that the failure or want of title in the grantor is not a defence to an action on the notes-that the grantee's only remedy is on the covenants in his deed—that the covenants in a deed of conveyance constitute a sufficient consideration for the notes. In other courts, a want or failure of title is held to be a legal defence, in such case. But the failure must be total, in order to sustain such defence.'

To avoid circuity of action, courts have of late permitted partial failure of consideration to be a defence pro tanto in suits on contracts respecting personal property, work and labor, &c. As in the case of a contract to build a house in a particular manner, and at a specified price, if the work is inferior to that which was agreed on, the defendant may show this fact and reduce the plaintiff's compensation to the actual benefit received by the defendant.*

5

By the common law, neither the want nor the failure of consideration is any defence to an action on a bond, or other sealed instrument. By local usage, however, in some of the states of the union, and by virtue of statutes, in other states, such defence is allowed."

T. M.

1 1 Greenleaf, 352, Lloyd v. Jewell; 2 Greenleaf, 390, Howard v. Witham.

2 11 Johns. 50, Frisbee v. Hoffnagle. See also 3 Stew. & Port. 92, Wilson v. Jordan; 3 Pick. 452, Knapp v. Lee.

2 Wheat. 13, Greenleaf v. Cook; 15 Mass. Rep. 171, Smith v. Sinclair; 3 Haywood, 109, Stephenson v. Yandle. See also 1 Johns. Ch. Rep. 213; 5 Binn. 355.

4 See 2 Stark. Ev. 97, 280, 640; 3 Stark. Ev. 1768; Chit. Con. 191, 276; 7 Pick. 181.

5 2 Mass. Rep. 162; Cooke, 499; 1 Devereux, 46; 1 Bailey, 213; 2 Root, 139; 3 J. J. Marsh. 473; 13 Johns. 430; 2 Johns. 177.

3 Blackford, 131. 502; 2 Bay, 76; 5 Monroe, 273; Addison, 10. 236; 1 Dallas, 17; 11 Wend. 106; 1 Breese, 1. 94. It has heretofore been mentioned, that a court of chancery will not enforce the execution of a sealed contract, if it be purely voluntary. And in the case of Wright v. Moore, Tothill, 27, "a voluntary bond of £1000, entered into for no consideration, was cancelled in the presence of the judges."

ART. II.-INSANITY:-CASE OF PECHOT.

THE increasing attention to the subject of insanity in connexion with crime, has induced us to devote a few of our pages to some account of a case reported in a late number (xxxv) of the Annales D'Hygiène Publique. In the course of the judicial investigation which it underwent, some of the most delicate and difficult questions which such cases ever involve came up, and received a careful and enlightened discussion, which makes it peculiarly interesting to those who are desirous of obtaining light on this subject.

Jean Pechot, 58 years old, a farmer and widower, lived with his three young children, and a servant, Anne Lerussard, nearly as old as himself. The latter complained of the odd and peevish temper of her master, but continued to live with him out of regard for the children, whom she treated with the kindness and care of a mother. On the 22d of April, 1836, Pechot had forbidden her going to market at Rennes, but shortly afterwards, observing her go to the stable, he followed her, took from her a basket of eggs, and ordered her to return; she refused, when he struck her on the head, probably with a wooden mallet which was found there among other tools. He immediately fled to a hay-loft, the door of which he barricaded, where he was found by two of his neighbors, in great terror, and constantly exclaiming that "they had sent for the gens d'armes to come and arrest him; that he wanted his domestic to leave the stable; that she refused, and he struck her, he knew not with what, but did not think he struck her very hard." When asked why he struck her, he replied: "I do not know; it was a thought; the devil is so tempting." The woman died shortly after.

On the 29th of April, he underwent his first examination, when he protested that he did not know whether he struck

the woman or not, though it seemed as if he had pushed her with his hand, and that she had fallen over a log that was in the stable. He declared that he was an innocent (imbecile); that the good God and the holy virgin had abandoned him and his children; and that he did not conceal himself, but thought that he was at home with his children. He frequently interrupted the examination by deploring the fate of his children, and anxiously inquiring what they were going to do with him; complained of thirst, and several times asked for cider.

