and clear to all. He had no doubt, himself, that in the present case there was a positive disorder of the understanding; but the hallucinations which existed, would be clearly shown to the jury. He would call a witness who had lived with Mrs. Battaglia from September, 1842, until May, 1847, who would detail her strange extravagance of conduct and passions of extreme violence; her delusions as to infernal spirits. He (the learned counsel) had no doubt but that some attempts would be made to mitigate all these into eccentricities of habit and conduct; but he thought the line between eccentricity and insanity was in this case too clearly marked-a disposition to obscene language would be found in this case, which was quite remarkable in a person, and a lady too, of that advanced age. She has, it seems, imagined that obscene practices took place immediately about her house; she was incoherent that morning when visited.

Perhaps it would be a convenient date, to mark the insanity from Nov., 1846, seeing that she has been of unsound mind since the death of her husband.

EMMA WOOD was examined by the Commissioner.-Mrs. Battaglia was married in 1815, and Mr. Battaglia died in 1846. Witness then deposed as to her going to take the situation of Mrs. Battaglia, and living with her in the lifetime of her husband. Mrs. B. used to make use of very bad language, though not so bad at the first part of the time that witness lived with her, as at the latter part. In five or six months after witness went to live there, she threatened to cut witness's throat; and about twelve months after, she used to come and sit in the kitchen with me, and frequently threatened to cut my by throat. There was also a boy, whose throat she likewise said she would cut. She ran after witness to cut her throat, but witness escaped in the back place, and she called in a great passion, through the door, declaring vengeance against her.

By Mr. LLOYD.-She used to swear she would cut witness's throat, if she did not get out of her place; and the master told witness to take no notice of her, because she was a person of unsound mind, and he engaged witness, therefore she could not discharge witness. It was at the dinnertable that she first threatened to cut witness's throat, when she distinctly said, if witness did not get out of the room, she would cut her b

-y throat. Cross-examined by Mr. LUCINA.-Witness was quite positive that it was at the dinner-table, when she made use of this expression.

Mr. LUCINA.-Well, now let us hear what she used to say to you ? She used to say I didn't suit her, and if I didn't get out of her way, she would cut my by throat. "I will directly, if you don't get out of my house."

Did she say anything else ?-No, sir.

You are sure she said nothing else, are you?-She told me to take off that "hell-fire cap" of mine, or else she would tear it off.

When was it she did that?-About a twelvemonth after I went there. Did she ever say anything to you about devils, or anything of that kind? -Yes, often about devils.

What was it, then?-She sometimes said that devils were in the windows; and that she could hear the burning mountains afar off; but the devils she often saw.

Now, was that more than once ?-Several times, sir-she was in the habit of repeating it. There was scarcely a day passed, but that she would repeat those words.

Did you not hear her speak of the noise in the kitchen?-Oh yes, sir. When?-About three or four years ago.

What was it?-She used to say, "What noises have you got in the kitchen?—what are the serpents about? They are running away. You

have got a lot of serpents, I say;" she would bawl out, in a passion-" Get out, the devil and his imps."

Do you recollect the shed being built near the house ?—Yes.

How long was that ago?-About three or four years ago. She went round the building, and asked them what they were building, for she supposed they were going to boil her in it when cut up.

By the COMMISSIONER. Do you mean her or you?-To cut her up, and boil her in, and make soup of.

How did she conduct herself towards her husband?-She treated him in the same way. She has talked of cutting his throat; and witness remembers her jumping up from the dinner-table, and getting a knife and holding it in her hand, and threatening to do it for him.

Cross-examined by Mr. LUCINA.-She came down in the kitchen, and took up the meat spit once, and was going to kill witness with it. She was most violent at times. She frequently thought the devil was dancing and jumping about the place. She often said she was positive she heard voices in her bed-room, when there was nothing of the kind there.

This witness was examined, re-examined, and cross-examined, at very great length, but the substance of her evidence has been given, and it will, therefore, be useless to dwell further upon it; except that the witness added that Mrs. Battaglia was particularly filthy in her habits.

Mr. LUCINA. Do you mean to swear, or state, or persevere in the statement, that Mrs. Battaglia was so filthy in her person, at the dinner-table, and in the presence of her husband ?-She used to make messes in the

room.

That you mean to swear ?-Yes, sir.

Now, from what time ?—It was during the latter part of the time that master was alive.

Dr. ED. J. SEYMOUR was next examined. He had had considerable experience in cases of insanity, both in private practice, and during the many years he had acted as one of the Commissioners in Lunacy. Had written several works on the subject.

Mr. LLOYD.-What is your opinion as to the state of this lady's mind? -I consider her of unsound mind.

