A report of the judgement in Dew v. Clark and Clark / delivered by the Right Honourable Sir John Nicholl in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury [respecting the validity of the will of Ely Stott], Easter term, 1826. Edited ... by John Haggard.

  • Haggard, John, 1794-1856
Date:
1826
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A report of the judgement in Dew v. Clark and Clark / delivered by the Right Honourable Sir John Nicholl in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury [respecting the validity of the will of Ely Stott], Easter term, 1826. Edited ... by John Haggard. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    18/102 (page 16)
    And, third, That insane persons have great cun¬ ning and great powers of restriction upon occasion. The case of Greenwood which was mentioned in the argument, though differing materially from the present in its circumstances, was still a recognition of the principle of “ insanity quoad hoc ,” or “ partial insanity.” (a) The case of Heath and Watts, in the Prerogative Court, in 1798, in which I was of counsel, has not been mentioned;—that was also a case going upon the same principle, and in which the will was actually set aside. In that cause there was general sanity so far as having the management of himself, and of his affairs; yet, twenty years before the will was made, he had taken an insane antipathy to his mother and brother, and the will was set aside on that ground. But both those cases differ from the present in this material circumstance, that manifest insanity, at a time previous to the testamentary act, was fully established, and the dislike was taken dur¬ ing that insanity. The question, therefore, in those cases, was, whether a perfect recovery had taken place, or whether delusion quoad hoc still remained. Here the question is, whether delusion ever existed at all till long after the will was made; which is the peculiar feature that distinguishes the present case from those cited, and so far creates its novelty. These are the principles upon which, after the * fullest consideration, I must decide this case: by them the facts must be brought to the test; for I have stated that— (a) Greenwood v. Greenwood, Prerog. 1791. The proceedings in this cause concluded in a compromise. The case is noticed in the Attorney-General v. Parnther, 3 Bro. C. C. 444.; and in White v. Wilson, 13 Ves. jun. 89.