A person born deaf and dumb is not of necessity an idiot, for he may have received instruction by signs, _Dickenson and Blissett_, 1st _Dicken’s Reports_, 268, but if he be also blind, the presumption is that he is an idiot; Lord _Coke_ indeed says that those who become so, being also deaf and dumb, are idiots, _Coke’s Littleton_, 42; 1st _Blackstone’s Commentaries_, 304, and they are, so far as the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery extends; for though they may have some mental faculty it is impossible that they can exercise it for the management and protection of their property. Habitual drunkenness[496] will not alone support a commission of lunacy, _Cory and Cory_, 1st _Vesey_, _Senr._ 19, but in _Ridgeway and Darwin_, 8th _Vesey_ 66, Lord _Eldon_ stated that a commission had been supported on this ground. Among the legal disabilities under which persons, non compos, labour, one of the most material to the medical adviser is connected with the disposal of property by will,[497] and it is most peculiarly his duty to observe, as in most cases his situation will enable him to do, whether the testator was or was not of sound mind, memory, and understanding, at the time of making his will; for it can scarcely be necessary to observe, that many, who during the greater part of their lives have been of sound mind, gradually lose their faculties towards its close, and become liable to the impositions, restraints, and in some cases even to duress, accompanied with cruelty of those about them, to the disgrace of humanity, and the injury of their lawful kindred; in such cases the medical attendant alone obtains access, it is to him therefore that the law will look for the detection, exposure, and defeat of frauds. An idiot cannot make a will, but a lunatic may, during a lucid interval; and subsequent lunacy does not operate as a revocation of a will. _Forse and Hembling’s_ case, 4 _Co._ If a person be improperly confined under pretence that he is a lunatic, the remedy is by habeas corpus, directing the keeper to bring the party into court; but if it appears on affidavit of some competent person that the party is actually lunatic, and in such a state of mind that he is not fit to be brought into court[498], and more especially if a commission of lunacy is about to be issued, the court will enlarge the time for the return of the writ according to the nature of the case, (_Rex v. Clarke_, 3 _Burr R._ 1363.) And if liberty to have access and inspection of such lunatic be applied for, it must be on behalf of some person who has pretension to demand it, or the Court will reject the request (ibid.)[499].