378 COLEGATE B. OWINGS' CASE.

tion but that which is drawn between persons of sound mind, and
those who are non compos mentis. All persons in the former con-
dition of mind, not otherwise disqualified, may make a valid
contract; but all contracts made by those in the latter situation
are deemed utterly void.(o;) And yet, according to this maxim, no
man can be allowed to stultify himself; that is, to shew that he
had not merely a weak mind, but that he was absolutely non compos
mentis. If a man be of ever so feeble a capacity, short of lunacy,
he may be allowed to prove that fact; or, in other words, partially
to stultify himself in connexion with other circumstances, in order
to shew that he had been defrauded. But if he be absolutely non
compos mentis, he shall not be permitted to prove that fact, or to
stultify himself altogether; although it would seem to be difficult
to understand how the obtaining from a lunatic a conveyance of his
property, can be otherwise considered, than as being in itself the
strongest and most conclusive evidence of fraud. Hence, as it
would seem, if the injured party should state, that being of a weak
mind, he was imposed 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
non compos mentis, and he may be at once silenced by this maxim.
It is said, that a man should not be permitted to stultify himself,
U because, when he recovers his memory, he cannot know what
he did when he was non compos mentis" But this cause of the
rule, as thus expressed, conveys a contradiction in terms, a sole-
cism in itself. A man in madness is not himself; his mind is
aliened and gone; the rational power has left its 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 injury
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 unfortunate
person is much more really and totally absent from himself in his
madness, than a man in his drunkenness.(r)

(g) l Fonb. 66.

(r) Dr. Rush, in his observations on the diseases of the mind, has frequent recur-
rence 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