Dresden enterprise and Sharon tribune. (Dresden, Tenn.) 1907-1997, 1916-03-17


On account Of space last week the
opinion in the above styled cause in
chancery court was not published, and
only briei summary Of the case was
given as matter Of news. but follow.
ing il the chancellor's opinion intull:
After careful perusal Of the
Tennessee authorities am 81 the
opinion that the holding ia The case Of
Wheeler vs.. Parr is sound, and not in'
conflict with the adiunctions 81 the
supreme court on the question IN
Nolyed. In my opinion this case is
sound both on authority and reason.
Every man is presumed to be sound
and normal. When a witness under
takes. to testify to the insaity of
person it is but proper that he should
state facts and circumstances so that
the court can Judge as to witness con-
illusions. On the other hand when a
witness testifying to the sanity OF a
man shows his association with-deal-
ings INTERPRETATIONS with and
observations OF the party and that his
conduct was normal and rational
what benefit would it be to the court
to have the witness detail conversation
after conversation, and transaction
after transaction of normal nature?
That could serve no purpose but to
cucumber the record-that is where the
party testifying is sane and rational
himself. This question is so we'll
reasoned out and illustrated in the
case OF Wheeler VS.. Parr, 3 Higgins,
1896, that it would be useless con-
sumption of time for me to dwell
further on this question.
Applying this rule OF evidence to the
testimony in this case, it becomes
necessary to determine, from the proof,
whether the deceased was man OF
sane mind at the time he executed the
contract in question,
In the first place, there has been in
my mind during the progress of this
case very serious doubt as to whether
the real question involved has been
dwelt upon and elucidated by the proof.
There is mnch testimony as to the
and unsoundness of the
mind of Esq, Rachels, but where is
the proof in the record that he was not
capable of making a binding contract
at the time the one in question was
executed In Cole VS.. Cole, V Sneed,
56, the court says:
"The question in all such cases
is whether the party is capable OF
making binding contract 1t is
not every unsoundness Of mind
that will avoid contract"
| recall a case tried in this court a
year or two ago, which was affirmed in
the higher courts, where the defendant
was seeking to avoid contract on the
ground Of insanity, where many acts
OF insanity were shown. Forexample,
remember the proof showed that he
would take his team OF mules and
work for rs cents a day. While recog-
nizing his insanity in many instan-
ces, was OF the opinion he had mind
enough to make contract. l refer to
the case OF Bank VS.. Stout. ! recall
another case which | tried at Trenton,
where man by the name Of Conner
was relying on a plea Of insanity, He
did many insane things. For exam
pie, he had an insane delusion that
people were trying to poison him, and
be had cover built over his we'll and
kept it locked; he had an idea with
out the least ioundation) that his wife
was untrue to him, and he would
force her to 20 to their room at dark,
when be would lock the door and shut
ters with padlocks and put the keys
under his pillow. He imagined peo-
ple were trying to get into his house,
and erected trap gun in front Of his
residence that killed a neighbor one