Doubts having been raised respecting Pechot's mental condition, Dr. Chambeyron, physician-in-chief of the lunatic hospital at Rennes, and Dr. Brutè, physician of the prison, were requested to examine him, and the following is their report.

"Many times, either together or separately, we visited the prison, for the purpose of ascertaining the mental condition of Jean Pechot, confined on a charge of homicide. Our visits were made unexpectedly, at intervals of several days, and in the presence of the jailer and others employed in the prison.

"We always observed in Pechot some heat in the forehead and dryness of the skin,-very common symptoms of insanity, though far from belonging exclusively to that disease. The appetite, sleep, and other functions, were represented by the keepers as regular. His countenance was always sad, and indicated deep dejection. The examination to which we subjected him at different times appeared to cause him fatigue and annoyance, but never irritation, or even impatience. When questioned concerning his name, age, country, relatives, the act with which he was charged, and the circumstances that preceded, accompanied or followed it, his answers were always slow, never incoherent; sometimes clear and precise, more frequently evasive, such as: 'I don't know, I don't recollect; you know

better than I; what do you want me to tell you; what is the use of all these questions; tell me what you want.' To the same question repeated at the same interview, or some days afterwards, he sometimes replied in a vague manner as will presently appear; sometimes correctly and clearly, but always like a man destitute of all elasticity, unable, without an effort, to arouse himself from his apathy and his own thoughts, to follow those of the person addressing him. His eye was constantly on the watch; the slightest noise, the least gesture, instantly attracted his attention, and several times we succeeded in renewing the occasion of repeating a remark. At last, one of us, Dr. Brutè, thought he detected an intentional obstinacy in the continual return of the same answer, without any relation to the question addressed to him, as: 'give me some cider; I want some cider; I can pay for it.'

"We did not observe, nor learn that any one else had observed, any symptom of mania, or general delirium, with or without fury. We did not recognise any of the physical characters of imbecility, or dementia; still, it is impossible for us to say, that his understanding is nowise impaired, the trials to which we subjected the accused having necessarily been short, limited to a conversation in which he did not take an active part, and not directed to any one of the most ordinary circumstances of life. Neither did we see any thing, that could authorize us to admit the existence of homicidal, or other monomania. We ought to remark, however, first, that monomaniacs can elude with wonderful sagacity questions that have any reference to the ideas in regard to which they are delirious; second, that partial delirium is sometimes so limited, that without previous accurate information, we are frequently unable, except accidentally, to discover its object. The force of this remark is weakened in the present case, by the particular circumstance, that Pechot has several times declared that he has

been an imbecile more than forty years; so that it can scarcely be supposed that he is simulating insanity.

"From the examination, the results of which we have thus stated, we conclude,

"1. That Pechot is at present in a state of morbid melancholy, the most prominent character of which is deep mental dejection;

"2. That under certain circumstances, this dejection might give place to a momentary but excessive irritation;

"3. That the present state of Pechot may be only the result of the physical and moral circumstances in which he has been placed since his arrest; but that it might be equally the continuation of an analogous state, more or less severe, existing prior to the crime imputed to him, and in regard to which we have not been required to state our opinion.

"4. That the assertion of Pechot that he is an imbecile, does not appear sufficient to establish the charge of simulation. Perhaps even, on reflection, it might seem to exclude such a charge. Besides, it is not rare for insane patients to discern the probable consequences of their acts, and endeavor to avoid them by the confession of their diseased condition. It even happens, sometimes, that the impression produced on them by a criminal act restores them to reason."

On the 26th of July, Pechot underwent a second examination, which, however, elicited but little, if any, additional light on his case. He persisted in all his former statements, and when inquired of respecting his motives for committing the crime, he alleged that the deceased struck him first, after abusing him at a great rate; that she had frequently robbed him, and shut him up in the hay-loft. He expressed his belief that his affairs were in a very bad state; that his land was ruined; that he and his children were doomed to perish, while he felt sick and unable to labor.

Finally, on the 11th of November, he was brought before the court of assizes. His walk was slow and unsteady; his