Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/496

48o HARVARD LAW REVIEW. do. Here two hypotheses are possible : («) That the committee knowing the circumstances report that a reasonable man would pension such a servant. No one would quarrel with such a result, and that seems on the whole to be what was meant. (^) That the committee, knowing that the lunatic when sane was exceptionally generous, think that he would make an allowance here, although the ordinary man would not. That, it is submitted, would be wrong. Note that the case effectually disposes of any notion that this is a right of relatives, a kind of prior enjoyment of their inheritance, like Henry V.'s experiments with his father's crown, — a corollary, as it were, to their right as next in succession. Here the benefi- ciary was in no way of kin to the lunatic. For the same reason it was obviously impossible that the allowance should be treated as an advancement. 1842. Ex parte Fowler, 6 Jur. 431. This was a petition of the committee upon the marriage of the only daughter of the lunatic, praying a reference to the Master of the question of an allowance for her outfit and an additional annual allowance. The Lord Chancellor (Lyndhurst) made the order prayed, upon the terms of the daughter settling what might eventually come to her as heir-at-law or next of kin of the lunatic; the Master to approve of a proper settlement. Nothing is said one way or the other about treating the allowance as an advancement. Similar orders had been made, one by Brougham, L. C, the other by Cottenham, L. C, in Ex parte Drummond, 1836, both unreported cases cited in the principal case. 1844. Re Grove, 13 L. J. N. S. Ch. 262. This was a petition by the committee, sister and sole next of kin of a lunatic, for the increase of an allowance for the maintenance of the lunatic on the ground that there were illegitimate children of a deceased brother of the lunatic to be supported. "The Lord Chancellor (Lyndhurst) said that although the court would increase the allowance of a lunatic for the purpose of making a better pro- vision for his illegitimate children, yet the circumstance of there being illegitimate children of a brother of the lunatic would not induce the court to increase the allowance." Clearly it was here intended and understood that the expenditure should not be even indirectly upon the lunatic. Clearly, also, the test is that of the average man, for the Lord Chancellor disregarded a suggestion of the petition " that the lunatic would no doubt have