Packard v. Packard
18 January 1864, the jury reached its verdict. “We, the undersigned, Jurors in the case of Mrs. Elizabeth P. W. Packard, alleged to be insane, having heard the evidence… are satisfied that she is sane.” Judge Starr ordered, “… that Mrs. Elizabeth P. W. Packard be relieved of all restraints incompatible with her condition as a sane woman.” (Packard v. Packard, pg. 40)
Neither the judge nor jury addressed the question of whether, had Mrs. Packard been found insane, Mr. Packard had the right to confine her at home rather than in an asylum.
Both the plaintiff, Reverend Theophilus Packard, Jr. and the defendant, Elizabeth Parsons Ware Packard remained married but estranged for the remainder of their lives. Elizabeth Packard wrote, lectured, and lobbied on behalf of the rights of women and those alleged to be insane; she was instrumental in changing the commitment laws in four states and in passing a married women's property law in Illinois. Whereas the Theophilus Packard “was educated in the Calvinistic faith… He is cold, selfish and illiberal in his views, possessed of but little talent, and a physiognomy innocent of expression. He has large self-will, and his stubbornness is only exceeded by his bigotry” (Packard v. Packard, pg. 14). The description of the plaintiff should only suggest the reasons to his unconscious decision. …show more content…
Plaintiff obviously contested the defendant’s religious morals. She believed slavery to be a national sin, and the church and the pulpit a proper place to combat this sin. This, in brief, was the points in her religious creed that were combatted by Mr. Packard, and were denominated by him as “emanations from the devil,” or “the vagaries of a crazed brain.” (Packard v. Packard, pg.
18 January 1864, the jury reached its verdict. “We, the undersigned, Jurors in the case of Mrs. Elizabeth P. W. Packard, alleged to be insane, having heard the evidence… are satisfied that she is sane.” Judge Starr ordered, “… that Mrs. Elizabeth P. W. Packard be relieved of all restraints incompatible with her condition as a sane woman.” (Packard v. Packard, pg. 40)
Neither the judge nor jury addressed the question of whether, had Mrs. Packard been found insane, Mr. Packard had the right to confine her at home rather than in an asylum.
Both the plaintiff, Reverend Theophilus Packard, Jr. and the defendant, Elizabeth Parsons Ware Packard remained married but estranged for the remainder of their lives. Elizabeth Packard wrote, lectured, and lobbied on behalf of the rights of women and those alleged to be insane; she was instrumental in changing the commitment laws in four states and in passing a married women's property law in Illinois. Whereas the Theophilus Packard “was educated in the Calvinistic faith… He is cold, selfish and illiberal in his views, possessed of but little talent, and a physiognomy innocent of expression. He has large self-will, and his stubbornness is only exceeded by his bigotry” (Packard v. Packard, pg. 14). The description of the plaintiff should only suggest the reasons to his unconscious decision. …show more content…
Plaintiff obviously contested the defendant’s religious morals. She believed slavery to be a national sin, and the church and the pulpit a proper place to combat this sin. This, in brief, was the points in her religious creed that were combatted by Mr. Packard, and were denominated by him as “emanations from the devil,” or “the vagaries of a crazed brain.” (Packard v. Packard, pg.