Discharge of pauper on application of friend.—When application is made to the visiting committee of an asylum by a relative or friend of a pauper lunatic confined therein, requiring that he may be delivered over to the custody and care of such relative or friend, a.ny two of the visitors may discharge the lunatic upon a satisfactory undertaking of the relative or friend that the lunatic will no longer be chargeable to any union, county, or borough, and will be properly taken care of and prevented from doing injury to himself or others, and the guardians of the union to which a workhouse belongs may also make an order for the discharge of any lunatic detained therein. Recovery of patient.—The manager of every hospital and licensed house, and a person having charge of a single patient, must forthwith, upon the recovery of a patient, send notice thereof to the person on whose petition the reception order was made or by whom the last payment on account of the patient was made, and in the case of a pauper, to the guardian of his union, or, if a local authority is liable for his maintenance, to the clerk of the local authority. The notice must state that unless the patient is removed within seven days from its date he will be discharged: and so he will be. Inquiry into cause of death.—Every coroner upon receiving notice of the death of a lunatic within his district must hold an inquest if he considers that any reasonable suspicion attends the circumstances of the death. Complaints of resi dence near hospital.—If the patients of c. lunatic establishment are permitted to go outside without a sufficient number of officers to control them, or to wander at large without any control, the neighbouring residents may prefer a complaint to the Commissioners. The latter will thereupon, if satisfied that there are prinai fade grounds for the complaints, inquire into the ease and deal with it as they may think just. The superintendent of a lunatic establishment who disobeys any order made in consequence of those complaints will be guilty of a misdemeanour.
Criminal the point of view of the criminal law a man is presumed to be sane and mentally responsible until he is proved to be the contrary. But the legal principles relating to the criminal responsibility of a person proved to be insane can hardly be said to have yet been finally established. In Reg. v. Oxford the facts were that the late Queen, whilst driving up Constitution Hill, was twice fired at by Edward Oxford, aged eighteen. Oxford was indicted for high treason. The verdict of the jury was not guilty, he being insane at the time. Thereupon Lord Denman, the Lord Chief-Justice, ruled that to acquit the prisoner on the ground of in sanity, the jury must be satisfied that he was labouring under such a disease as rendered him quite unaware of the nature, character, and consequences of the act he was committing; or, in other words, that he was under the influence of a diseased mind, and was really unconscious at the time he committed the act that it was a crime. This ruling cannot, however, be taken as final. Perhaps the most authoritative pronouncement on this subject is that in Macnaughton's case, but even this is not accepted as altogether satisfactory. In the year 1813, Daniel Macnaughton fired at and wounded Mr. Drummond, Sir Robert Peel's private secre tary. Mr. Drummond died. Macnaughton was indicted for murder. At the trial medical witnesses were called to prove the prisoner's insanity ; and the Chief-Justice, finding that the Crown was not prepared with medical evidence to contradict them, stopped the case, and the ,jury, under his direc tion, found the prisoner not guilty on the ground of insanity. In consequence of this verdict the House of Lords resolved to take the opinion of the judges on the law governing such cases. It was then held by eleven of the j udges A person labouring under partial delusions only, and not otherwise in sane, who did the act charged with a view, under the influence of insane delusion, of redressing or revenging some supposed grievance or wrong, or of producing some public benefit, is punishable, if he knew at the time that he was acting contrary to the law of the land. If a party labouring under an insane delusion as to existing facts, and not otherwise insane, commits an offence, he must be considered in the same situation as if the facts in respect to which the delusion exists were real. To establish a defence on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, Lhe party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature of the act he was doing, or, if be did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. If the accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not to do, and if that act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable. Where the defence of insanity is set up, a medical witness who never saw the prisoner before, but was present during the whole of the trial, cannot in strictness be asked his opinion as to the state of the prisoner's mind at the time of the commission of the alleged crime ; or whether the prisoner was conscious at the time of doing the act that lie was acting con trary to the law ; or whether he was labouring under anv and what delusion at the time. Such questions involve the determination of the truth of the facts deposed to, which it is for the jury to decide. But where the facts are admitted or not disputed, and the question becomes one of science only, such questions may be allowed to be put in that general form, though this cannot be insisted on as a matter of right.
