great variety of persons, all of whom were entangled in the consequences (n). Where a petition was presented, praying for a commission of lunacy to try whether or not the grandfather of the petitioner was in a state of mind sufficiently sound to enable him to attend to the management of his own affairs-Lord Chancellor Eldon observed, "that it was not an application against the party as a lunatic, in the generally understood sense of that word, but as a person who, from the effect of old age upon his faculties, required something more of providence to be thrown around him for the protection of himself and his property, than his own mind furnished him with. It was necessary that the Court should be satisfied, upon the clearest evidence, that the party was unable to manage his affairs, before it would interfere." His Lordship did not issue a commission, but directed all the affidavits to be laid before two eminent physicians, whom he named, with a request that they would report their opinion of the party's state of mind, not in regard to lunacy or idiocy, but as to his power of protecting himself and his property. On a subsequent day, his Lordship said, that it was impossible for him, under the representation of the physicians, to grant the commission which had been applied for; but as he thought the application was not an improper one, the petition was dismissed without costs (o). It seems, that a commission of lunacy may issue against an infant (p); but as the Court of Chancery has power over infant wards of Court and their estates, such a proceeding seems unnecessary during the minority of the ward, except under particular circumstances, when the more ample powers given in lunacy may be required for managing their es (n) Ex parte Hall, 7 Ves. 260. (0) In re Langley, 2nd and 13th August, 1822. (p) Hals's case, 30 Nov. 1743, cited 2 Ves. sen. 403. On reference to the Order Book in the lunatic office, it appears that the mother of the lunatic had been appointed his guardian; and on issuing the commission Lord Hardwicke made an order that the infant should not be married without the leave of the Court. tates. In a recent case, a commission of lunacy was granted against an infant of the age of twenty years, where it appeared by the affidavits in support of the commission, that the party had been of very weak intellect from her birth, and that there was no ground to expect that she would ever be of sound mind, or capable of governing herself, or managing her own affairs (q). A person found a lunatic in Jamaica, where his property was situated, having come to England, accompanied by one of his committees, a commission of lunacy was issued against him here. The petition for the commission was presented by an illegitimate sister of the lunatic and her husband. The insanity of the individual was not denied; but it was stated, as an answer to the application, that a commission of lunacy had issued, and was then in force against him in Jamaica, where his property was situated, and where till lately he had resided; that three persons had been appointed his committees in that island; that he had been brought over to this country for the sake of his health; that one of his committees had accompanied him, in order to take care of his welfare and comfort; that, under these circumstances, a commission in England was not necessary for the protection of the lunatic and his property, and therefore ought not to be granted. Lord Chancellor Eldon held, that the commission then existing in Jamaica was no reason why a commission should not issue here. On the contrary, it was evidence of the absolute necessity that there should be somebody authorized to deal with the person and estate of the lunatic. While the lunatic was here, no Court would have any authority over him or his property, unless a commission was taken out (r). A commission of lunacy may be taken out against a person who has an estate in England, although he is resident in another country (s). It has been before stated (t), that the Lord Chancellor has (q) In re Flint, 18 Aug. 1831. (r) In re Houstoun, 1 Russ. 312. (s) Ex parte Southcot, 2 Ves. sen. 401; S. C. Ambl. 109. See post, sect. 4. (t) Ante, p. 61. a discretion in granting or refusing a commission of lunacy, although the party may be of unsound mind; and Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst refused to grant a commission against a gentleman under the care of his wife, on the ground that it did not appear to be a case of such pressing urgency as to require such a proceeding for the comfort and protection of the supposed lunatic, and might be attended with injurious effects to him (t). If any person, appearing insane, shall endeavour by intrusion to gain admittance into the King's usual places of residence, and there be reason to apprehend danger to the King's person, the Lord Chancellor may direct a commission to issue; and if the jury find him insane, his Lordship may order his confinement during such time as there shall be reason to apprehend danger to the person of his Majesty (u). It is in many cases very difficult to draw the line between such weakness, which is the proper object of relief in the Court of Chancery, and such as amounts to insanity: however, the denying a commission does not exclude from relief against any deeds or wills, which may be improperly obtained from a person of weak mind (v). SECTION III. Upon whose Application the Commission of Lunacy may be directed to issue. been said, that as the Crown has an interest in persons non compotes mentis, a commission may sent, 28 April, 1829. was granted by Lord July, 1881. The party lunatic, and has since died. (u) 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 94, s. 4. See Appendix. (r) 2 Ves. sen. 409. be directed to issue upon information by the Attorney-General (w). In one case, a commission of lunacy was granted against a person confined in prison, on the application of the Solicitor of his Majesty's Treasury (x), Commissions, however, are usually directed upon petitions preferred by private individuals standing in a near relation to the supposed lunatic, accompanied with affidavits setting forth so many instances of weak or incoherent conduct or language, as raise a strong presumption that the party is incapable, through insanity or mental derangement, of conducting himself rationally, or managing his own affairs. A husband may prefer a petition for a commission against his wife, and vice versa. A father or mother against a child, and vice versa. Brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, cousins, may prefer petitions for commissions against each other. An executor under a will may prefer a petition for a commission against a legatee under the same will. A trustee under a deed may prefer a petition against his cestui que trust. Creditors may prefer a petition for a commission against their debtor (y). A commission has also been issued on the petition of the tenant of the supposed lunatic, where there was no doubt that the party was in a state that made him the proper subject of the commission; although it was opposed by his mother under whose care he was residing; and it was alleged that the tenant, being in arrear for rent, had taken such a step with the view of gaining time. Lord Chancellor Eldon observed, that he could not, upon the motives attributed to the petitioner, refrain from giving the lunatic the protection of a commission, as there was no doubt that he was an object of it, being in actual custody, and clearly in such a state that he was incapable of managing his own person or property. His Lordship said, that he did not enter into the motives, the fact being made out that the party required the protection of a commission; and ordered the commission to issue (*). (w) See 1 Coll. on Lun. 125. (y) 1 Coll. on Lun. 377. A petition for a commission of lunacy was presented by persons who were strangers to the family of the alleged lunatic. The application was supported by an affidavit, which, besides clearly establishing his lunacy, alleged, that he was not properly treated by the persons in whose care he was. It was opposed on behalf of his nearest relations, his brothers and sisters, with whom he lived, and whose conduct towards him had been the subject of flagrant misrepresentations in newspapers and other publications circulated in the neighbourhood where they resided. There was no reason to suppose that the petitioners for the commission had any concern with these publications. Lord Chancellor Eldon was of opinion, that, even upon the statements made by the respondents, a commission ought to issue; and that the costs occasioned by the opposition to it, (except the costs of some affidavits in answer to those filed by the brothers and sisters, which did not arrive till after the hearing of the petition had commenced, and, though stated to the Court, were not taken into consideration in the judgment), should be paid by the respondents. If the scandalous publications, of which the respondents had just reason to complain, had been brought home to the petitioners, that, his Lordship said, would have made a difference in his order with respect to costs (a). The nearest relations of an alleged lunatic will be allowed to have the carriage of a commission, in preference to strangers, unless there be some specific ground of objection (b). In a case where there was a contest for the carriage of a commission of lunacy against a person admitted to be a lunatic, between a person who was his heir-at-law and next of kin, and the sister-in-law of the lunatic, in whose custody he had been for some time, but who was no relation in blood; the heir-at-law was preferred, according to the ordinary rule, as being most likely to insure the objects of the commission (c). When it appears that the parties applying for the com (a) In re Smith, 1 Russ. 348. te Broadhurst, 1 Ves. & Bea. 59. |