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

afterwards, Thomas^D. Cockey and John Fendal, two justices of
the peace, who had, the evening before, been sent for and re-
quested, by the defendant, to attend there on that morning, were
introduced into *the plaintiff's chamber by the defendant;
395 they found the plaintiff quite awake, and interchanged with
her the usual salutations on the meeting of acquaintances. Im-
mediately after the coming in of these justices the defendant pro-
duced the instrument of writing referred to in the proceedings as
the deed of the 15th June, 1824; and offered it to the plaintiff for
execution. The defendant raised the plaintiff' up, and assisted in
seating her in bed; and then on being accommodated by a desk
placed in her lap to write upon, and having her hand steadied or
guided by Justice Fendal, the plaintiff' signed the instrument of
writing and acknowledged it as her act and deed; and these jus-
tices took and certified the acknowledgment accordingly. This
instrument of writing so signed by the plaintiff, which conveyed
the whole of her property, was not then read to, or by her; nor
does it appear, that she ever once saw it before; nor was there at
that time any conversation upon the subject. No one else was
then present in the room but these four persons, the two parties,
and the two justices. And, after a stay of about one hour in the
house, the two justices departed, (n)

These justices (one of whom Fendal, only it appears but once
ever saw the plaintiff' at any other time during the illness under
which she was then suffering,) both assert, that when they took
her acknowledgment of the deed, she was in a sound state of mind.
But other witnesses testify, that on the morning of that day she
was in rather a weaker condition than on the evening before; that
her mind was evidently wandering; and that she was manifestly

(n) I have shewn in a former case, (H, K, Chasers Case, ante, 206,) that a
private acknowledgment of a deed of conveyance by a feme covert was in-
troduced here as a substitute for a fine, and that such an acknowledgment
was held to be as binding upon her, although not altogether as effectual
against third persons, as a fine. A person non compos mentis cannot levy a
fine, or make a conveyance of his property in that mode, because the Judges
will not receive the acknowledgment of an insane person; but if a Judge
does receive the acknowledgment of a fine from the most monstrous and
visible idiot, it will be held to be final and conclusive against him: because,
as a judicial record, it cannot be questioned;—Mansfield's Case, 12 Co. 124,
and 10 Co. 42;) yet a fine is said to be nothing more thau a common convey-
ance. This pernicious incongruity between a conveyance by deed, and by
fine in England, it is said, is about to be removed by a Statute abolishing
fines and recoveries, and substituting deeds of conveyance, which are to
have the same effect without being considered as conclusive judicial records.
(Shelf. Lun. & Idiots, 248, note.) But in Maryland, the acknowledgment of
a deed before Justices of the Peace, although in some particulars treated as
the substitute of a fine, has never been considered, like a fine, as a judicial
record, and to that extent conclusively binding upon the party.—(Lewis'
Lessee v. Waters, 3 H. & McH. 430.)