DEAF AND DUMB - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

DEAF AND DUMBAuthored

The Law Mind • 907 words

Definition

A historical legal term describing a person who lacks both hearing and the ability to speak. In older common law, a person born deaf, dumb, and blind was treated as legally equivalent to an idiot — presumed incapable of understanding and therefore lacking full legal capacity. A person who was deaf and dumb but not blind occupied a different and more nuanced position: the law recognized such a person as doli capax (capable of wrongdoing) and capable of standing trial, provided the court could establish communication through signs or writing.

The term carried two distinct legal consequences depending on context:

1. Criminal capacity: A deaf-mute defendant could be tried for felony if the court could communicate with the individual through signs or other means. The court was obligated to make reasonable efforts to establish that understanding before proceeding.

2. Civil capacity: Deaf-mute persons who had received education and could communicate in writing were generally treated as having full legal capacity. Those who had not been educated and could not write faced greater evidentiary and procedural obstacles, particularly in matters of contract, testimony, and competency.

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Deaf and not able to speak; hearing-and-speech-impaired.

Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): One who is both deaf and dumb; a deaf-mute.

The common usage is descriptively accurate but legally incomplete. In law, the term was not merely descriptive — it triggered specific presumptions about mental capacity, criminal responsibility, and procedural rights. A reader encountering the phrase in a legal source should not assume it means only a physical condition; it historically imported a capacity determination that varied significantly depending on whether blindness was also present and whether the individual could communicate by alternative means.

Common Confusion

The term is frequently conflated with idiocy in older sources. The conflation is only partially warranted. Blackstone's rule — that a person born deaf, dumb, and blind is in the same state as an idiot — applied to that specific triad. Deaf-mute status alone did not equate to idiocy, and Bouvier explicitly distinguished the two: a deaf and dumb person is doli capax. Researchers reading pre-20th century case law or treatises must attend carefully to whether the source is addressing the deaf-blind triad or deaf-mute status alone, as the legal consequences differ materially.

Why It Matters in Research

This term is a relic of a specific era of legal thinking about capacity, and its meaning shifts depending on which combination of conditions is present in the source. Several traps await the researcher:

First, the Blackstone formulation — deaf, dumb, and blind equals idiot — is repeated verbatim across Black's (both editions) and Rapalje & Lawrence, suggesting it became a fixed hornbook rule. But courts applying it to actual defendants did not always follow it mechanically, particularly where a defendant demonstrated comprehension.

Second, Bouvier records a transitional moment: a deaf-mute woman charged with a crime who could not be formally arraigned in the traditional sense. This points to a procedural gap in early common law that courts addressed case by case, not by uniform rule.

Third, the term drops out of modern legal discourse almost entirely, replaced by disability-specific statutory frameworks and constitutional due process protections governing competency to stand trial. Researchers working with 19th-century criminal records, probate proceedings, or competency determinations will encounter this term frequently; those working with 20th-century sources will not, except in historical context.

Fourth, educated deaf-mute individuals — those who could read, write, or sign — were treated differently from uneducated ones in both civil and criminal contexts. This educational distinction is legally significant and appears in Bouvier but is underemphasized in the Black's formulations. Sources that do not record education or literacy level may leave a researcher unable to determine what legal standard the court actually applied.

Historical Dictionary Support

Black's (both editions) and Rapalje & Lawrence converge on the Blackstone formulation without significant variation, suggesting these dictionaries treated the deaf-blind-mute triad as settled law. The citation to 1 Bl. Comm. 304 is the common anchor. All three sources also note the exception for criminal trial via signs, citing 1 Leach, Crown Law 102 — again verbatim repetition suggesting reliance on a shared authority rather than independent synthesis.

Bouvier diverges usefully. Its treatment is more procedurally grounded: it addresses the arraignment problem directly, noting the difficulty of entering a plea when a defendant cannot hear the charge and cannot speak. Bouvier also articulates the doli capax principle explicitly, which the Black's editions do not foreground. This makes Bouvier the more instructive source for understanding how courts actually managed these cases.

A notable weakness across all historical dictionary sources: none addresses guardianship or testamentary capacity for deaf-mute persons in any depth, even though these were live issues in 19th-century probate practice. Researchers pursuing those questions will need to move beyond the dictionaries to treatises and state court decisions.

Jurisdictional Note

American states varied in how they formalized deaf-mute capacity in statute. Some enacted specific provisions addressing competency to contract or testify; others left the matter to common law principles derived from Blackstone. The Blackstone deaf-blind-mute rule was more uniformly adopted than the nuanced Bouvier treatment of deaf-mute status alone.