Contractual responsibility.—The contract of a lunatic is binding upon him unless it can be shown that at the time of making it he was absolutely incapable of understanding what he was doing and that the other party knew of his condition. It is in words to this effect that Sir William Anson states the general principle in his Low of Contract. Although in certain cases the crown, and in other cases persons who claimed under one who was non compos menli.s, could set up the disability of lunacy, the old rule of law was that the lunatic himself could not. This ride, however, has been relaxed in modern times, and of mind is now a good defence to an action upon a contract, if it can he shown that the defendant was not of a capacity to contract, "and the plaintiff knew it." The knowledge of the other party is an essential element in a defence of insanity. Lozd-Justice Lopes, in imperial Loon Co. v. Stone, thus summarises the law :—" A contract made ')y a person of unsound mind is not voidable at that person's option if the other party to the contract believed at the time lie made the contract that the person with whom he was dealing was of sound mind. In order to avoid a fair contract on the ground of insanity, the mental incapacity of the One must be known to the other of the contracting parties. A defendant who seeks to avoid a contract on the ground of his insanity, must plead and prove, not merely his incapacity, but also the plaintiff's knowledge of that fact, and unless he proves these two things lie cannot succeed." provisions of the Factory and Workshop Act which, as regards machinery, ensure the safety of those who work i? factories, are noticed in the article on HEALTH AND in fac tories; and the law specially relating to CHAFF-CUTTERS is dealt with under that title. Threshing-machines are the subject of a statute of 1878 known as the Threshing-Machine Act. For the purposes of that Act the term "threshing-machine" is defined as meaning one which is worked by steam or by any motive power other than manual labour. A machine worked by hand is therefore not within the scope of the Act. Certain regulations are enacted for the due working of threshing-machines, and any one who offends against them is liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding R5. A constable, for the purpose of inspecting the machine, can at any time enter on any premises on which he has reasonable cause to believe that it is being worked contrary to the law. The regulations require, in effect, that the drum and feeding mouth of the machine must at all times during the working of the machine be kept sufficiently and securely fenced, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with its due and efficient working. If its owner, or the person for whose service or benefit it is being worked, allows it to be worked without being so fenced, he will thereby incur the above penalty. If in his prosecution for' this offence it is shown that the machine was not in fact kept sufficiently and securely fenced during its working, he will be considered to have permitted the offence unless he can satisfy the Court that he took all reasonable precautions to ensure the observance of the Act. The offence is also committed, and the penalty incurred, by any foreman, engineer, or other person in charge of the machine, who works it or permits it to be worked without being properly fenced ; and also .by any one who during its working removes any guard or thing used as a fence for it. A statute of 1894 should also be noted which removed the restrictions imposed on steam threshing-engines by an old Highway Act. Such engines are now allowed to be erected and used at any distance, however short, from a turnpike road, highway, carriageway, or cartway. But in order that an erection and use within twenty-five yards from such a road shall be lawful it is necessary that " a person is stationed on the road and employed for the purpose of signalling the driver of the engine whenever it is necessary to stop the engine on account of the approach of a horse, and of rendering assistance to the person in charge of the horse, and that the driver of the engine stops the same when so signalled." Maliciously damaging and destroying machinery is a felony, and is severely punished as such. The offence consists of unlawfully and maliciously cutting, breaking, or destroying, or damaging with intent to destroy or to render the machinery useless. Section 15 of the Malicious Damage Act, 1861, pro vides for in offence of this character when it is committed against a machine or engine, whether fixed or movable, used, or intended to be used, for sowing, reaping, mowing, threshing, ploughing or draining, or for performing any other agricultural operation, or nutchine or engine," or tool or itnplement, whether fixed or movable, prepared for or employed in any manufacture except certain manufactures therein mentioned. These excepted manu. factures are the subject of section 14, and comprise the various textile manufactures ; andl not only does the latter section create a similar offence to that of section 15, but it also makes it a felony to enter by force into any house, shop, building, or place with intent to maliciously destroy its particular machinery, or to so damage it.
Rating of machinery.—The rule has been laid down that where thing