Opinion
04-29-1915
In re FORAN.
Davis & Hastings, of Jersey City, for petitioner.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
In the matter of the alleged lunacy of John Edward Foran. Petition for inquest. Ordered amended.
This matter was referred to James Buchanan, as advisory master, who filed the following conclusions:
The brother of an alleged lunatic presents this petition to the chancellor under the supplement approved March 3, 1915, and which took effect immediately (P. L. 1915, p. 57), stating amongst other things, that the alleged lunatic is possessed of personal property consisting of about $4,000, deposited to his credit with a trust company, and praying the chancellor to ascertain the truth of the allegations of the petition, and to appoint a guardian of the alleged lunatic.
By the second section of this supplement the chancellor is given authority to inquire into and determine the lunacy or insanity of the alleged lunatic, and for that purpose to make any and all necessary orders, references, and decrees therein without the intervention of an inquisition or commission of lunacy by a jury.
Under the original statute relating to idiots, lunatics, and drunkards prior to the adoption of this supplement, the chancellor from time to time had promulgated rules, and had established a practice to be pursued, regulating the procedure in cases like the present (rules 172-178); and, in the absence of an express rule on the subject, the proceedings under this supplement should be in conformity with such rules and practice, so far as the same may be applicable thereto.
The petition, amongst other things, should state the name and residence of the person proposed as guardian, the relationship, if any, which he bears to the alleged lunatic, and the security proposed to be given, and should be supported by such affidavits as are pointed out in Dick. Ch. Prec. 640, note (a).
The order of reference should be to a special master, and should conform to the directions given to commissioners contained in the ordinary form of a commission to inquire of lunacy (Dick. Ch. Prec. 644), and should also require the special master to ascertain the value of the personal property of the alleged lunatic, and should also require the special master to ascertain and report whether the person proposed as a guardian is a suitable and proper person for that purpose, the sufficiency of the sureties offered by the guardian, and whether each is worth double the value of the alleged lunatic's personal property over and above all debts, or whether the security offered is such as is permitted by law and should be approved by the chancellor, and what should be the penalty of the guardian's bond to be given to the ordinary.
The petition presented in this matter should be amended so as to conform to the rules above set forth.
Davis & Hastings, of Jersey City, for petitioner.
WALKER, Ch. An order will be made in conformity with the advice contained in the conclusions of Advisory Master Buchanan, which are hereby adopted as the opinion of the court.