Attending two warrants to settle report Making brief petition to confirm report, &c. 4 sheets. Fee to counsel therewith and clerk Attending Attending court, petition heard and order made Paid for copy minutes Close copy thereof Perusing and attending settling same Paid for copy draft of A.'s lease, fols. 57 Attending three warrants to settle the draft. Attending four warrants, examining the engrossments, lease and counterpart £ s. d. 0 15 0 . 0 10 0 0 13 4 0 13 4 1 3 6 0 [The three last items as to B.'s lease were repeated here]. Attending warrant to settle Drawing this bill of costs and copy, fols. 7. Warrant to tax, copy and service Warrant on leaving copy and service Attending taxing, clerk and solicitor Attending taxing Paid for copy committee's costs, fols. 18. Letters and messengers 3 09600 1 18 0 1 0 0 0 4 8 0 0 13 4 0 9 0 6 8 The amount of this bill as allowed by the Master on 26th ADDENDA. Page 20, at bottom, add-The Lord Chancellor of Ireland is usually intrusted by the King's Sign Manual with authority to make orders and grants of the custody of the persons and estates of lunatics in that country as in England (a). P. 24, after first paragraph, add-In a case in Ireland Lord Chancellor Manners made an order of reference in a lunacy after the death of the lunatic, to inquire and report who were the heir-at-law and next of kin of the lunatic. The Master made his report. Lord Chancellor Hart afterwards, on the case coming before him, held, that the Chancellor's authority under the Sign Manual continues only during the life of the lunatic, and is at an end when the lunatic dies; that the order of reference was wrong, and that he could make no order in lunacy touching the property of the deceased lunatic after it had ceased to be his. His Lordship mentioned Cotton's lunacy, in which Lord Eldon made a similar order, which, after having led to two trials at law, was acknowledged by him to have been wrong; and finally a bill was filed (b). But Lord Chancellor Hart held, that he had jurisdiction, from the necessity of the case, to call upon the committee of the estate to wind up his account and to hold the assets in safety; but that the next of kin had not primarily any right which could be recognised, but that they must work out their title through the Prerogative Court, in the regular way (c). P. 30, note (s), add-The forms of proceedings in the ap pointment of Curators, will be found in Bell's Forms of Deeds in Scotland, Vol. 3, pp. 357-380. (a) See 2 Sch. & Lef. 438; 1 Alcock & Napier, Ir. Rep. 35. (b) Beer v. Ward, Jac. Rep. 194. (c) In re Barry, 1 Molloy, 414. P. 62, at the end of first paragraph, add-On a petition for a commission of lunacy in Ireland, the affidavit of a medical practitioner was read, setting out, that the deponent had conversation with the supposed lunatic, and that his language was incoherent, and that he was, in deponent's opinion, not of sound mind. Lord Chancellor Hart said, "This will not do. The very words which gave the impression of incoherency should be set out. This is the inference, and the affidavit should state the facts. The precise facts and all the evidences that can be got together, should be laid before me. It is not a matter lightly to be granted. The mere issuing of a commission may produce irritation highly detrimental. It is, therefore, not to issue without great circumspection, and a case made satisfactory to the mind of the judge, that he has before him proof amounting at least to shew the necessity of further inquiry. I cannot send this case to an inquiry without previously looking into it myself, so as to see that there is sufficient to satisfy my own mind of the probability of insanity. Prodigality in the dispersion of property forms no ingredient, provided it appears that the party committing the extravagance, saw that he was doing an improvident thing. I shall desire that he shall be visited by three or four of the most eminent physicians, and shall see and converse with them separately and hear their reports. It is almost the only case in which the judge is justified and bound to resort to private means of obtaining information." He said that he had known the worst consequences to result from submitting a case to the jury in the first instance; and, therefore, unless he had reasonable doubts, he would not send it to an inquiry by a jury. The Court looks at a petition not presented by the nearest relations with particular jealousy, for it implies that the persons