Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 09.pdf/573

 530

served on Lady Mordaunt, whose solicitors UNDUE INFLUENCE. entered an appearance for lier, but on a The English law of undue influence representation supported by affidavit that she was insane, the court on July 27, 1869, touches the law of lunacy so closely that it appointed her father. Sir Thomas Mon- deserves a place in the present series. Prac crieffe to act as guardian ad lilcin. Upon tically it is contained in two groups of cases. I. The first consists of those in which the plea of Lady Mordaunt's alleged insanity, issue was joined and the question was tried there has been some unfair and overreaching conduct, and generally, though not always, by a special jury, who found that Lady Mor some personal ad daunt was, at the time vantage obtained by when her husband's a donee placed in petition was served some close and confi upon her and had dential relation to the been ever since, in donor. Lyon r. such a state of mental Home (1868 L.R. 6 disorder as to be unfit E q . 655), which and unable to answer formed the subject of the petition or plead. one of the "Old The question then World Trial" series arose whether this in THE GREEN BAG, verdict barred her is an illustration of husband's right to a this rule. Other anal divorce. The House ogous cases are of Lords on the ad M o nck v. Hilton vice of a majority of (L.R. 2 Ex. U. 268), the judges held that where a spiritualist it did not, as divorce was convicted as a proceedings were not rogue and a vagabond criminal according to and sentenced to three the law of England. months' imprison This principle was in ment for palmistry 1880 applied to the and spirit rapping (in lunacy of a petition LOK n STOWELI.. his attempted flight er also (Baker v. Haker, 5 P. D. 142; 6 P. D. 12). It need from justice the prisoner Monck left be hardly be said that the supervening insanity hind him his instruments of trade — gloved models of the human hand, elastic tapes of a husband or wife is not ground for di and wires, phosphorus and other accesso vorce. ries); and Nottidge v. Prince (6 Jur. N. (3) Curiously enough, the question whether insanity at the time of committing S. 1066); the Bridgewater Agapemone adultery is a defense to a petition for divorce case, which, in the language of Mr. H unie never came before the courts till 1893. It Williams (unsoundness of mind, p. 60), "il lustrates how far that hysterical exaltation of was then raised in the case of Hanbury r. Hanbury, which came before the court of mind to which women are so often liable can appeal, and in which it was held that the be utilized by saintly adventurers for their question would practically be determined by own benefit." the rules in Macnaughton's case. Mr. Prince had been a curate in the