Nos paizes inglezes, cujas doutrinas de psychia-
tria forense não são aliás para ser tomadas por modo, a capacidad de testemunhar nos alienados
acha-se firmada na jurisprudencia. “In regard to
the testimonial capacity of lunatics, it may now be
considered as settled that a lunatic who labours
under delusions, but who in the judgement of a
medical practicier is capable of giving a fair
account of any transaction that happened before
his eyes, and who appears to understand the obligation of an oath, may be called as a witness (Reg.
v. Hill “Denison's Crown Cases”, 2 p. 254). The
rule first laid down by Parke, B., is in accordance
with this view: it is for the judge to say whether
the evidence of the witness is admissible, and then
his credibility in a question for the jury” (Tay-
Tor). (1)

Husband (2) confirma a exposição de Taylor:
“Mr. Fitzjames Stephen maintains (“Criminal
Law”) that madmen are competent witnesses in
relation to testimony as in relation to crime. If
they understand the nature of an oath, and the
character of the proceedings in which they are engaged, they are competent witnesses whatever be
the nature or degree of their mental disorder...
When a lunatic is tendered as a witness, it is for the
Judge to examine and as certain whetever he is of
competent understanding to give evidence, and is
aware of the nature and obligation of an oath; if
 Satisfied that he is, the Judge should allow him to be sworn and examined. (R. 2. Hill 2 Den. 255: 20 L.J. (M.C.) 222)

(1) A. Taxtor: “A manual of medical jurisprudence”. Twelfth edition, London 1891, pag. 757.
(2) H. Hussan: “Handbook of forensic medicine”, Edinburgh, 1895, pag. 218. 