PRACTICE OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE. Appeals in Lunacy and Ediocy. Case of Samuel Pitt, 752.-Irish Privy Council, 753-Case of Lord Lanesborough, ib.-Upon Suit in Equity the Appeal is to the House of Lords, 754.-Proceedings on a Commission of Lunacy are on the Law Side of the Court of Chancery, and from them a Writ of Error lies to the House of Lords, ib.-Form of Appeal in Lunacy, 755.—Rules of Proceeding, 756. IN the matter of Samuel Pitt, a lunatic, an appeal having been tendered to the House of Lords, their Lordships came to a resolution, which is thus recorded in the Journals of the 14th February, 1726. The House proceeded to take into consideration the petition and appeal of William Pitt, Esq., and Samuel Pitt, merchant, complaining of two orders made by the Lord Chancellor, the 23 Dec. and 25 January last, granting the custody of the person of Samuel Pitt, a lunatic, the appellant's uncle, as in the appeal was mentioned, and praying that the orders might be reversed. The said appeal being read by the clerk, notice was taken that the custody of idiots and lunatics was in the power of the King, who might delegate the same to such person as he should think fit. Whereupon the Lord Chancellor produced a paper writing, under his Majesty's sign manual, entrusting his Lordship with the care and commitment of the custody of idiots and lunatics, and of their persons and estates; and the same being read by the clerk, it was moved that the before-mentioned appeal might be received; and after long debate, and reading of the statute of 17 Edw. 2, de prerogativa regis, c. 9 & 10, the question being put, whether the appeal should be received, it was resolved in the negative. The statute of 17 Edward II., c. 9 and 10, referred to, is as follows: Cap. 9. The King shall have the custody of the lands of natural fools, taking the profits of them without waste or destruction; and shall find them in their necessaries of whose fee soever the lands be holden. And after the death of such idiots he shall render it to the right heirs, so that such idiots shall not aliene, nor their heirs shall be disinherited. Cap. 10. Also the King shall provide when any (that beforetime hath had his wit and memory) happen to fail of his wit, as there are many per lucida intervalla, that their lands and tenements shall be safely kept, without waste and destruction, and that they and their household shall live and be maintained competently with the profits of the same, and the residue besides their sustentation shall be kept to their use, to be delivered unto them when they shall come to right mind; so that such lands and tenements shall in nowise be aliened, and the King shall take nothing to his own use. And if the party die in such estate, then the residue shall be distributed for his soul by the advice of the ordinary. Here seems to be nothing to exclude the jurisdiction of the House of Lords; but the appeal in re Pitt being rejected by that tribunal, was carried to the Privy Council. There also the jurisdiction appears to have been doubted. After argument by counsel, however, it was finally determined on the 14th July, 1727, that the appeal should be received ("). By this decision, therefore, it is settled that appeals in lunacy and idiocy lie to the Queen in Council, not to the Queen in Parliament ("). They do not lie to the Irish Privy Council; for in the case of the Earl of Lanesborough, it was held by the law officers of the crown (Sir John Copley and Sir Charles Wetherell) that an appeal from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in lunacy lay to the King in Council in England, and not to the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council in Ireland. The Crown in that case, pursuantly (*) 3 P. Williams, 107. () Quære. Was there anciently any court known by the title of King or Queen in Council, distinct from the Court of Parliament? If there was, Sir Edward Coke appears to have overlooked it, as well as other writers not usually chargeable with lack of diligence. to the Report of its advisers, referred the appeal to the Privy Council in England. It was heard on the 8th July, 1826, by Lord Stowell and Lord Gifford, on whose recommendation the orders complained of were reversed (). It has been seen, that although an appeal from an order made on petition in lunacy lies to the Queen in council, yet an appeal from an order made on a bill filed in lunacy, in the regular course of equitable jurisdiction, lies to the House of Lords (4). As to idiots and lunatics, it is observed by Mr. Justice Blackstone (e), that the King himself used formerly to commit the custody of them to proper committees in every particular case; but now to avoid solicitations and the very shadow of undue partiality, a warrant is issued by the King, under his royal sign manual, to the Chancellor or Keeper of his Seal, to perform this office for him and if he acts improperly in granting such custodies, the complaint must be made to the King himself in council. For this last position the learned author of the Commentaries cites the case of Pitt, already adverted