2i)2 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1814. 



strain! being used, and the act was 

 positively supported by the evi- 

 dence of the two subscribing wit- 

 nesses. Under these circumstances, 

 the Court was of opinion that the 

 mind ofthett'stator went along with 

 the act of guiding his hand to sign 

 the paper in question, which must, 

 therefore, be pronounced for, as 

 containing his will, but without 

 costs against the next of kin. 



MATRIMONIAL CAUSES. 



Consistory Court, Doctors' Com- 

 711 on s. 



Parnell( acting bif Thomas Row- 

 nell, his Commit lee J, against P<ir- 

 nelt. — This was a question as to the 

 competency of a lunatic to prose- 

 cute, by the agency of his commit- 

 tee, a suit against liis wile, for a 

 divorce, l)y reason of adultery. 



A libel was offered to the Court 

 on the part of the plaintiff, stating 

 that the parties (Mr. Peter Far- 

 nell, and Ann his wife, of Isling- 

 ton, .Middlesex) were married in 

 June 1790; that they lived toge- 

 ther from that period, until some 

 time in the year 1807, and had 

 two children, a son and a daugh- 

 ter. About that time, the intel- 

 lects of the husband became de- 

 rangedj and he was in consequence 

 removed to a house for the recep- 

 tion of insane persons. His ma- 

 lady continuing with but little 

 prospect of abatement, upon the 

 necessary inquisition being taken, 

 ascertaining that fact, letters pa- 

 tent were issued by the Court of 

 Chancery, appointing Mr. Row- 

 nell committee of the lunatic's 

 person and prope'ty. The libel 

 then proceeded to state, that 

 shortly after the cohabitation of 

 the parties had thus necessarily 



ceased, the wife formed an adul- 

 terous intercourse with one Philip 

 Crask ; that she passed as his w ife, 

 and had several children by him ; 

 with a detail of other particulars 

 tending to support the charge of 

 adultery. 



The admission of this pleading 

 to proof was opposed by the wife's 

 counsel, on the ground that the 

 power of the committee of a 

 lunatic extended only to the pro- 

 tection of his property ; that in a 

 civil proceeding, between a man 

 and his wife, for a divorce « mensa 

 et thoro^ the complaining party 

 alone was entitled to sue, and that 

 the judicial separation which would 

 be effected between the parties by 

 a sentence of divorce, had alread}^ 

 in effect, taken place, in conse- 

 quence of the lunatic's situation. 



Sir William Scott observed, that 

 it had not been stated in argument ; 

 and it was certainly not within his 

 exfierience of the practice of the 

 Court, that a suit of this nature 

 had ever before occurred. It was 

 imj)ossil)le, therefore, to decide 

 upon the objections taken in the 

 ■piesent case from precedent, but 

 the decision must be ruled by 

 principle and analojiy. In this 

 pomt of view, the question seeined 

 to divide itself into two considera- 

 tions : 1st, whether a lunatic has 

 a right to seek a remedy for his 

 wife's profligacy ; and, 2dly, if he 

 has, whether there is any other 

 mode of doinj; so than the one 

 which has been adopted in the 

 present case. Upon the first point, 

 it appeared absurd to assert that 

 the husband's being visited with 

 the affliction of mental derange- 

 ment was sufficient to exonerate 

 the wife from the obligation of 

 fidelity imposed by the marriage 

 cootract ; aad that she should be 



