Whether a specific volume of brain is necessary for the development of the mental faculties, and that where it is under a certain size idiocy is the invariable result, is a question that has engaged the attention of physiologists, for the reason that, if true, it affords the strongest proof that the brain is the organ of the intellectual functions. Gall denies intelligence to crania which are only from 14 to 17 inches in circumference, and Andral says 18 inches may be regarded as the circumference necessary for intelligence. The total want of intellect in the subject of this notice, where there was apparently no diseased or abnormal condition of the brain apart from deficiency in size, confirms the correctness of the observations of these authorities. She had not acquired a word of language excepting "yes" and "no," not because of any defect in the organs of speech or hearing, for these were developed, but from inability to appreciate the significance of speech. Indeed, her capacity for instruction did not seem to be superior to that of the more sagacious of the canine species. She had been taught to open or shut a door, and to pick up a stick when told, but at that point her ability to understand speech or pantomime ceased. When pleased, displeased, or in pain, her countenance was quite expressive of emotion. In appearance and degree of intelligence she very much resembled the children exhibited some years ago as "Aztecs." PARISH WILL CASE. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE OPINION OF THE COURT, AND OF THE SEVERAL JUDGES. NEW YORK: D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, 443 & 445 BROADWAY. M.DCCC.LXII. In the Court of Appeals, HELD AT ALBANY, ON THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE, IN THE YEAR ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY-TWO. PRESENT: Honorable Justices SELDEN, DENIO, DAVIES, Wright, Allen, SMITH, GOULD, and SUTHERLAND. HENRY DELAFIELD, EDWARD DELAFIELD, JOSEPH DELAFIELD, RICHARD DELA FIELD, and RUFUS DELAFIELD, Appellants, against DANIEL PARISH, and Others, Respondents. JOSEPH DELAFIELD, Executor, &c., Appellant, against DANIEL PARISH, and Others, Respondents. DAVIES, J., delivered THE OPINION OF THE COURT. DAVIES, J.-This is an appellate tribunal, and its ordinary duty is to review the decisions of the Court from which appeals lie to it, solely on questions of law. There is a class of cases, however, where it is incumbent on us to review questions of fact, and the present cases are of that character. We are called upon, by the appeals taken therein, to affirm, or reverse, the decree of the Surrogate of New York, which on appeal has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the First Judicial District. By that decision the Surrogate refused |