478 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. Chancellor Lyndhurst made the reference prayed, for the allow- ance to the children, but " declined to extend the order to their mother." 1830. i?^ Freak. Shelford on Lunacy, 160. In this case the income of the lunatic was divided, J| going to four married children and the children of a deceased child. The report states merely the facts, but the context in Shelford indicates that the practice had become well established at this date. 1831. /?^ Windsor. Shelford on Lunacy, 159. Here the lunatic, with a surplus income of ;^8oo, was tenant for life, remainder to petitioner — a child of eight — who was being supported out of his mother's income of ^^40. It appearing that " the lunatic was every other day capable of expressing his wishes as to the application of his property, Lord Chancellor Brougham, although he recognized the doctrine of Lord Eldon, . . . refused to make the order prayed." Clearly it is no part of the law to do for the lunatic what he can do for himself, as this man could. 1836. Re Drummond, i My. & Cr. 627. Here out of a total income of ^^5500, and a surplus income of
- ^5000,;^2000 had been appropriated to the support of the petitioners
— two daughters of the lunatic — and for the keeping up of his house and establishment for them. One of the daughters being about to marry, the Master certified that a proper rearrangement of the income would be made by allowing ^^1500 per annum for the unmarried daughter and the establishment, and i^iooo down by way of advance, and ^lOOO per annum to the daughter about to marry. The Lord Chancellor (Cottenham) allowed the report, directing "that the sum allowed for the maintenance [of the daughter about to marry] should be settled to her separate use." This case and the three cases in the note ^ may perhaps be con- sidered instances of the legal obligation to support the in)mediate family of the lunatic (cf. Viner's Abr. Tit. Ideot) ; but it is clear that in supplying an annual income to daughters who marry off, the court goes somewhat beyond that, for they are then no longer part of the lunatic's family. Rex v. Darlington, 7 T. R. 797. 1836. In the matter of Blair, i Myl. & Cr. 300; s. C. 5 L. J. N. S. Ch. 150.2 1 Re Baker (1830); Re Craven (1830); Re Goldsmid (1835), —three similar un- reported cases, — are mentioned in a note to this case. 2 There is some head-note law in the L. J. report.
