The charge of his Honor, when he comes to make the application of the law to the case, then being-tried, is supported by all the modern authorities, and he gives the defendant the full benefit of the law, as it is now understood to be, in opposition to the exploded dogma of the old law, “ that a man could not be heard to stultify himself.” Indeed, the only matter which has at all embarrassed this Court, arises out of the general remarks at the commencement of the charge, in which his Honor is made to say, “ whatever may have been the law, the party was never allowed to stultify himself.” This is inconsistent with the particular charge in reference to the case before him, but may be reconciled by the suggestion that the word “never,” was inserted by misprison in place of the word “now,” which, on examination, was the word first written by the clerk, and is crossed out. So, we are satisfied it ought to read whatever may have been the law, the party was now allowed to stultify himself; which is in exact accordance with what is said by Park B. in Gore v. Gibson, 13 Mees. and Wells. 623 : “The modern decisions have qualified the old doctrine, that a man shall not be allowed to allege his own lunacy or intoxication ; and total drunkenness is now held to be a defense.” See 1 Parson’s on Contracts, 310, note m.
*218 We feel warranted in understanding from the whole record, that such was the charge of his Honor. There is no error.
Judgment affirmed.