who ought to protect the supposed lunatic neglect their duty. The expenses attendant on these previous steps will be paid out of the fund, should it ever come into the possession of the crown by the party being found a lunatic (d). (d) Ex parte Persse, 1 Molloy, 219. P. 83, note (n), add--This bill did not pass. P. 107, before last paragraph, add—An inquest of office ought not to be received upon the oath of a party, but brought in with the commission under the Great Seal (e). P. 136, at end of fourth paragraph, add-A recognizance having been put in suit in Ireland against a surety for a receiver, who was in default, the defendant demurred on the petty bag side of the Court of Chancery to the replication on very technical grounds of want of certainty in the allegations, and the demurrer was overruled by the Lord Chancellor sitting on the common law side (ƒ). The defendant then applied to the cursitor for a writ of error to be brought before the Exchequer Chamber, which the officer refused, there being no precedent for such a writ of error (g). On the defendant's moving that the officer should be directed to issue the writ, Lord Chancellor Hart said, "The writ lies from the Court of Chancery, when the Chancellor sits in it as a Court of law, as from the other Courts to the Twelve Judges. The king is not a party here except in the form of the name. The writ cannot be refused." But the Chancellor intimated that it would be better to rehear the argument on the demurrer before him, assisted by one or two of the common law judges, upon the party undertaking not to bring a writ of error afterwards; and in the mean time, as such writ would not stop execution, making payment or giving security before the rehearing was allowed (h). P. 143, note (q), add-This bill did not pass. P. 144, at bottom, add-Lord Chancellor Hart observed, "That the practice which prevailed in Ireland, of appointing a Master of the Court committee of the estates of lunatics is objectionable, for he can have no direct knowledge, and 1 Leo. 65. (e) Moile v. The Earl of Warwick, and Lord Keeper North held, that such a writ did not lie. Rex v. Cary, (f) Rex v. Dolphin, 1 Molloy, 1 Vern. 131. See 4 Inst. 80, Dyer, 315 a. 392. (g) Mr. Justice Blackstone could find no trace of such a writ of error since the 14 Eliz. see 3 Comm. 49; (h) Rex v. Dolphin, 2 Molloy, 26. See Hov. Suppl. to Ves. 1 Vol. p. 479. the very purpose of the office is to acquire direct knowledge, and take an active part in the management, and in controlling the receiver, in warranting the ordering of payments and allowances, and generally guarding the safe exercise of the jurisdiction. Whenever any relation of the family will undertake it and give security, and is eligible, he, and not a Master, ought to be appointed committee of the estate. That no branch of the duty of a Judge in the Court of Chancery is so peculiar and anxious as that which regards this helpless class of persons, often subjected themselves and their estates to gross injustice. That the private establishments in England, though, by authority of an act of Parliament, visited by regular superintending physicians, were still liable to much abuse. And that he remembered the case of a lady, entitled to a fortune of £3000 a-year, which came before Lord Eldon, in which a malady, not very grievous in itself, had been irritated by ill treatment to complete temporary insanity. That it was caused by the treatment was clear; for, when she was removed to a milder custody and more comfortable treatment, she recovered so far as to enjoy life, and afterwards to manage her fortune. His Lordship further observed, that Lord Eldon, in that case, got at so much abominable misconduct, that it gave him (Lord Chancellor Hart), a lesson for ever to attend scrupulously to cases of lunatics, and look with the utmost jealousy at every point connected with the treatment of the persons, and the care of their estates especially; because the first will generally be found to hinge upon the second (i). P. 147, at end of third paragraph add-A receiver of the estate of a lunatic, proceeding in a wrong form of action, which he was advised to abandon, and adopt another form of action, in which he succeeded for the lunatic, was refused the costs, amounting to £130, of the former proceedings, although the Master reported that he had acted bona fide, and ought to be allowed such costs (k). (i) In re Hussey, 1 Molloy, 226. (k) In re Montgomery, 1 Molloy, 419. |