Are you able to form any opinion as to whether that unsoundness would be of recent date ?-I should think, reasoning from what I have seen of the lady, that it had come on gradually-that is to say, the indications are certainly those of gradual insanity; and gradual unsoundness of mind. A JUROR.-Have you seen her before?—I have.

The COMMISSIONER.-What questions were put to her in your presence as to the state of her mind ?-She was asked whether she had seen Mr. N― lately and Mr. Jones, whom she had abused in the most violent

way.

Well; did she say she had seen them?-Yes; and answered their questions.

Did you examine her as to giving orders to her servants?—No; I consider those questions quite unnecessary.

Then am I to understand that those questions were not put to her?Something was said to her about money-I cannot remember what it was. Did she say why she abused the parties you have mentioned ?-She did not give any distinct reason; but she said that rascal Collings had been at the window, and she thought he was the very devil himself. When I asked her about Mr. Jones, she said she had not seen him.

COUNSEL.-I believe I understand from you, that in your presence no inquiry was made with respect to her property, or her capability of managing her own ordinary affairs?

The SOLICITOR.-Yes; but do you mean those questions about pounds, shillings, and pence?—No.

Then did you think those questions necessary, in order that you might form an opinion as to the state of her mind?-Certainly not. She might be quite competent to answer those questions, and yet be of unsound mind. Now, do you say that she is incompetent to manage her own affairs?— Yes; I never saw a clearer case in my life.

Well, now, supposing that she was unable to recollect the amount of the butcher's bill, would you, on that account, say that she was incompetent to manage her own affairs ?—No, not at all.

The COMMISSIONER.-You only saw her once, I believe ?-That's all. How long do you suppose you were then with her ?-About an hour. Did you have the opinion of any other professional man?—It was so conclusive, that I did not require a second opinion.

What age do you suppose her?-About eighty. She looks about that; and, in fact, I was told that was her age. She is most incoherent in her language; sometimes she says one thing, and at another she says exactly the opposite.

You say, when you saw her, she was of unsound mind. Now, do you think she could be imposed on ?-Yes; most certainly.

Was she at all energetic in her manner?-She was violent; and particularly when speaking of Lord Brougham, and one or two others.

Mr. LLOYD.-If she had been asked about her property, and the answer was consistent with that which was the fact, would you have altered your impression with regard to the state of her mind?—Not the slightest. Persons labouring under such a state are often exceedingly clever about those things, and yet perfectly incompetent to manage their own affairs.

You say that persons sometimes are enabled to answer questions respecting their property with correctness, and yet be in an absolutely unsound state of mind?-Certainly; I have experienced it in many cases.

The COMMISSIONER.-You say that she is incoherent:-do you bear in mind that she is an Indian ?—Yes, perfectly; but I understand that she came to this country some years ago?

Dr. FORBES WINSLOW, of Sussex House, Hammersmith, was next examined. Had for many years directed his attention nearly exclusively to the subject of lunacy and the treatment of the insane; was the author of several treatises upon the subject; and has an establishment of his own at Hammersmith for the reception of insane patients.

When did you first see that lady, Dr. Winslow ?—On the 3rd of July, 1847, at her own residence.

Was anybody else with you in the room at the time ?-Yes; one of her trustees, and a friend.

Did you enter into conversation with her, with the view of ascertaining the state of her mind?—Yes; the examination lasted nearly one hour. I was in close conversation with her nearly the whole of the time.

The COMMISSIONER.-Tell the jury any particulars of the examination. Dr. WINSLOW.-With regard to her manner, she appeared extremely excited. She began a very rambling and incoherent conversation about her servant; and I found it quite thoroughly impossible-to bring her mind to any one single point of conversation. She appeared to be quite incapable of anything like continuity of thought or idea. I asked her various questions, with the view of testing her capacity, and to none of which I could get a precise, satisfactory, definite, or sane answer. She said that a number of whores congregated nightly about the premises, disturbing her peace of mind. She dwelt with great vehemence on this fact, and said that there existed a conspiracy against her life. She declared

that a number of persons collected about the premises, for the purpose of concocting plans against her peace of mind, life, and happiness; also that a number of loose women were in the habit of assembling about the place, who were continually prostituting their persons. I asked her if she were under any apprehensions as to these individuals, and she said, "Yes." I asked her twice, and she said she was. She seemed in constant terror, and said that it was a satisfaction for her to think that she was under the protection of government; she also believed that a number of policemen were specially employed to protect her, and that she had only to hold up her finger and she could summon fifty policemen to her aid. The inspector of police, Mr. Mellish, she believed, was especially employed by government to protect her person and property. She then broke out into a rhapsody about Mr. Collings, and said that he came to her in disguise of a tom-cat. She then talked about the great whore of Babylon, and Lord Byron, and quoted texts from the Scriptures, scraps from "Don Juan," and said the whole world was poisoned by whores and papists; subjects that appeared to be exercising a powerful influence on her mind.

