LUNACY. By the lavv of England, as well as of all other countries, the presumption is in favor of a man's sanity, even though he be born deaf, dumb, and blind; and if the fact is disputed, it always lies on the party alleging it to prove it. Sometimes a person in a state supposed to be that of a lunatic makes a contract, and is sued upon it; in such a case, he may set up as a defense that he was a luuatic, and the proof will consist of his conduct and actions at and previous to the time in question. If, however, the other party did not know of the lunacy, and took no advantage, the lunatic will not be allowed to recover back moneys which have been paid by him in pursuance of his con tract. Though the presumption is in favor of the sanity of a person, yet, when once insanity has existed, the presumption is reversed, and then the law presumes no lucid interval or restoration to sanity until it is proved; and it is extremely difficult to prove a lucid interval, for the law requires very clear and conclusive proof of that fact, and all the circumstances must be carefully scanned. It is difficult or impossible to define in words what is insanity or lunacy, it being a negative state, and merely an inference from the acts, conduct, and bodily condition of the person. An idiot is said to be a person who was born with a radical infirmity of mind, and whose state is one of per petual infirmity, incapable of cure or restoration; whereas a lunatic is one who is some times of good and sound mind, and sometimes not; he has lucid intervals, and is assumed to be more or less capable of restoration to sanity. A person is said to be, in legal phraseology, of unsound mind, who is not an idiot, nor a lunatic, nor yet of a merely weak mind, but, by reason of a morbid condition of intellect, is as incapable of managing his affairs as if he were a lunatic. Though it is difficult to define lunacy or insanity, there are various tests which are more or less accepted in everyday life as strong evidence. Idiocy is accompanied by a vacant look, etc., while insanity is accompanied by some frenzy or extravagant delusion. The physiology of idiocy and lunacy is a separate subject of investigation, and is part of medical jurisprudence, to which a few medical men confine their attention, and their assistance is often required by courts of law when inquiring into this state of mind, though their theories are jeal ously scrutinized. As a general rule, an idiot or a lunatic is subject to civil incapacity.
He cannot enter into contracts or transact general business, and what he does is a nullity. Thus he cannot make or revoke a will, or enter into marriage, or act as an executor or administrator, or become a bankrupt, or be a witness in a court of justice, or vote at elections, and such like. But, as a general rule, a lunatic is liable in damages for cemmitting a wrong, such as a trespass, and he is liable for necessaries supplied to him, and he may be arrested for debt, and his property may be taken in such cases, as in the case of sane persons. With regard to criminal responsibility, the law was fully considered in the case of MeNaughton, who, in 1843, shot Mr. Drummond at Charing Cross by mistake for sir Robert Peel, and the English judges were called on by the house of lords to state their opinion as to the right mode of putting the questions to a jury when the defense of insanity is raised. The judges said that a person laboring under an insane delusion as to one subject is liable to punishment, if at the time of coinmitting the crime he knew he was acting contrary to law. In general cases, to establish want of responsibility, it must be proved that the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong. Where the party is laboring under an insane delusion as to existing facts, and commits a crime in consequence thereof, it depends on the nature of the delusion 'whether he is excused. Thus, if he insanely believes that A intended to kill him, and he kills A, as he supposes, in self-defense, he would be exempt from punishment. But if his delusion was that A had inflicted a serious injury to his character and fortune, and he killed A in revenge for such supposed injury, theu lie would be liable to punishment. When a person is acquitted of crime on the ground of insanity, he is liable to be confined in prison duiing her majesty's pleasure.