Before we proceed to consider the several questions which may arise for the consideration of the medical witness, in the discharge of his forensic duties, we shall offer a few observations upon a point which has frequently given rise to discussion—Whether the existence of insanity cannot be equally, or in some cases, more satisfactorily established, or disproved, by witnesses who are not of the medical profession? by persons, for instance, who have had opportunities of observing the individual, where the same advantages have not been in the power of the practitioner. To this we may reply, that the opinions of the generality of persons on the subject of insanity are extremely vague, and frequently very erroneous,[528] and are commonly the result of those glaring exhibitions, those caricatures of disease which the stage represents, or romances propagate; the ordinary observer can hardly be convinced of the existence of insanity, without some turbulent expression, extravagant gesture, or phantastic decoration; while on the other hand he is too apt to infer a state of insanity from those whims and eccentric habits between which the medical practitioner, from daily communication with deranged persons, can alone know how to discriminate; thus was _Democritus_ accused by the people of insanity, but when _Hippocrates_, by public request, had a conference with the philosopher, he declared that not _Democritus_, but his enemies were insane. There is moreover a class of maniacs who are so cunning as to deceive those who are not acquainted with the peculiar hallucinations under which they labour; _Lord Erskine_ was thus unable to detect the insanity of a lunatic who fancied himself to be Jesus Christ, until he had received the medical assistance which the presence of _Dr. Sims_ afforded him.[529] It is unnecessary to urge any farther the necessity of medical testimony upon such occasions, we shall therefore proceed to consider the different points to which it will be more usefully directed. Q. 1. Whether the person be actually insane? and what are the proofs of his derangement? Q. 2. Whether the symptoms are of such a nature as to suffer the individual, with propriety, to retain his liberty, and enjoy his property? Q. 3. Whether there has been any lucid interval, and of what duration? Q. 4. Whether there is a probable chance of recovery; and in case of convalescence, whether the cure is likely to be permanent? Q. 1. _Whether the person be actually insane—and if so, what are the proofs of his derangement?_