In re Appointment of Guardian for MELISSA DENNY.

(Filed 7 April, 1909.)

Guardian and Ward — Incompetency—Appointment of Guardian.

A finding of the jury that a person, the subject of an inquisition of lunacy, is incompetent from want of understanding to manage his own affairs is such as to require the clerk to appoint a guardian for him, under the Revisal, sec. 1S90, whatever the cause may be.

Appeal from Jones, J., at November Term, 1908, of Person.

This was an inquisition of lunacy. Tbe jury returned the following verdict:

1. “Is Melissa Denny incompetent, from want of understanding, to manage her own affairs ?” Answer: “Yes.”

2. “Is Melissa Denny totally deprived of her reason?” An.swer: “No.”

Upon this return the clerk of the Superior Court refused to appoint a guardian and dismissed the petition. Petitioner appealed to .the Superior Court. At November. Term, 1908, his. Honor, Judge JE. B. J ones, overruled the clerk and directed the appointment of a guardian. Exception and appeal.

Aycock & Winston, Bryant & Brogden and L. M. Carlton for appellant.

W. T. Bradsher and N. Lunsford for appellee.

Clark, C. J.

This proceeding is brought under the Eevisal, sec. 1890, which was The Code, sec. 1610. This section cle°arly makes four classes of persons for whom a guardian may be appointed, namely, (1) idiots, (2) lunatics, (3) inebriates, and (4) those who are incompetent, from want of understanding, to manage they.’ own affairs, by reason of the excessive use of. intoxicating drinks or other cause. The verdict of the jury settles the fact that Melissa Denny belongs to the fourth class, and is a sufficient finding. In re Anderson, 132 N. C., 243; Sims v. Sims, 121 N. C., 298. Armstrong v. Short, 8 N. C., 11, was decided under chapter 228, Laws 1784, when such inquisition *424was limited to tbe first three classes, (1) idiots, (2) lunatics, (3) inebriates. Tbe fouith class was added by Tbe Code, sec. 1670.

Tbe same point now presented came up in In re Anderson, 132 N. C., 243, where it was held that a finding that Anderson was “not an idiot or lunatic, but that be was of unsound mind and incompetent, from want of understanding, to manage bis own affairs,” was “sufficient to meet tbe language and tbe spirit of tbe statute.” Tbe finding herein is in tbe exact language of tbe 'statute. Tbe cause of such want of understanding would often be impossible to assign, and tbe jury is not required to find it.- It is tbe fact of a want of understanding sufficient to manage her own affairs which requires tbe court to appoint a guardian, whatever tbe cause. Tbe appointment of a gu.ardian is not restricted to cases where tbe want of sufficient understanding is due to tbe excessive use of intoxicating drinks, but extends to cases where it is due to “other cause.”

It is said in In re Anderson, supra,, that tbe provision creating tbe fourth class may be subject to abuse, but that tbe sole function of tbe court is to construe and apply tbe. law. Tbe same case'upholds tbe jurisdiction upon tbe same procedure.

Revisal, sec. 1890, is somewhat stronger than Tbe Code, sec. 1670 (under which In re Anderson, supra, was decided), in that it adds tbe words “incompetent person,” so that tbe concluding paragraph of tbe Revisal, sec. 1890, reads, “and be (tbe clerk) shall proceed to appoint a guardian of any person so found to be an idiot, inebriate, lunatic or incompetent person.”

No Error.