( 32 )
The District Court found that the respondent-appellant was incap-able of managing his affairs, and from this fact and Dr. Thomasz’sexpert opinion found that the respondent was of unsound mind.
I can find nothing in the evidence to lead me to the conclusionthat, this finding is incorrect. It appears that the respondent is notonly incapable of managing his affairs* but is so deficient in hismental capacity as to be incapable of managing the slightest thing,although he does not suffer from delusions, neither is he insane.He was examined by the District Court, and that examination fullybears out the opinion of Dr. Thomasz and the finding of the Court.It appears he did not know how many 25-cent pieces went to arupee; he said he did not know what it was to borrow money; that henever received any; he was not aware that he ever had an estate of500 acres which he had mortgaged, neither did he appear to be awarethat he borrowed sums amounting to Rs. 43,000. He is conscious ofhaving signed some documents, but appeared to think that the landdealt with was still his property and was all coming back to him.
For the appellant, it has been urged that the general bearingtowards him should be taken into account; that he had marriedthree times; and that the deeds executed by him were all executedby notaries of standing, and witnessed by those who would not haveassisted in the transaction had the man been insane.
It is significant, however, that the appellant’s present wife hasnot been called, and that in two cases arising out of the transactionsof the appellant a plea of insanity was inserted in the answer as adefence to the actions, which answers were signed by two of theproctors who were witnesses to the deeds executed by the appellantboth for and after the actions.
The reasons very fully given by the District Judge are irresistible,that the respondent was through imbecility, of mind quite incapableof managing his affairs; and for the purposes of the appointment ofa manager of the estate, and the further orders which can be madeunder chapter XXXIX. of the Code, it was not necessary to provecomplete insanity rendering the alleged lunatic incapable of lookingafter himself. It is sufficient to show that he was so far unsound inmind as to be incaphble of managing his affairs, a principle whichseems to be borne out in the cases cited in Mews Digest 566, andthe principle is enunciated in Lord Halsbury’s Lctivs of England 406.
With regard to the question whether the petitioner is the properperson to be appointed manager of the estate, I think the DistrictCourt should make further inquiry to find a person to manage itwho has not Been in receipt of property at the hand of the respond-ent. It is clear that the petitioner has been benefited by therespondent’s liberality towards him.
I would affirm the finding of the District Court, and send the caseback for a further inquiry as indicated above.
Sent back.