COLEGATE D. OWINGS' CASE. 305

the plaintiff's chamber by the defendant; they found the plaintiff
quite awake, and interchanged with her the usual salutations on
the meeting of acquaintances. Immediately after the coming in of
these justices the defendant produced 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 Feudal, the
plaintiff signed the instrument of writing and acknowledged it as
her act and deed; and these justices took and certified the ac-
knowledgment 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.(I)

These justices (one of whom, Feudal, 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
incapable of judging of the propriety or effect of any deed or other

(I) I have shewn in a former case, (H. K. Chase's case, ante, 206) that a private
acknowledgment of a deed of conveyance by a feme covert was introduced here as a
substitute for a fate, 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 pro-
perty 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;—(Mom-
field's Case, 12 Co. 124, and 10 Co. 42;) yet a fine is said to be nothing more than
a common conveyance. 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.)