket Number: 4143.
• Citation: 104 S.E. 108,86 W.Va. 701
• Parties: SCHUTTE v. SCHUTTE ET AL.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

104 S.E. 108

86 W.Va. 701

SCHUTTE v. SCHUTTE ET AL.

No. 4143.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

September 21, 1920

Submitted September 7, 1920.

Syllabus by the Court.

On an issue as to the sanity of a person under restraint of his liberty, on the ground of insanity, reasonable doubt as to his mental condition entitles him to liberation.

If, in such case, the mentality of the accused is not generally impaired, and he is admittedly able to transact business efficiently and to properly demean himself among his neighbors and friends, but he is alleged to be suffering from paranoia, a form of insanity characterized and evidenced by delusions, sometimes concealed, and laboring under a delusion as to his wife's demeanor and conduct, which, it is said impels him to irrational acts and conduct respecting her, and the evidence of the alleged delusion constituting, for the most part, the basis of expert evidence of his insanity, consists of the testimony of herself and her close relatives, uncertainty as to her motive in the lunacy proceeding, his mental soundness in general, inability of his friends and associates, some of them being physicians, to detect any indications of his insanity, and his abstention from pursuit or molestation of the wife, during a considerable period of practical freedom, after his commitment, are sufficient to raise such doubt.

Error to Circuit Court, Harrison County.

Habeas corpus by George Schutte against Henry M. Schutte and others to obtain petitioner's discharge from custody of a committee appointed by a lunacy commission to take charge of petitioner and his property. Judgment for defendants, and petitioner brings error. Reversed, and petitioner discharged.

J. E. Law, A. F. McCue, and Jonh C. Southern, all of Clarksburg, for plaintiff in error.

Carter & Sheets and Glenn F. Williams, all of Clarksburg, for defendants in error.

POFFENBARGER J.

Plaintiff in error, having been declared insane by a lunacy commission, in consequence of which a committee appointed for the purpose has taken charge of him and his property, sought his discharge and restoration to liberty on a writ of habeas corpus. Upon a very full hearing, the court below found that he was able to distinguish between right and wrong in everything except the subjects of certain alleged delusions, that his mental powers, generally speaking, are unimpaired, and that he is competent to transact business. But, being of the opinion that he is afflicted with progressive paranoia, a form of insanity, evidenced largely, if not solely, by certain beliefs and conduct respecting his wife, the court declined to discharge or liberate him, and to the judgment denying him relief he obtained this writ of error.

Unfortunately, the inquiry as to the mental condition of Schutte is embarrassed by domestic trouble. He believes his wife has been unfaithful to him, and she instituted the proceeding against him, in which he was adjudged to be insane. There is much evidence in the case tending rather strongly to prove that, before and at the time of the development or disclosure of his alleged mental impairment, her conduct was indiscreet, unguarded, and unbecoming in a wife. Her attitude or status as his wife is the subject of his alleged delusion, largely relied upon by expert witnesses as proof of the existence of paranoia. Her testimony, corroborated by other witnesses, tends to prove a rather sudden development of mental weakness or aberration, manifesting itself in abnormal and peculiar actions and declarations, accompanied by weeping without apparent occasion, and admissions of wrong impulses and purposes he could not restrain. Professing to believe, without reason, she protests, her unfaithful and unchaste, along with nearly all other women, she says he adopted a persistent and relentless policy of persecution toward her, in the course of which he made insulting and indecent accusations against her, found fault with her manner of dressing, injured a pair of her shoes, threatened to destroy all of her clothing, and gathered it up for that purpose, declared he would kill her, subjected her, on one or more occasions, to violence, secreted himself in positions which enabled him to overhear her conversations with others, accused her of keeping the window blinds up, so she could see other men and be seen by them, and otherwise conducted himself in an irrational manner.

For the most part, this conduct was observed only by herself and a sister, who resided with her. A sister-in-law, secreted in the house for the purpose by arrangement with the wife claims to have overheard a conversation in which he upbraided her about her manner of dressing and her use of paint and powder, and accused her of running around. This occurred about the day before the lunacy warrant issued on the wife's complaint. The wife and sister say he was secretive in this conduct, always ceasing on the approach of visitors, and threatening them with violence in case they should disclose it. The husband of one of his wife's sisters, D. S. Cain, says he acted strangely at his house on one occasion. Cain's wife testifies to the same incident, and Schutte's declaration that he had not treated his wife right, and that he wanted "to do things to spite...