350 COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE.—1 BLAND.

quire that the suit which had been begun should be reinstated, and
now prosecuted with as little delay as may be to a final decision
upon its merits, as prayed by the petition. 1 Coll. Idiots, 80; Hol-
man v. Holman, 3 Desau. 210.

The order for dismissing it was given before the return of the com-
mission for taking testimony; and, as it would seem, before all the
testimony, pertinent to the matter and within reach of the parties,
had been taken. For it appears, that some of the proofs collected
under the petition might be brought to bear upon the principal
case. I therefore deem it improper at this stage of the
373 * proceedings more fully to explain the reasons which have
brought me to the conclusion, that the case should be reinstated,
lest, in doing so, I might he supposed to intimate any opinion
which should be reseived until the final hearing.

It is not my intention to say anything as to the commencement
ot the decline of the mental energy of the plaintiff; or to speak
of the lucid intellectual efforts she may be now capable of making;
but, although it does not appear to be altogether settled according
to the English authorities, that a writ in the nature of a writ tie
lunatico inquirendo can be issued against any one who is merely in
a state of dotage; Leving v. Caverly, Prec. Cha. 229: Wall's Case,
cited 3 Atk. 173; Ridgeway v. Darwin. 8 Ves. 66; Ex parte Cranmer,
12 Ves. 440; In re Holmes, 4 Rums. 182; 2 Mad. Chait. 732; I deem
it proper to observe, that from the proofs of the present condition
of the plaintiff's mental faculties, I shall regard her as completely
under the especial protection of the Court as she can be, short of
her being formally placed under its guardianship by a regular
course of judicial proceeding. Donegal's Case, 2 Ves. 408; Wart-
naby v. Wartnaby, Jac. Rep. 377; Whitehorn v. Hines, 1 Mun. 557;
1 Co/1. Idiots, 65, 67. I shall expect, that she shall be subjected to
no manner of improper restraint, or disagreeable influence, not in-
dispensably necessary for her welfare. If necessary, and it should
be asked, the rents and profits of the property in controversy may
be applied, under the direction of the Court, to her support and
benefit, until a final decree can be had. And as an imbecile adult
may be permitted to sue here by his next friend; 1 Mont. Dig. 39;
I shall allow this suit to be henceforward conducted by the solici-
tors, by whom it was instituted, in the name of this plaintiff; sub-
iect, however, to the control of the Court, should there be any
occasion for its interference. Chambers v. Donaldson, 9 East, 471;
Horner v. Marshall, 5 Mun. 466.(a)

(g) ROTHWELL v. BOUSHELL.-—In this case the bill stated, that John Bou-
shell the defendant was deranged and incapable of managing his affairs, and
prayed, that a guardian ad litem might be appointed to answer for him, &c.
Afterwards the plaintiff by petition stated, that a writ de lunatico inquirendo
had, some time since, issued, upon which it bad been found and returned,