DEAF AND DUMBmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

A man that is born deaf, dumb, and blind is looked upon by the law as in the same state with an idiot, he being supposed incapable of any understand- ing. 1 Bl. Comm. 304. Nevertheless, a deaf and dumb person may be tried for felony if the prisoner can be made to understand by means of signs. 1 Leach, C. L. 102.

DEAF AND DUMBmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

puting newspapers, the postmaster may receive evidence and decide upon the fact. If no daily paper is published within the delivery, then the list may be advertised in the daily paper of adjoining delivery. One cent to be paid the publisher for each letter advertised. Letters addressed in a for- eign language may be advertised in the Journal of that language most used. Such journal must be in the same or adjoining district. Dead letters containing valuables shall be regis- tered in the department; and if they cannot be de- livered to the person addressed or to the writer, the contents, so far as available, shall be included in re- ceipts of department, subject to reclamation within four years; and such letters, containing valuables not available, shall be disposed of as the postmaster- general shall direct; the proceeds therefrom to be turned into the Treasury as a part of the postal revenues. U. S. Rev. Stat. sec. 3998. Foreign dead letters remain subject to treaty stip- ulations. The postage on a return dead letter is two cents, the single rate, unless it is registered as valuable, when double rates are charged. By the act of July 1, 1864, c. 197, sect. 18, the con- tents of dead letters which have been registered in the department, so far as available, shall be used to promote the efficiency of the dead-letter office. Dead matter is thus classified by the post-office department: unclaimed or refused by the party addressed; that which, from its nature, as obscene or relating to lottery, cannot be delivered; fictitious or indefinite address; fraudulent. See POSTAGE.

DEAF AND DUMBmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

A person deaf and dumb is doli capax; but with such per- sons who have not been educated, and who cannot communicate their ideas in writing, a difficulty sometimes arises on the trial. A case occurred of a woman deaf and dumb who was charged with a crime. She was brought to the bar, and the indictment was then read to her; and the question, in the usual form, was put, Guilty or not guilty? The counsel for the prisoner then rose, and stated that he could not allow his client to plead to the indictment until it was explained to her that she was at liberty to plead guilty or not guilty. This was at- tempted to be done, but was found impos- sible, and she was discharged from the bar simpliciter. Case of Jean Campbell, 1 Wh. & St. Med. Jur. § 468. When the party in- dicted is deaf and dumb, he may, if he un- derstands the use of signs, be arraigned, and the meaning of the clerk who addresses him conveyed to him by signs, and his signs in reply explained to the court, so as to justify his trial and the infliction of punishment; 14 Mass. 207; 1 Leach 102 1 Chit. Cr. L. 417. See 8 Jones, N. C. 136. It was for- merly said that persons deaf and dumb were presumably idiots; 1 Hale, P. C. 34; but that doctrine was formulated at a period when the subject of the education of such unfortunate persons had received little or no attention. Such, baldly stated, is un- questionably not the rule of law. One deaf and dumb is not consequently insane, and his capacity appearing, he may be tried; 1 Bish. Cr. L. § 395; the ordinary presumption of sound mind and criminal responsibility, as was said by Gilpin, C. J., in a case of homi- cide by a person so afflicted, "does not ap- ply to a deaf and dumb person when charged DEAF, DUMB, AND BLIND with the commission of a crime. On the contrary, the legal presumption is then directly reversed; for in such case it is in- cumbent upon the prosecution to prove to the satisfaction of the jury that the accused had capacity and reason sufficient to enable him to distinguish between right and wrong as to the act at the time when it was committed by him, and had a knowledge and consciousness that the act he was do- ing was wrong and criminal and would sub- ject him to punishment; 1 Houst. Cr. Rep. 291. In that case the prisoner was acquit- ted "under circumstances wherein plainly they would not have done it if he had been endowed with hearing and speech; " 1 Bish. Cr. L. § 395. A person deaf and dumb may be exam- ined as a witness, provided he can be sworn; that is, if he is capable of understanding the terms of the oath, and assents to it, and if, after he is sworn, he can convey his ideas, with or without an interpreter, to the court and jury; Phill. Ev. 14. If he is able to communicate his ideas perfectly by writ- ing, he will be required to adopt that as the more satisfactory method; but, if his knowl- edge of that method is imperfect, he will be permitted to testify by means of signs; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 366; Tayl. Εν. 1170. DEAF, DUMB, AND BLIND. A man born deaf, dumb, and blind was form- erly considered an idiot (q. v.). Fitzh. N. B. 233; 1 Bla. Com. 304. But this is only a legal presumption and is open to be rebutted by evidence of capacity; id., Sherwood's note 23; 1 Chit. Med. Jur. 301, 345; 4 Johns. Ch. 441; 3 Ired. 585.

deaf and dumbadj

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

Deaf and not able to speak; hearing-and-speech-impaired.

deaf and dumbnoun

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

Bum (behind, bottom).

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In