COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE. 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 be supposed to intimate any opinion which should be
reserved until the final hearing.

It is not my intention to say any thing as to the commencement
of 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 de
lunatico inquirendo can be issued against any one who is merely in
a state of dotage,(c) 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.(d) I
shall expect, that she shall be subjected to no manner of improper
restraint, or disagreeable influence, not indispensably 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 nexfc friend,(e) I shall allow this suit to be hence-
forward conducted by the solicitors, by whom it was instituted, in
the name of this plaintiff; subject, however, to the control of the
court, should there be any occasion for its interference, (f)

(c) Leving v. Caverly, Prec. Cha. 229; Wall's Case, cited 3 Atk. 173; Ridge-
way v. Darwin, 8 Ves. 66; Ex parte Cranmer, 12 Ves. 446; In re Holmes, 4 Russ.
132; 2 Mad. Chan. 732.—(d) Donegal's Case, 2 Ves. 408; Wartnaby v. Wart-
naby, Jac. Rep. 377; Whitehorn v. Mines, 1 Mun. 557; 1 Coll. Idiots, 65, 67.
(«) 1 Mont. Dig. 39.

(/) Chambers v. Donaldson, 9 East, 471; Horner v. Marshall, 5 Mun. 466.

ROTHWELL v. BOUSHELL.—In this case the bill stated, that John Boushell 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 plain-
tiff by petition stated, that a writ de lunatico inquirendo had, some time since, issued,
upon which it had been found and returned, that Boushell was a lunatic, and that a
trustee had been appointed, who had failed to give bond as required; whereupon she
prayed, that a guardian ad litem might be appointed.

13th February, 1819.—KILTY, Chancellor.—On considering the above petition, and
finding on examination of the proceedings, that a bond has not been filed; and, that
therefore there is not, in effect, any trustee capable of acting, it is thought proper,
and within the powers of the court, to appoint a guardian as prayed. It is therefore
ordered, that Thomas W. Veasy be and he is hereby appointed guardian for the pur-
pose of answering for the said John Boushell to the bill of complaint of Ann Roth-
well in the petition mentioned.