solutely necessary, and for the benefit of the lunatic's estate, to expend sums of money in rebuilding a farm house, it was ordered that the sum expended in rebuilding should be considered and taken as a charge upon the lunatic's real estate (x).

A discretion is sometimes given by the Lord Chancellor to a Master in Chancery, with respect to the management of the concerns of a lunatic. Thus, it was referred to the Master to inquire and certify whether a good defence could be made to a bill filed in Chancery against the lunatic, and in case the Master should be of opinion that a good defence could be made to the suit, then the Lord Chancellor ordered the committee of the estate to defend the same accordingly; but, in case the Master should be of opinion that a good defence could not be made thereto, then the committees were to be at liberty, with the approbation of the Master, to enter into such compromise with the plaintiffs in the suit as the Master should approve of, and to make and execute, with the approbation of the Master, all such acts and deeds as he should deem necessary with reference thereto, and that, in all minor matters which might occur in the affairs and concerns of the lunatic, in which the Master might not think it necessary to have any specific directions, the committees were to be at liberty from time to time to submit matters to him: and the Master was to be at liberty to allow and direct what should be done in all such cases, and that the committees should be at liberty either to act upon his opinion or advice, without further order, or to obtain the Master's report from time to time, as he should think fit (y).

In another case, there was a reference to the Master to inquire and certify whether it would be for the benefit of the lunatic and her estate, to accept a particular sum in full satisfaction of the claim carried in before the Master in a cause in Court (~). The report, stating that it would be proper to accept the sum offered, was confirmed; and it was

(x) In re Harris, 9 Aug. 1827.
(y) In re Sir G. O. P. Turner, 9

Aug. 1827.

(z) In re Bird, 9 March, 1827.

ordered, that the committee should be at liberty to carry the compromise into effect, and to execute such deeds and other instruments approved by the Master, as might be requisite (a).

In another case, the Master was directed to inquire whether it would be proper and for the benefit of the lunatic's estate, to defend any actions or suits commenced against him; and whether it would be proper to institute any and what suits or proceedings at law or in equity, to recover back sums of money paid by the lunatic; and whether it would be proper to refer certain demands against his estate to arbitration, and upon what terms and conditions; with liberty for the Master to state special circumstances touching the inquiries directed to be made by him (b).

SECTION XI.

Of superseding the Commission of Lunacy.

THE only lawful object of a commission of lunacy being the protection of the person of the lunatic, and the management of his property during the continuance of his mental incapacity, it necessarily follows, that, on his return to a sound state of mind, and capacity to manage his own affairs, he is entitled to have the commission superseded, and to have his property restored to him, with an account of its application by his committees.

A petition for such purpose should be in the name of the person who has recovered a sound mind, and not in the names of his nearest relations (c.) When such a petition is presented, a time will be appointed for the appearance of the party before the Chancellor, in order that he may be

(a) In re Bird, 23 April, 1827. See form of a petition in a case of this kind, in the Appendix.

25.

(b) In re Baker, 20 June, 1827. (c) Ex parte Stanley, 2 Ves. sen.

examined; but, without strong evidence of his sanity and capacity, given by medical men, or other persons competent to form an opinion upon the subject, the Chancellor will not supersede a commission (d).

In one case, the lunatic having recovered, and been examined in Court, the commission was superseded on the petition of the lunatic and his two committees; and their recognizance was ordered to be vacated, the lunatic declaring himself satisfied with the account they had rendered (e). In another case the commission was only suspended for some months, to see if the party was perfectly recovered, because he had often relapsed, and had been found by the inquisition a lunatic with lucid intervals (ƒ).

In a recent case, where a party who had been found a lunatic by inquisition stated in his petition, that he had perfectly recovered his sound mind for four years past, and was desirous that the commission should be superseded, and the costs of all parties taxed and paid :-it was ordered, that the commission of lunacy issued in the matter should be superseded, and that the Master should tax the costs of all parties in the lunacy, which were ordered to be raised by a sale of part of the lunatic's stock standing in the name of the Accountant-General in trust in the matter, who was ordered to transfer the stock belonging to the lunatic into the joint names of himself and his wife, and to pay the dividends which were due thereon to the husband (g). And sometimes, in the order for superseding a commission, the accounts of the committees will be directed to be passed, and the costs in the lunacy, after having been taxed, to be paid by the lunatic out of his estate, in case the balance in their hands be insufficient for that purpose (h). A commission may also be superseded on the recovery of the lunatic, before the appointment of committees (i).

