Volume 1

Wharton and Stille's medical jurisprudence.

  • Wharton, Francis, 1820-1889.
Date:
1873
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Wharton and Stille's medical jurisprudence. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    52/924 (page 22)
    which came before the Supreme Court in 1857, on appeal from a decree of the Surrogate of the city and county of Hew York, admitting to probate the will and first codicil of the deceased, it appeared that the testator made his will in 1842; in 1849 he was suddenly struck with apoplexy, which was followed by permanent paralysis or hemiplegia on the right side, and by severe epileptic convulsions which continued till his death in 1856. During this period, he could neither speak nor write, nor use language in any shape or form for the expression of his mind. He retained his voice, and could utter guttural and inarticulate sounds, but no language. He had his vision, and the full and vigorous use of his left arm, hand, and finders, but he could not write. He did not use the dictionary for pointing to words, and when block-letters were placed before him, he brushed them aside. It was ad¬ mitted that these actions and his condition arose from a diseased state of the mind. While he was thus afflicted, he 1 was claimed to have made three codicils to his will. These papers were drawn by the counsel for the family, and sug¬ gested by the wife, who took immense property under them. The testator’s hand in signing was guided by counsel. The Supreme Court overruled the decree of the Surrogate admit¬ ting the first codicil to probate, and sustained that court in rejecting the last two codicils.(V) § 28. This decision was substantially affirmed by the Court of Appeals, by whom it was held that in law the only standard as to mental capacity in all who are not idiots or lunatics is, was the person compos mentis or non compos mentis. The ques¬ tion in all cases is: had the testator, as compos mentis, capacity to take unprompted an active view of his property and family, and to form a rational disposition of his affairs ?(w) (v) Parish v. Parish, 42 Barbour, 274. (w) Delafield v. Parish, 25 N. Y. 10. An able review of this case appears as an editorial in the Am. Journ. of Insanity for October, 1862 (vol. 19). From this review we extract the following :— The alleged loss of understanding on the part of Mr. Parish was, as usual, dependent upon physical disease. He had threatening of cerebral dis¬ turbance for several years before his attack of apoplexy and paralysis in 1849,