But speak generally.-The whole of the conversation was incoherent, violent, and insane.

Did she use coarse expressions ?-She spoke without any delicacy of feeling. I have no doubt whatever as to her unsoundness of inind.

And you have seen her since then, have you?—Yes; I saw her again in consultation with Dr. Seymour on the 14th of January. He saw her first, and then I examined her by myself. I found the delusions that I detected on a former occasion still existing. She was quite incapable of holding any reasonable conversation. She still imagined that prostitutes were dancing round the garden.

In your opinion, was she, on either occasions, a person of sound mind, and competent to take care of herself and property?-No; I should say that she was in an unsound state of mind, and wholly incompetent to take care of herself or her property.

Have you any doubt upon the subject?-None.

Having heard the general evidence, what effect has it produced on your mind? Does it confirm or alter your medical opinion?-It very strongly confirms me in my view of the case. I have no doubt the unsoundness of mind has existed for the period that the servant speaks of, supposing her statement to have been true. I should say that this disorder had been coming on for some years.

Do you consider this case a curable one?-I should be disposed to form an unfavourable prognosis. I should say the disordered state of the mind was associated with an organic affection of the brain, which would render the case quite incurable. In giving an opinion of this kind, great caution is necessary. I form my idea of the probable result of the case from the temperament of the patient, the cause of the mental disturbance, the form of the insanity, and the duration of the attack.

Would you have felt any hesitation in certifying her admission into the asylum if it had been desirable?-Not the slightest.

Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR.-Am I to understand that on neither of these occasions you asked her anything regarding her property?-Her trustee did on the first occasion.

Will you be good enough to tell us what it was she said?-She would not enter upon the question of her property. When the subject was referred to, she broke out into rhapsodies not in the slightest degree connected with the subject. I cannot recollect the precise questions which were asked, but I know that they had reference to some of her title deeds and property.

Did you think it prudent to advise her trustee to speak to her on that subject?-I did not consider it my duty to advise him. I understood he was her trustee. He was a stranger to me.

Did you not go down for the express purpose of seeing whether this lady was competent to take care of herself?-That was the precise object of my visit.

The learned COMMISSIONER summed up, and the jury, without any hesitation, brought in a verdict of unsoundness of mind, dating from the 18th of Nov. 1846.

Commission de Lunatico Inquirendo, opened at the Swan Tavern, Walham Green, Fulham, before MASTER WINSLOW, and a Special Jury, to inquire into the state of mind of CHARLES RICHARD HARRISON, ESQ. Mr. ALEXANDER, counsel, and a solicitor attended to watch the case on behalf of the petitioners; and Mr. GIFFARD, counsel, and a solicitor appeared on behalf of the alleged lunatic.

Mr. ALEXANDER detailed the facts of the case. He said: Mr. Charles R. Harrison was the son of a very extensive timber-merchant at Hull. He was now forty-eight years of age. In the year 1837 his father died, and left him a considerable fortune. The son afterwards married his present wife, who was his own cousin, and bore the same name. He married her at no great length of time from the decease of his father, and he then set up in business on his own account, that business being totally dependent on his own exertions; but in consequence of his reckless conduct, the business was placed under the charge of those under him at the time. He then lived at Opton Farm, and gave himself up to sports of the field. A considerable change took place in his affairs, and he left York, and took two farms at Guildford, in the county of Surrey. The Opton valuations and these farms amounted to about 5000Z. At that time he thought that he could dispose of his property to the Hull Dock Company. He mortgaged some of the property to defray his expenses at Guildford; that produced some embarrassment, and he was obliged to obtain some more moneys. He was then with his wife and two children at Surrey; and it was in the autumn of 1845 that the first symptoms of his insanity appeared. In the November of the year he became exceedingly wild, so much so that the medical men who attended him recommended that he should be watched. He was then placed at an asylum upon the certificate of two medical gentlemen, having previously threatened the life of his own wife. He grew much worse, and refused his food. In July, 1846, he returned to his wife; and soon afterwards, his family thought it advisable that he should go down to Leeds to see Dr. Harrison, an old friend. He went, and threatened to destroy one of the surgeons of that part, named Taylor. He was then recommended to be placed at the asylum in York, when he commenced a correspondence of a dreadful nature to his own wife. Some of them showed clear delusions; he spoke of having been dead and come to life again. In other parts he spoke of being a favourite of hell. During the whole of this time he was still indulging in threats against Mr. Taylor and another gentleman, whom he knew very well, and who was a friend to him. He had concealed the carving-knife upon one occasion, when he expected to meet Mr. Graybourn, one of the objects of his revenge, and against whom he seemed to have a most violent antipathy. In the autumn of 1846 he grew rather better. Dr. Harrison intimated to him that the writing of such letters would not have the effect of releasing him from his place of