(d) See Harr. Ch. Pr. by Newl. 383; 1 Coll. on Lun. 324; ante, p.

81.

(e) Ex parte Bumpton, Mos. Ch. Cas. 78. (f) Ex parte Ferrars, Id. 332.

See Anon. 1 Vern. 155.

(g) In re Walker, 31 March, 1828. (h) In re Wells, 14 Dec. 1830. (i) In re Edwards, 26 March, 1814.

When on an application to supersede a commission of lunacy, the evidence respecting the sanity of the party is conflicting, an issue will sometimes be directed, even though the commission is supported by two former verdicts, if the case is of such a nature as to render it proper to be again submitted to the consideration of another jury (k).

Lord Chancellor Eldon observed, that there was no part of the jurisdiction in lunacy more unpleasant, and requiring greater caution, than that of determining when a commission shall be superseded; for, though a safe conclusion may upon evidence be arrived at in establishing lunacy, it is very difficult to determine when the mind is restored; depending upon the circumstance, whether the party has been led to those topics upon which it was affected. And his Lordship said, that he could not agree to Lord Thurlow's proposition, either with respect to property, or with reference to an application to supersede a commission, that, where lunacy is once established by clear evidence, the party must be restored to as perfect a state of mind as he had before, to be proved by evidence as clear and satisfactory. For, there might be frequent instances of men restored to a state of mind inferior to what they possessed before; and yet it would not be right to support commissions against them. On the other hand, where lunacy had been satisfactorily established, particularly where there is a tendency to do great personal harm to others, the absence of the disorder ought to be proved by the evidence of persons having competent knowledge upon the whole subject (l).

A commission of lunacy may be superseded, if the party has been irregularly found to be a lunatic (m). A commission of lunacy was superseded on the petition of the party against whom it had been issued, complaining of improper conduct in the witnesses examined on the inquisition, and alleging the subsequent recovery of the petitioner (»).

Commissions have also been superseded, because the

(k) Ex parte Holyland, 11 Ves. 10.
(1) Id. 11. See ante, p. 52.
(m) Ex parte Roberts, 3 Atk. 6.

(n) Ex parte Glover, In re Glover, 1 Mer. 269.

lunacy had not been carried back by the inquisition so far as was warranted by the evidence adduced before the commissioners and the jury (o).

After the Lord Chancellor has made an order for superseding a commission of lunacy, the party must be restored to the government of himself and his property, by a grant under the great seal. The instrument obtained for such purpose, recites the inquisition and the grant of the custody to the committees, and that the party has been examined in Chancery, and found to be of sound mind; in consideration whereof such grant is determined, and the committees are required not to intermeddle in future with the late lunatic, who is restored to the government of himself and all his property by the supersedeas.

A doubt seems to have been formerly entertained, whether the King's interest is such, that, after the death of the lunatic, or his recovery, there must be an Ouster le Mayne (p) sued out, as was done in the case of an idiot, or whether the King's interest is avoided now by the death or recovery of the lunatic (q). Upon which Lord Chancellor Redesdale remarked, with respect to the recovery of the lunatic, it is clear, that, in practice, he is not restored to the possession of his property, but by an order of the Court; and for manifest reason, for, how otherwise is it to be ascertained that he has recovered? And his Lordship added, that, in all the cases he could find, the question put by Staunford had never received a direct decision (r).

(0) In re Wooler, and In re War- c. 24; 3 Bl. Comm. 256. ren, ante, pp. 97, 98.

(p) See Les termes de la ley, tit. Ouster le maine, Staunf. Pr. Reg.

(q) Staunf. Pr. Reg. p. 37.

(r) 2 Sch. & Lef. 437.