atkins case ex part Barnsley July among the petition in lunacy the inquisition  SC post Eq ab that W b be incapable of govern himself and his land c be a  illegal and void return to a inquisition of lunacy to inquire whether William  Barnsley be a lunatic or enjoy lucid interval so that he be not sufficient for  the government of himself and his affair the return of the inquest that the  say William Barnsley at the time of take this inquisition be from the weakness  of his mind incapable of govern himself and his land and tenement and have be  so from the that of April and upward but how and in what manner the say Mr  Barnsley become so know not the petition be prefer to quash the inquisition as  be a illegal and a void return Mr attorney general for the petition there be  four ground of lunacy accord to Inst a and beverley case   b sickness grief  accident and drunkenness none of these be mention in the return in a case ex  part freak Sel can Charles January the jury upon a inquisition there find that  by his appearance he be not always in his sense as other man be and that it  arise from fear and provocation this be quash ex part Harvey February Geo  there it be find that she be not of sufficient understanding to manage her own  affair this be quash by Lord Talbot in a case that come before the court on  the that of may the find be that she be so weak in her judgement and  understanding that she be not capable of manage herself and her estate and  have be under the same weakness for twenty year last pass in this a  committeeship be grant this amount to no more than a precedent sub silence for  it be never controvert atkins Robert Ashton the that of December find not a  lunatic but incapable this be quash ex part read July the person be not find  by express word whether he be a lunatic or not be likewise quash Mr brown of  the same side cite Inst and that the return in the inquest in the precedent of  find that he be not sufficient to manage his person and estate and because  they do not find express that he be a lunatic the court hold it do not fall  within the inquisition and quash it Mr Noel of the same side mention the late  act of parliament where a incapacity of marry be make the consequence of a  person be find a lunatic as the act use the word lunatic only it will be of  dangerous consequence to add a different sort of lunacy here and under the act  of parliament Mr Wilbraham of the same side that there must be a absolute find  and that they can find a inference only without find a positive fact in the  case of Dennis versus Dennis sand on a writ of dower it be insist she be  idiota and plead that she be san chin he say he mention this to show that  sound mind be of certain signification and know in our law and that you can in  plead say that a man be lunaticus but non san chin here it will be impossible  upon the inquisition to know what to plead and if the court shall break that  great landmark that a person to be a lunatic must be find to have some degree  of unsound mind they will not know how to stop Mr solicitorgeneral of the  other side that this return be agreeable to many atkins er p precedent and  agreeable also to reason that a commission shall issue upon this inquisition  the order be make upon the that of April last the attendance upon the  inquisition be by counsel on both side that it take up seven day and the jury  be unanimous atkins in the notion of the old law and writ one of which be to  inquire de idiota and the other de lunatico he must be find one of these the  counsel for the petitioner insist that the return of the inquisition must be  that he be or be not a idiot that he be or be not a lunatic and in support of  this they cite a precedent during the usurpation the court in these  determination find themselves upon this that the inquest do not in express  word find he a lunatic Lord chancellor the commission be frame in analogy to  this writ and if the inquisition be whether he be a lunatic they can find he a  idiot but there must be a new commission Mr solicitorgeneral the law have vary  it under these two head and the jury be doubtful whether in conscience they  can find he a lunatic the court in many precedent allow the jury not to find  he in express term a lunatic in the case ex part pauncefort October the  inquisition return be in san chin such deprivatus account comprehension ita  quod control Himself Self status Himself entirely incam pax step forth it be  allow to be a good find and the commission issue your lordship too proceed  upon this reason in the case of Ashton Mr clarke of the same side that the  court have exercise a more liberal use of this power as stand in the place of  the crown and if the gentleman shall prevail to overturn this find it will  shake all the determination for a century pass that weakness of body in will  be put in opposition to soundness of mind and therefore if this have be a  inquisition in Latin they will have use be mad chin Lord chancellor I much  doubt whether this will express weakness of mind and if it ought not to have  be weakness chin atkins Mr clarke that save from the weakness of his mind he  be incapable of manage himself and his fortune be say the same thing as that  he be weak and that he be incapable of manage himself amid his fortune with  proper averment and that this be warrant by grammatical as well as a equitable  construction that the case of Ashton do not come before the court sub silence  but upon a second find of the inquisition for my Lord Talbot be not satisfy  with the first Lord chancellor though I be desirous of maintain the  prerogative of the crown in its just and proper limit yet at the same time I  must have a care of make a precedent on the record of the court of extend the  authority of the crown so as to restrain the liberty of the subject and his  power over his own person and estate further than the law will allow  notwithstanding what have be say of the change of the law I think the  prerogative of the