The necessity had arisen in early times of deciding upon sufficient evidence whether a man were or were not an idiot, and the old common law required trial by jury. If twelve men found him to be a pure idiot, the profits of his lands and person were granted to some one by the Crown, having sufficient interest to obtain them. The king, of course, derived some revenue from this source. A common expression used long after the custom had died out, "begging a man for a fool," indicated the character of this unjust law. In James I.'s reign Parliament discussed the question of investing the custody of the idiot in his relations, allowing an equivalent to the Crown for its loss, but nothing was done. It is said[216] that this law was rarely abused, because of the comparative rarity of a jury finding a man a pure idiot, that is to say, one from his birth, the verdict generally involving _non compos mentis_ only, and therefore reserving the property of the lunatic for himself entire until his recovery, and in the event of his death, for his heirs, in accordance with the statute of Edward II. already given. Recurring to the appointment of a jury, in order to trace the course of legislation subsequently to the present time, it should be observed that the Lord Chancellor was petitioned to inquire into an alleged idiot or lunatic's condition, the petition being reported by affidavits; and if satisfied of the _primâ facie_ evidence, he issued a writ _de idiotâ_ or _lunatico inquirendo_ to the escheator or sheriff of his county to try the case by jury. The form of this writ was various. It surmised that an idiot or fatuous person existed, one who had not sufficient power to govern himself, his lands, tenements, goods, or cattle, and ordered inquiry to be made whether such was really the fact, and if so, whether at another time; if the latter, at what time, and by what means; if there were lucid intervals; and who was his next heir, and his age.[217] In another form it is surmised that a certain person is so impotent and _non compos mentis_ that he is unable to take care of himself or his goods, and inquiry is simply directed to the point whether he is an idiot and _non compos_, as asserted in the petition.[218] And in another writ the escheator or sheriff is to inquire whether the person in regard to whom the writ is issued has been a pure idiot from his birth to the present time; whether through misfortune, or in any other manner, the patient afterwards fell into this infirmity; and if so, through what particular misfortune or other cause it happened, and at what age.[219] If a jury found a man to be an idiot, he had the right to appeal, and to appear in person or by deputy in the Court of Chancery, and pray to be examined there or before the king and his Council at Westminster. Should this fresh examination fail to prove him an idiot, the former verdict before the sheriff was declared void.