COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE.—1 BLAND. 355

taining from a lunatic a conveyance of his property, can be other-
wise considered, than as being in itself the strongest and most
conclusive evidence of fraud. Hence, as it would seem, if the in-
jured party should state, that being of a weak mind, he was im-
posed upon and defrauded; the defendant has only to prove an
aggravation of his own iniquity, by shewing that the plaintiff was,
in truth, at the time, not merely weak, but actually noil compos
mentis, and he may be at once silenced by this maxim.

It is said, that a man should not be permitted to stultify him-
self, "because, when he recovers his memory, he cannot know
what he did when he was non common mentis." But this cause of
the rule, as thus expressed, conveys a contradiction in terms, a
solecism in itself. A man in madness is not himself; his mind is
aliened and gone; the rational power has left his tabernacle, and
is from home. It would be just as reasonable to say, that he who
is absent from his dwelling, should not obtain redress for any in-
jury done to it during his absence, because when he returned home
he could not know what had been done there while he was abroad;
as that a person should not obtain redress by stultifying himself,
because he could not know what he had done during the time he
was insane. It has been well said, that he who jests upon a man
who is drunk, injures the absent. But an innocent and unfortu-
nate person is much more really and totally absent from himself
in his madness, than a man in his drunkenness, (h)

(A) Dr. Rush, in his observations on the diseases of the mind, has frequent
recurrence to the poets for illustrations of the nature of madness; because,
as he says, they view the human mind in all its operations, whether natural
or morbid, with a microscopic eye; and hence many tilings arrest their at-
tention, which escape the notice of physicians.—(Bush on the Mind, 158.)
Shakspeare has been frequently referred to by writers on the subject of
mental disorder.—(Conolly Ind, Inst. 319; Coop. Med. Jur. 391; 1 Paris and
Fonb. 316, note.) Justinian quotes a passage from Homer to illustrate the
nature of a donation mortis causa, (lib. 2, tit. 7, s. 1,) and Lord Coke allows,
that to cite verses standeth well with the gravitie of our lawyers. (Co. Litt.
237.) I shall therefore feel myself justified in placing among the references
some extracts from the poets, by way of illustration and in support of what
I have said, in the text:

—''Poor Ophelia,
Divided from herself and her fair judgment,
Without the which, we are pictures, or mere beasts."

Hamlet, Act 4, s. 5.

"If Hamlet from himself be ta'en away,
And, when he's not himself, does wrong Laertes,
Then Hamlet does it not, Hamlet denies it.
Who does it then? His madness." Hamlet, Act 5, s. 2.

By the Statute of 33 Hen. 8, c. 20, a person who had, while sane, com-
mitted high treason, and after became mad, might be tried in his absence,
without making his personal appearance, &e. From which it may be in