_IYNROLL. A form of “enroll,” used in the old books. 3 Rep. Ch. 63,73; 8 Hast, 410.

classed uncer the general designation of “insanity,” it is rather to be-regarded as a nat: ural defect than as a disease or as the re sult of a disease. It differs from “lunacy,” because there are no lucid intervals or periods of ordinary intelligence. See In re

ness: and in this sense un insane delusion is a fixed belief in the mind of the patient of the existence of a fact which has no objective existence but is purely the figment of his imagination, and which is so extravagant that no sane person would believe it under the circumstances of the case, the belief, nevertheless, being so unchangeable that the patient is incapable of being permanently disabused by argument or proof. The characteristic which distinguishes an “insane” delusion from other mistaken beliefs is that it is not a product of the reason but of the imagination, that is, not a mistake of fact induced by deception, fraud, insufficient evidence, or erroneous reasoning, but the spontaneous conception of a perverted imagination, having no basis whatever in reason or evidence. Riggs v. Missionary Soc., 35 Hun (N. Y.) 658; Buchanan v. Plerie, 205 Pa. 123, 54 Atl. 5683, 97 Am. St. Rep. 725; Gass v. Gass, 3 Humph. Tenn.) 283; Dew v. Clarke, 8 Add. 79; In re Bennett’s Estate, 201 Pa 485, 51 Atl. 386; In re Scott’s Estate, 128

larly called “St. Vitus’ dance.”—Puerperal insanity is mental derangement occurring in women at the time of child-birth or immediately after ; it is also called “eclampsia parturientium.”—Folie brightique. A French term sometimes: used to designate an access of insanity resulting from nephritis or uante disease.” See In re McKean’s Will, 31 Misc. Rep. 703, 66 N. Y. Supp. 44.—Delirlum tremens. A disease of the nervous system, induced by the excessive and protracted use of intoxicating liquors, and affecting the brain so as to produce incoherence and lack of continuity in the intellectual processes, a suspension or perversion of the power of volition, and delusions, particularly of a terrifying nature, but not generally prompting to violence except in the effort to escape from imaginary dangers. It is recognized in law as a form of insanity, and may be of such a nature or intensity as to render the patient ‘legally incapable of .committing a crime.

it denotes a clouding or weakening of the mind, not inconsistent with some measure of memory, reason, and judgment. But the term, in this sense, does not convey any very definite meaning, since it may range from mere feeble-mindedness to almost the last stages of imbecility.

way to a more scientific nomenclature, based chiefly on the origin or cause of the disease in the particular patient and its clinical history. These terms, however, are still occasionally encountered in medical jurisprudence, and the names of some of their subdivisions are in constant use.

tal derangement is accompanied with more or less of excitement. Sometimes the excitement amounts to a fury. The individual in such cases is subject to hallucinations and illusions. He is impressed with the reality of events which have never occurred, and of things which do not exist, and acts more or less in conformity with his belief in these particulars. The mania may be general, and affect all or most of the operations of the mind; or it may be partial, and be confined to particular subjects. In the latter case it is generally termed ‘monomania.’” In a more popular but less scientific sense, “mania” denotes a morbid or unnatural or exe cessive craving, issuing in impulses of such fixity and intensity that they cannot be resisted by the patient in the enfeebled state of the will and blurred moral concepts which accompan the disease. It is used in this sense in suc compounds as “homicidal mania,” ‘‘dipsomania,” and the like.—Hypomania. A mild or slightly developed form or type of mania.—Monomania, A perversion or derangément of the reason or understanding with reference to a single subject or small class of subjects, with considerable mental excitement and delusion while, as to all matters outs‘de the range of the peculiar infirmity, the intellectual faculties remain unimpaired and function normal y. Hopps v. People, 31 Ill. 390, 83 Am. Dec. 231; In re Black’s Estate, Myr. Prob, (Cal.) 27; Owing’s

form of mania or affective insanity eharacterised by an irresistible impulse to indulgence in Opium, cocaine, chloral, alcohol, etc—Mania fanatica. A form of insanity characterized by a morbid state of religious feeling. Ekin v. eCracken, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 540.—Sebastomamia. Religious insanity; demonomania.—Megalomania. The so-called “delirium of grandeur” or “folie de grandeur ;” a form of mania in which the besetting delusion of the patient is that he is some person of great celebrity or exalted rank, historical or contemporary.—Kleptomania. A species (or symptom) of mania, eonsisting in an irresistible propena to steal.

tion where insanity is alleged as a defense; a proceeding to defeat a will on the ground of the insanity of the testator; a suit to avoid a contract (including that of marriage) for similar reasons; a proceeding to secure the commitment of a person alleged to be insane to an asylum; a proceeding to appoint & guardian or conservator for an alleged lunatic; a plea or proceeding to avoid the effect of the statute of limitations on account of insanity. What might be regarded as insanity in one of such cases would not necessarily be so regarded in another.’ No definite rule can be laid down which would apply to all cases alike. Snyder v. Snyder, 142 IIL 60, 31 N. E. 303; Clarke v. Irwin, 63 Neb. 539, 88 N. W. 783. But the following rules or tests for specific cases have been generally accepted and approved:

forms of systematized mania which affect the understanding and judgment generally disable the patient from making a valid will. See Harrison v. Rowan, 3 Wash. C. C. 585,

practically the same thing as in relation to the appointment of a guardian. On the one hand, it does not require a total deprivation of reason or absence of understanding. On the other hand, it does not include mere weakness of mind short of imbecility. It means such a degree of derangement as renders the subject incapable of understanding the nature of the particular affair and his rights and remedies in regard to it and incapable of taking discreet and intelligent action. See Burnham v. Mitchell, 384 Wis. 134.