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.

    91/924 page 61
    exerted, the character of the act itself, as will soon be noticed, goes far to determine the capacity of the party at the particular time. Thus Dr. Lushington said:(j) “In the opinion of a very great judge, Sir William Wynne, in the celebrated case of Cartwright v. Cartwright, he said where a rational act was done in a rational manner, such was the strongest and best proof which could arise even as to a lucid interval. How, I cannot say that I subscribe altogether to this observation of Sir William Wynne, for I do not, but it is entitled to great weight; and, to a certain extent, a rational act done in a rational manner, though not, I think, the strongest and best proof of a lucid interval, does contribute to the establishment of a lucid interval.” And, generally, the rational character of a will, emanating directly from a testator afflicted with insanity, gives in itself a strong presumption of a lucid interval, (k) § 64. In case of idiocy, a slightly different rule seems laid down. Thus, in a late case, the evidence showed that the deceased was, in 1815, placed in confinement as an idiot, and there remained till 1817, when he was released. In 1820, about which time he was proved to have committed certain rational acts of business, he made a rational will. In 1822, he was again placed in confinement, and so remained till his death, in 1849. In 1883 he was found, on a commission, to have been of unsound mind, without lucid intervals, since 1815. The will was sustained, on the ground, that, though it is otherwise with regard to lunacy, yet, when idiocy is set up, it is disproved by contemporaneous intelligent acts of business.(Q (d1) Intoxication. § 65. As has been already incidentally observed, intoxica¬ tion, when at the time complete, renders a party incompetent to make a contract or execute a will.(m) It is true that most (j) Bannatyne v. Bannatyne, 16 Jur. 864, 14 Eng. Law and Eq. 581. (&) Nichols v. Binno, 1 Sw. and Tr. 239. See infra § 83. ([l) Bannatyne v. Bannatyne, 16 Jur. 864, 14 Eng. Law and Eq. 581. (m) See Menkins v. Lightner, 18 Ill. 282.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3