Where a physician takes an unprofessional unmarried man with him to attend a case of confinement, and no real necessity exists for the latter’s assistance or presence, both are liable for damages; and it makes no difference that the patient, or her husband, supposed at the time that the intruder was a medical man, and therefore submitted without objection to his presence; or that the intruder accompanied the physician reluctantly on a dark and stormy night to carry a lantern or umbrella, and some instruments, and that there was only one room in the house. The Court remarked: “Dr. De May therefore took an unprofessional young unmarried man with him, introduced and permitted him to remain in the house of the plaintiff, when it was apparent that he could hear at least, |145| if not see, all that was said and done, and, as the jury must have found under the instructions given, without either the plaintiff or her husband having any knowledge or reason to believe the true character of the third party. It would be shocking to our sense of right, justice and propriety even to doubt that for such an act the law would afford an ample remedy. To the plaintiff the occasion was a most sacred one, and no one had a right to intrude unless invited, or because of some real and pressing necessity which it is not pretended existed in this case. The plaintiff had a legal right to the privacy of her apartment at such a time, and the law secures to her this right by requiring others to observe it and to abstain from its violation. The fact that at the time she consented to the presence of Scattergood, supposing him to be a physician, does not preclude her from maintaining an action, and recovering substantial damages upon afterward ascertaining his true character. In obtaining admission at such a time and under such circumstances, without fully disclosing his true character, both parties were guilty of deceit, and the wrong thus done entitles the injured party to recover the damages afterward sustained, from shame and mortification, upon discovering the true character of the defendants.” The action was brought by the wife [393]. If physicians, who have certified to the insanity of a person, have not made the enquiry and examination which the statute requires, or if their evidence and certificate in any respect of form or substance are not sufficient to justify a commitment to an asylum, the authorities should not commit, and if they do it is their fault and not that of the physicians, provided the latter have stated facts and opinions truly and have acted with due professional care and skill [394]. |146|