He proof of any one accompaning him on such occasions. asked for the sum he wanted: the clerk filled it in, he signed it, and took the money. Surely no idiot could have done this, for he must have exercised thought at the bank, memory and judgment as to thing required; and moreover his conduct and demeanor could not at such times have been as described by the witnesses against the will, or, from the glaring colors in which his imbecility is depicted, it must have been discovered, and the business never could have been transacted at all. *** I consider these transactions of first-rate importance towards solving all the difficulties of this case: for here, after the lapse of about thirty years, the Court has the advantage of facts proved, with the dates duly affixed to them. There is, I must say, not the least evidence to show that in any one of these acts of business the deceased was assisted by any person whatever. The presumption is the other way, and to put these facts upon the very lowest basis on which they can be placed, they do utterly disprove idiocy or imbecility. I will simply repeat what I have already indeed said, that those who are afflicted with lunacy sometimes have the management of, and can manage, their pecuniary affairs-an idiot never." We have quoted from Dr. Lushington's judgment with a view of showing the practical test which must be applied in all these cases, and also by way of indicating the kind of evidence which will weigh most in such cases. The question of the testamentary capacity of such persons is not likely to arise often, as the disease is generally characterized by a want of all business capacity.' 95. Commissions of Lunacy in relation to Amentia.— Perhaps the subject which it is of most importance clearly to understand in relation to imbecility is that which refers to the protection which the State extends to those who are ununable to manage their own affairs. Not unfrequently persons of very weak mind become possessed of very large fortunes, and are quite incapable of performing the difficult work of judiciously expending their means or of managing their estates. But these results follow as often from reckless See Ingram v. Wyatt. 1 Hagg. 384, and 3 Hagg. 466-369. folly and foolish vice as from actual disease. Under both these sets of circumstances, it is for the interest of friends that the possessor of the property should be deprived of the power of squandering his estates, or of making what is by common metaphor called ducks and drakes with his money. But only where the incapacity is due to actual mental disease will the law allow of this deprivation,' and it is only in such a case that the Court of Chancery will appoint a committee of the person and of the estates. Unsoundness of mind must in all such cases be established to justify an inquisition. It would seem that that amount of weakness which will lay the individual open to undue influence, if any with base intentions should approach him, and which might be a reason for setting aside an instrument so extorted, will not of itself be sufficient to warrant an inquisition. In order to justify a verdict on a commission, the jury must be convinced that the individual is incapable of governing himself and his affairs by reason of unsoundness of mind. It is not enough to prove weakness of character, liability to impulse, or susceptibility to influence, good or bad; neither mere imprudence, extravagance, recklessness, eccentricity, or immorality, nor all these combined, will suffice, unless they can come to the conclusion that these are due to mental disease. Some cases will illustrate these principles. 157 Dr. Guy speaks of a case in which he was called to give evidence. "In this case the patient did not know how many pence there were in sixpence or a shilling, or how many shillings in a sovereign; could not perform the most ordinary operations of arithmetic; was ignorant of the date, the month, and the year; did not know the name of the reigning monarch; could not recognize persons whom he had seen and conversed with only four days previously. His attention was aroused with the utmost difficulty, and could not be fixed to any one subject. His look was vacant, his dress peculiar, his gait Per Lord Eldon, 19 Ves. 586.. * Per Master Warren, in Windham v. Windham, ante p. 192. See Collins in re, 8 Green Ch. (N. J.) 253. * Principles of Forensic Medicine, 2d edit., p. 165. awkward, his motions grotesque, his speech slow and hesitat ing. He used the same words and expressions again and again, repeated imperfectly the tasks and prayers of his childhood, and imitated the contortions of persons like himself, subject to fits. Such a case could present no difficulty either to medical witnesses or to the jury." This, however, can be said in very few cases, and the difference of the opinion of medical witnesses, and the incompetency of a jury to grapple with such cases have become familiar facts. "Mr. Edward Davis was born in low circumstances, and obtained an extremely imperfect education. He was noticed at school as being very shy of his companions, but was not considered stupid. He commenced business as a tea-dealer, and by indefatigable industry and attention to his business acquired property, but his early habits continued, and he was so habitually anxious and nervous that the night before the great tea sales at the India House he could not sleep. He was subject to dyspepsia, and even inclined to hypochondriasis. Finding himself, also, deficient in education, he endeavored to acquire information by reading