to; but he proceeds to observe, that the previous proceedings on the commission to inquire whether or no the party be non compos, are on the law side of the Court of Chancery, and, if erroneous, can be redressed by writ of error only in the regular course of law (), that is to say, in the House of Lords. It appears to have been the opinion of Lord Hardwicke that if an inquisition of lunacy were found and returned, and afterwards traversed, and an erroneous judgment () For the particulars of the case of Lord Lanesborough I am indebted to Mr. Reeve of the Council Office. (4) Supra, p. 99, 100, 101; and 11 Price, 668. (e) 3 Com. 427. (f) 3 Black. Com. 497. given on a trial in the Court of King's Bench, a writ of error would lie thereon in Parliament (*). So that there is scarcely any question in idiocy or lunacy which may not, by resorting to a proper course of proceeding, be brought under the cognizance and adjudication of the House of Lords. The form of an appeal to the Queen in council in lunacy may be as follows: In the matter of, Esq., a lunatic, lately deceased. The humble petition and appeal of [the committees], committees of the person and estate of the said lunatic, Sheweth,―That some time in or about the month of A. B. and C. his wife, sister and only next of kin and heiress-at-law and administratrix of the goods and chattels, rights and credits of the said (lunatic), presented their petition to the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, stating (amongst other things) that &c. [several facts as to the misapplication of the maintenance by the committees were alleged]. And that, by an order made in this matter on the petition of the said [committees], bearing date the 13th March, 1830, it was ordered, that [order to pass the accounts of the committees, without prejudice to any proceedings on the part of the next of kin of the lunatic relating thereto.] And that the said committees' accounts, subsequently to the 10th Oct., 1827, had not been laid before the said Master; and the said petitioner submitted, that an inquiry ought to be directed as to the expenditure of the said committees upon the maintenance, &c. And that the said petition prayed that it might be referred to the said Master, to inquire what &c. [the prayer of the petition is here stated]. That divers affidavits were filed on behalf of the said [respondents], in support of the allegations contained in their said petition; and that affidavits by divers persons of the highest character and respectability were also filed on behalf of your petitioners, in opposition thereto; and that by such last-mentioned affidavits it appeared (amongst other things) that your petitioners, during the whole time of their acting as such committees as aforesaid, evinced an anxious desire to maintain for the said lunatic a handsome establishment, suitable to his rank and fortune, and to afford him every comfort consistent with his situation, without sparing trouble or expense for that purpose; and that the establishment of the said lunatic (*) Shelford on Lunacy; Hovenden's Sup. to Vesey, junr., vol. i. p. 479; 3 Bla. Com. 49, 427; 1 Cox, 418; but see 1 Vern. 131. was, during the whole time from the appointment of your petitioners as committees, to the death of the said lunatic, maintained and kept up in a style suitable to his rank, fortune, and situation, and in a manner likely to conduce, as far as possible, to the comfort of the said lunatic, and that no expense was spared by your petitioners in respect of his comfort and amusement, and that the food and raiment of the said lunatic, and the medical and other attendance upon him, were in every respect the best that your petitioners could procure. That it also appeared that the said order [the original order for maintenance], of the day of, which is imperfectly and inaccurately stated in the said petition, is partly in the words and figures or to the purport and effect following, (that is to say), [the words of the order were stated]. That the said petition of the said [respondents] came on to be heard before the Lord High Chancellor, on the 26th day of March, 1831; and that, by an order bearing date on that day, his Lordship was pleased to order that it should be referred, &c.-[The order appealed against was here set forth.] That your petitioners conceive themselves greatly aggrieved by the said last-mentioned order, and have therefore appealed therefrom to your Majesty in council. Your petitioners, therefore, most humbly pray, that your Majesty day of great wisdom and justice, shall seem meet. And your petitioners shall ever pray, &c. Appeals to the Privy Council in lunacy have been so rare, that no orders have been issued limiting the time for presenting them, or regulating the method of their conduct; but as appeals from courts of equity to the House of Lords come usually from the same Judge who administers in lunacy, perhaps it would be held, that the analogy of appeals from courts of equity to the House of Lords ought to govern the practice on appeals in lunacy to the Queen in council(). () Vide Grosvenor v. Drax, 2 Knapp, 82. |