fact, and not of faith; and if the delusion, although resting in part upon faith, drives one to some violent or criminal act, such as the sacrifice of one of his family, it will be considered an insane delusion. A lucid interval means a temporary suspension of the effects of the disease causing the insanity, and a return, meanwhile, to the normal mental state. If the act in question, either civil or criminal, be committed during a proven lucid interval, the legal responsibility will be the same as in one who is entirely and permanently sane. Moral insanity is that form of mental derangement which is characterized by the loss or blunting of the moral perceptions, an inability to judge rationally upon matters of right and wrong. It is extremely doubtful if moral insanity is ever wholly unassociated with intellectual insanity, that form of mental derangement which is accompanied by delusions and hallucinations. 43. Restraint of the insane.-The restraint of those mentally deficient is regulated by statute in most states. Generally a complaint must be lodged with the proper authorities; an examination will then be made by competent, disinterested physicians under direction of the officer designated by statute; if they find the patient insane, in any of the various forms, they so report, and upon that report usually is based the determination whether or not restraint shall be ordered. At the present day, such restraint is usually by commitment to an asylum. Not infrequently the person so restrained seeks to regain his liberty by writ of habeas corpus; the question of his sanity will then be determined by the court, upon all the evidence brought forward. 44. Civil liability of insane.—Whether or not one is legally responsible may be questioned with relation to either civil or criminal matters. One who enters into a contract while so mentally unsound that he is unable to comprehend fairly the nature and effect of his acts, is thereby disqualified from making a valid contract; but such contract is voidable only, and may be ratified after the return to reason, or it may then be repudiated. To this rule there is, in many jurisdictions, one exception, viz.: a marriage contract of an insane person is void absolutely. But mere weakness of understanding, or slowness of perception, where no fraud or undue influence has been practiced, is not sufficient to set aside a contract. Thus, if two persons deal with each other fairly, at arm's length, the fact that one is mentally superior and can better foresee and judge the advantages to accrue to him from the bargain he is making, does not invalidate the contract provided the other contractor is able to give rational assent to the agreement. So, one may suffer from paranoia with respect to one particular matter, but if that matter be not the subject of the contract, such mental unsoundness will not invalidate it. So, too, if one is generally insane but has occasional lucid intervals, a contract entered into during such an interval will be binding upon him. In making a valid will, the law requires that the testator be able to recollect the property he is about to dispose of, to understand the manner of distributing it, and to remember those who are the natural objects of his bounty. This is, perhaps, a somewhat less degree of intellect than is required for making a valid contract. The will of one generally insane, if shown to have been made during a lucid interval, is valid. If one offered as a witness is so unsound mentally as to be unable to comprehend the nature of an oath, he is not competent to testify. But one who is to some extent insane may be a competent witness if he understands the nature of an oath, comprehends the facts in question, and can communicate his testimony. Of the credibility and weight of such testimony, the jury is to judge, of course; and evidence of the witness's mental deficiency may be received for the purpose of affecting his credibility. 45. Criminal liability of the insane.-Insanity is frequently offered as a defense to a criminal charge, but will not avail unless it can be shown to have existed with reference to the crime charged, at the time of committing it. The rule formerly was that if the accused had sufficient mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong and to understand the nature of the punishment for the crime committed, he was responsible and must pay the penalty, no matter how mentally deficient he might be on other and even similar subjects; and such may still be the law in a few jurisdictions. But in many of the states today the law recognizes, to some extent, the soundness of the position taken by physicians, namely, that any insanity upon any subject must more or less affect the individual's mentality in every respect. However, it is hardly likely that one would be relieved entirely from responsibility for a crime committed while suffering from "irresistible impulse" or "moral insanity" simply, although these are recognized by physicians as species of insanity. A crime committed during a lucid interval will not be excused by the fact of general and usual insanity; but the trial and sentence cannot take place while the defendant is insane. Drunkenness, although usually not a valid defense to crime, becomes so when it actually results in mental unsoundness. BIBLIOGRAPHY. The list here given is not exhaustive of the works on Medical Jurisprudence, but it comprises the latest and most complete treatises upon the subject, and also a number of briefer texts for students' use: Chapman, Manual of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. Philadelphia. This is an excellent student's book; the last edition is recent. Elwell, Malpractice and Medical Evidence. New York, 1881. Ewell, Manual of Medical Jurisprudence. Boston, 1909. Excellent for student's use, but not Wharton and Stillé, Medical Rochester, 1905. Probably intended to be exhaustive. Taylor, Medical Jurisprudence. 11th Amer. ed. Philadelphia, 1892. Jurisprudence. 3 vols. (5th ed.). the best and latest exhaustive work. Medicine. Philadelphia, 1897. This is probably the best single volume work for the American student, whether in a school of medicine or law, or reading alone. Unfortunately, it is out of print. QUIZ QUESTIONS LAW OF DAMAGES (The numbers refer to the numbered sections in the text.) 1. State what remedy the law gives one for a wrongful injury caused by another. 2. Give illustrations of what one may legally do and of what he may not do on his own property. 3. State some of the causes for the rapid development of the subject of damages. 4. When does the court have the right to set aside a verdict of the jury? 5. State the distinction between the powers of the jury in tort actions and in actions on contract. 6. Give an illustration of an injury for which damages may not be recovered. 7. When may there be contribution between tort-feasors? 8. What is meant by the term "liquidated damages'? 9. Give an illustration showing the distinction between liquidated damages and a penalty. 10. In building contracts how will the court determine whether a certain agreement amounts to a penalty or whether on the other hand it provides for liquidated damages? 11. Give a general rule by which courts may determine whether the contract provides for a penalty or for liquidated damages. 12. May liquidated damages be recovered in case of a breach of contract if no actual damages have been sustained? 13. State a case illustrating the distinction between liquidated damages and what are known as alternative stipulations. 14. What is meant by exemplary damages? 15. Jones was the owner of a newspaper. Hardy was employed as reporter for the paper. He maliciously wrote and had |