what he took to be the best authors, as is natural with such persons. Was very vain of showing off his late acquisitions, particularly in the way of spouting. It appears that his mother, even at his advanced period of life[58] (twenty-seven) exercised a complete sway over him. She would not allow him to carry any money in his pocket, nor to spend the most trifling sum without her advice and permission. He dared not go to the play or leave the house for a few hours without asking her consent, and indeed she turned him out of his shop if he displeased her. Foreseeing that if he married she would be displaced from the management of his house and concerns, she prevented him from seeing young females. He made many attempts to emancipate himself from this control by offering her large sums of money if she would leave him, but they were all rejected. His health became more and more affected, and Mr. Lawrence, to whom he applied for advice, found his look wild and manner hurried. He used much gesticulation, and ex pressed a strong antipathy to his mother, and several relations who he supposed were combining against him. Mr. Lawrence considered him of unsound mind, but that the an tipathy to the mother was the chief delusion. The disease would be removed if he could be reconciled to her. "About this time his mother placed him under the care of Dr. Burrows, against whom it appears he entertained a strong aversion. He now consulted Dr. Latham on the subject of his supposed insanity. In the conversation with that physician he used much gesticulation and theatrical gestures; was apprehensive that any one should hear the narrative; spoke of his wealth, and occasionally quoted Byron and Shakespeare. He repeatedly insisted on Dr. Latham's opinion whether he was insane, and threatened vengeance if he did so think. Dr. Latham was inclined from this interview to doubt his sanity. "Mr. Davis shortly after left his house and lodged at an inn, where his appearance was wild, and he awoke the servant in the night with the idea that there were thieves in the house. He was, however, soon reissured, and went to sleep. "He was soon after confined in a private madhouse, and this confinement led to an application for his release. Several physicians examined him (Sir George Tuthill, D. Monro, Dr. Macmichael, and Dr. Sutherland), and the majority being of opinion that he was of unsound mind, the Chancellor granted a commission. "The testimony adduced was principally what has been already stated. The state of his affections was much dwelt on as a proof; so, also, his having purchased some property at an extravagant rate. [59 He expressed much indignation at his confinement, but was calm and correct in his conversation. It turned out on the trial before the commission that at the very time when he was about being confined he gave direction as to his business, and was indeed consulted by the very persons engaged in the application relative to the conduct of that business. The result of the commission was that Mr. Davis was restored to his liberty and property." This case is taken from Beck's "Medical Jurisprudence," 7th edit., p. 457, Dr. Beck having taken it from the "Quarterly Review," vol. 42, p. 345. [65] The general principle that proof of imbecility is only to be satisfactorily obtained, in many cases, from the careful investigation of the whole character and conduct of an individual, frequently extending over a long course of years, has already been illustrated, but the celebrated case of Mr. W. F. Windham will further illustrate this principle. There are also other reasons why this case should be somewhat minutely examined; yet as the inquiry lasted thirty-four days, as one hundred and forty witnesses were examined, and as the evidence which was received extended over the whole of the defendant's life, such an examination is incompatible with the limits of a work of this description. 66 This was a petition for an inquiry into the state of mind of William Frederick Windham, of Felbrigg Hall, Norfolk, instituted by his uncle, Major General Charles Ashe Windham, and fourteen other relatives. The order was made on the 23d November, 1861, and the inquiry commenced on the 16th December of the same year. The petitioners alleged that Mr. Windham labored under congenital deficiency of intellect; and it was upon the other hand asserted that Mr. Windham's mental condition, if below the normal standard, was due to defective education, and was not the result of congenital impairment of intellect. It was proved that he had been sent to Eton, but that he had profited very little by the means of education which were placed in his power. He was wholly unlike other boys, and when he came of age, in 1861, his conduct was such as to lead to a belief, in the minds of those who were acquainted with his position, that he was insane. It was further proved that he was utterly deficient in business capacity; that he was extravagant in purchasing articles, which he did not require, at exorbitant prices and in unnecessary quantities; that in consequence of such acts he incurred enormous debts, without having any reasonable prospect of being able to meet the demands when they came due; that he was guilty of gross indecency of language and conduct in public places, and that even the presence of ladies was not a restraint; that his appetite was voracious; that he associated constantly with people of the most indifferent character, and that three weeks after he came of age he married Miss Agnes Willoughby, a woman of disreputable character |