The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-06-23 00:00:00

THE MONOMANIA QUESTION.

The judges, consisting of Lord Chief Justice Tindal, Jus-
tices Patteson, Williams, Coleridge, Wightman, Erskine,
Maule, Coltman, and Barons Parke, Gurney, and Rolfe, on
Tuesday morning attended the House of Lords to answer
certain questions which had been put to them respecting the
law in cases of monomania. The question we gave very re-
cently.
Mr. Justice Manic, who differed from the rest of the
judges, first delivered his opinion; but the extremely low
tone in which his lordship spoke, rendered it impossible to
catch what he said. He was understood to say that the un-
soundness which was to excuse any man for the commission
of a crime, ought to be that which had long rendered him in-
capable of knowing right from wrong. The question put to
the jury in such a case, was simply that of guilty or not
guilty ; but in asking how that question was to be presented
to the minds of the jurymen, it was necessary to know the
state of facts in respect of which that question arose, and
those facts must be presented to the jurymen, and they must
be asked whether on those particular facts they believed hire,
before the commission of the act for which he was indicted,
and at the moment of its commission, to have been incapable
of distinguishing between right and wrong.
Lord Chief Justice Tindel, after explaining that, with the
exception of Mr. Justice Maule, their lordships agreed in
opinion, proceeded to read the opinions of the other judges.
in answering the first question, the judges assumed that the
inquiry was confined to those persons who laboured under a
partial delusion, and they were of opinion that, notwith-
standing the party did not act with the view of redressing
some injury, or producing some public benefit, he was punish-
able according to the nature of the crime committed, if he
knew that he was acting contrary to the law, by which ex-
pression they understood to mean the law of the land. The
judges thought that the two next questions ought to be an-
swered together, and their opinion was that the jury ought to
be told that every man was presumed to be of sane mind,
and in possession of sufficient reason to be responsible for his
acts, till the contrary was proved ; and that to establish a de.

fence o the ground of insanity, it must be proved that the
party Allle labouring under the_ defect from such a disease of
the mind as not to be in a state to know the nature of the
act, or, if he knew ;he nature of the act, then not to know
whether he was right or wrong in the doing of it. If
the question was put with the expression, knew whether
what he was doing was right or wrongaccording to the law of
the land, the judges thought that such mode of expressing
the question might confound the jury, who might think that
Alta party must be shown actually to know the law. But such
an impression would be erroneous, for the law was necessarily
administered upon the principle that every man must be ta-
ken to know the law. If the party was conscious that the act
he was engaged in performing was one which he ought not to
do. he ought to be punished for doing it. The sole course to
be adopted, therefore, was to settle the question whether, at
the time of doing the act, lie knew that what he was so doing
was wrong. This mode of putting the question would be cor-
rectly accompanied with such observations as the particular
case required. The fourth question was, if the person was
under an insane delusion only as to the existing case, what
consequence ought to follow—ought he to be thereby excu-
sed ? The answer to that question must depend on the
nature of the delusion. But making the same assumption
as before, that he was labouring under a partial delusion,
and was not in other respects insane, lie must be considered
the same, with respect to his responsibility, as if the fact
on which he entertained the delusion was a reality. Thus,
if he thought that another man was about to take away his
life, and he killed that man in what he believed to be self
defence, he would be free from liability of punishment. If,
on the other hand, he killed a man in revenge for an injury
which he believed that man to have committed towards him,
he would be liable to it. The fifth question put to the judge
was, whether medical men conversant with the subject of in-
sanity, who never saw the person, till the time of the trial,
could be asked their opinion upon the facts they heard de-
posed to in evidence, as to the state of the mind of the
prisoner at the time of committing the crime, so as to say
whether at that time he was in a state to know whether he
was acting contrary to law, knew the difference between right
and wrong, or whether he was labouring under any delusion
which prevented him from knowing it. The judges were of
opinion that a medical man could not. in strictness, be asked
a question in the terms above stated; for each of those ques-
tions involved the determination of the questions of fact de-
posed to by the witnesses, and which were, therefore, fit only
for the decision of the jury, arid could not be made a ques-
tion of science, But whenever a question of science could
he put without involving the decision of questions of fact, it
might be convenient to put the questions in that form,
though it could not be so done as a matter of right.
Lord Baouon am said that the opinions of the learned
judges, and the very able manner in which they had been pre-
sented to the house, deserved the thanks of their lordships.
Lord CAMPBELL expressed hie satisfaction that the noble
and learned lord on the, woolsack had carried into effect his
desire to ask the judges to answer these questions. These
questions, indeed, though apparently mere abstract questions,
resolved themselves into the pure law of England, and it was
fit that the opinions of the judges should be asked upon them,
for the settling of them was not a mere matter of speculation
to their lordships, who alight be called on in their legislative
capacity to change the law.
After a few remarks from Lords Cottenham and Wynford
and the Lord Chancellor, their lordships proceeded to
Tiig IRISH MAILMAGB CASES—THE QUEEN v. MILLIS.

Lord BROUGHAM took this opportunity of askirfg when
the learned judges would be able to answer the questions
put to them by this house with reference to the validity of
"certain marriages which had taken place in Ireland.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then read a letter which he bad
received on the subject from the Lord Chief Justice, stating
that, owing to the pressure upon their time in their several
courts, the judges expressed a wish to be excused from deli-
vering their opinions upon these cases until after the long
vaatin-
After a conversation, in which Lords Brougham, Wyn-
ford, and Cottenham took part, and pressed for an earlier
decision,
The LORD CHANCELLOR suggested, after what had now
transpired, to leave it to the judges to consider whether it
would not be possible for them to deliver their opinions be-
fore the circuits, though it might occasion a considerable
sacrifice of their personal convenience. Ile should suggest
the leaving of this matter to them without calling for ex-
planations. lie was sure that they would do what was
desired, if it were only practicable.
Here the subject dropped.

THE LONG VACATION.---1t is known to the initiated that
there is a " long vacation" in law proceedings, from the 10th
of August to the 24th of October, and that pleas are often
pleaded at great expense to plaintiffs, for the purpose, as it
is termed in the profession, of throwing an action " over the
long vacation," gaining about two months' time. There is,
however, a bill in the House of Commons (Superior Courts
Common Law Bill,) in which it is proposed to annihilate the
" long vacation," as far as legal proceedings are concerned,
in actions for sums not exceeding £2O. By the 41st section
it is provided that proceedings shall be continued between the
10th of August and the 24th of October. There is no long
vacation in the Palace Court, where there is generally an ac-
cession of business when actions in the superior courts are
stayed.
UN/WORN TESTINTONY.—An act has just been passed to
enable the Legislature cf Colonies to pass laws to receive
unsworn testimony in civil and criminal proceedings. It
is declared by the preamble, that there are resident within
the limits, or adjacent to the British Colonies, various tribes
of a barbarous and uncivilized people, who, being destitute of
the knowledge of God, or of any religious belief, are incapa-
ble of giving evidence on oath in any Court of Justice in the
Colonies ; and it is provided to remove the doubts existing,
whether any law made by the Colonial Legislatures to receive
the testimony of such persons would not be repugnant to the
British Constitution, and therefore null and void ; that from
the passing of this act all laws so made in the Colonies or to
be made, shall have full effect, notwithstanding any repug-
nancy to the laws of England.

THE Moons.—Highland shooting quarters are eagerly
sought for this season. Already many parties from " Merry
England" have made up their,ininds to dwell amoug " hills
where die hirs6ls are grazing. where we hope they will have
abundance of sport, and return with pleasant recollections.
—lisrerness Courier.