Volume 1

Wharton and Stille's medical jurisprudence.

  • Francis Wharton
Date:
1873
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Wharton and Stille's medical jurisprudence. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    59/924 page 29
    this of insanity. But the law only regards it when it renders the subject non compos mentis, or that condition of the mental faculties exists which renders the subject incapable of acting rationally in the ordinary affairs of life. It is that degree of mental derangement which renders the person affected inca¬ pable of understanding the effect and consequences of his acts. It need not be of that total derangement, or rather obliteration of the faculties which prevents the party from reasoning on all subjects. Hor yet the wrant of power at all times, upon correct premises, to arrive at accurate conclusions, but it is that want of power which prevents a person from reasoning or understanding the relation of cause and effect.” § 33. The existence of idiocy, when that alone is set up, can be determined by comparatively simple tests. If the pre¬ tended idiot can be shown to have intelligently performed acts of business during the period in which idiocy is claimed to exist, the allegation of incompetency falls, unless fraud or constraint be shown. Thus in a case determined in Doctors’ Commons in March, 1852,(6) Dr. Lushington said, “Before entering upon this branch of the case, I must bear in mind what the nature of the case set up in opposition to the will is. I must repeat that it is not lunacy—it is not monomania—it is not any species of mental disorder, the symptoms of which it may, at periods, be difficult to detect; but the case presented is that of idiocy or imbecility, the characteristic of which is permanence, with little or no variation, though often, in case of idiots, it does sometimes happen that there will be a greater degree of excitement demonstrated than at other periods. How is such a case to he met? I apprehend, to meet it and to show that such a state of things did not exist at any given period, proof of acts of business are most important evidence. Many acts of business could possibly be done by a lunatic, and the lunacy not detected ; but it is scarcely possible to predicate the same of an idiot or lunatic, or an imbecile person. I shall look, therefore, in the first instance, to the acts of busi¬ ness. It is proved by Mr. Falkner, that the deceased kept an account with Messrs. Tuckwell, at Bath, for four years, from (&) Banatyne v. Banatyne, 16 Jur. 864, 14 English Law and Eq. R. 581.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3