crown and the rule of law be still the same and can be  alter but by act of parliament for it be only the form of return that be  change by this court the question be whether here be such a find return as  will entitle this court to take the care upon they of Mr Barnsleys person and  estate vide the word of the inquisition as before now it be certain and be  admit that this be a departure from the direction of the commission for the  commission be to inquire whether he be a lunatic or with lucid interval so  that c but though the return differ in word yet if there be equipollent word  it will not be such a objection as will quash the inquisition for it be not a  variance in the word but in I the sense and meaning that will quash it now it  must be admit that the modern precedent have depart from the ancient form  which be before that they must return whether he be lunaticus well non and I  be apprehensive that the form have be too various but upon search I be glad to  find that except in two or three instance the return have be that he be  lunaticus or non compos chin or mad chin or since the proceed have be in  English of unsound mind which amount to the same thing atkins er p and I shall  desire that they may still continue so or else it will introduce great  uncertainty and confusion atkins in constant experience where a cause come on  here upon a suggestion of a person be impose on by weakness when the counsel  be ask do you proceed on the insanity the answer be always No we go upon fraud  and weakness only and this be the invariable distinction in cause of that kind  possible the law may be too strict and it may be useful in some case that a  curator or tutor shall be set over prodigal and weak person as in the civil  law consider the modern case and the e the court go on in those case in two of  the instance ex part Halsey and ex part pauncefort the inquisition find that  the party be incapable of manage c which be find the effect as be true say  instead of the cause but that be not the ground of quash it but quash because  it be not a sufficient find of the lunacy by Lord Talbot ex part pauncefort be  before I and quash for the same reason the other two be a second find in the  case of Halsey and mrs wall case I own if they have come before I I shall have  doubt whether this second find ought not likewise to have be quash there be a  departure from the legal word for the jury do not find that she be non compos  or of insane mind but only weakness for the last twenty year Lord Talbot grant  the commission but however I must take this as a commission which pass sub  silence for no counsel be hear upon it and therefore it be no precedent and I  believe I shall have do the same as it be apply for at the unanimous request  of all the friend and relation the find that she be not capable of give answer  to the most easy question be improper but my Lord Talbot I dare say lie no  stress on this atkins because it be a find of evidence which a jury ought not  to do but to return the fact or if they do return that she be not capable of  answer c they shall express state the question themselves the other case of  mrs wall be a much weak they find her wear out with age and incapable of  manage her own affair now as they have not apply the be wear out with age to  her mind she may be bedrid only and yet of good understanding and capable of  direct her affair then it will come to this question whether the find in the  present case be of the same signification and equivalent to find Mr Barnsley a  lunatic non compos or of unsound mind there be various degree of weakness and  strength of mind from various cause there may be a weakness of mind that may  render a man incapable of govern himself from violence of passion and from  vice and extravagancy and yet not sufficient under the rule of law and the  constitution of this country to direct a commission be non compos of unsound  mind be certain term in law and import a total deprivation of sense now  weakness do not carry this idea along with it but court of law understand what  be mean by non compos or insane as they be word of a determinate signification  my Lord coke definition be that they be person of non sane memory non compos  chin be use in the statute of limitation so that it be legitimate now under  several act of parliament several word be legitimate by act of parliament to a  particular sense which before may bear a different meaning I remember a case  before the court of king bench when I be attorney general upon a pardon where  it be direct he shall give security our men justice de banc now this be the  title of the court of common plea the case stand over upon this point and Lord  chief justice Eyre find in great Charta that the court of king bench be call  justice of our bench and this be hold to have so legitimate the word that the  pardon upon this be adjudge to be a good one atkins lunatic be a technical  word coin in more ignorant time as imagine these person be affect by the moon  but discover by philosophy and ingenious man that it be entire owe to a defect  of the organ of the body atkins er p the reason of the court enlarge the  manner of find be to avoid the difficulty of oblige the jury to find express  lunacy because they may think it more a case of idiocy which be equal a case  that call for the care of the court the reason that Lord wenman be so long  before he can be find so be the unwillingness the jury have to find he a idiot  because of the consequence but upon a inquisition of lunacy they find he a  lunatic immediate here no traverse can be take but a involve one for the fact  that must be traverse be only the inability to govern himself and his affair  and the traverse ought to be upon the lunacy only therefore I be for this  reason of opinion that the inquisition must be quash and I be extreme glad to  find upon search of precedent that the court have not go further in depart  from the legal definition of a lunatic the inquisition be quash accord