The Petroleum Centre daily record. [volume] (Petroleum Center, Pa.) 1868-1873, 1872-12-03
What Constitutes I'm Habitual
Drunkar0.

l
Judge Stove at Pittsburgh On Friday, In
the case oil Eleanor NcGiunis vs.. John No
G lnnis, gave bis decision In Q suit TO der
tsrn,ns whether vr us the DESCENDANT was .
hsbitusl druukard aud therefore unfit to
maosge bis own estate. II iss decision
that will b read With greater interes. than
10 usually accorded TO tho settlspsat Of =
knossy poiot Of law. We quote FROM Il -
follows:
"fhs simple question for the jsry II, sis
the defeadsnt % habitual drnnkardr II
10 ~, Necessary Tor the plaintiff to prove,
nor for the jury to God, that the habit Of
drunkenness srisss from 81 irrssitsibie spps.
lite or tendency, nor that tbs drunken ness
must bs constant, or occurring .. intervals.
IL may bs irregular 10 ito recurrence, but it
mus. w 90 frequent aod continuous % 10
show ibst 1t 10 . custsmary or ordisary con.
dition, and not simply occasional aud ex-
ceptiopsl.
IL 10 not necessary 10 make out case Of
habitual drunksnnrss, that defendant should
bs constantly intoxicated. A man msy b.
an habisual drunksrd, and syst sober at
times for days and weeks together. The
true questions for The jury are: Had the
defendant Q fixed habit Of drunkenness?
Wss be habiiuatsd to intoxisatisn whsn-
ever he opportunity eRsred!
Wbss constitutes drunkenness cannot bs
defined with exsetasse. When II has reach.
cd . certain extent, 1t 10 easy enough TO dis>
.ingnlsh IL; but 10 Ito nrst stages itis PERI
bsps very hard, II not Improbable, for any
Que 10 ssy exss!ly when sobristy ends and
drunkenness begins. II 10 certainly no.
merely bsbiiual drInkins, esq mAu msy
b. in the habit Of taking one drink or more
Of liquor from day to day, or from week to
week, or every day and yet no. bs BY any
means a. babitusi drunkard. So long ss
'hs driokiDs produces no precsptibls OF
visible effect upon enc, mentally or pbysi-
cslly- IAss 10 to ssy, not affecting his con-
dus'sOr bis physical appearance to any per-
csp'iols sffeo,-bs is not . hsbitual drunk
ard 10 The eye Of the lAs. So that unless Q
person 10 either menssiIy or physically
Percsp.isly and possivsly-affscted BY liquor
be csnne. BE- sid, under the meanisg o,
the 4AH 10 be drunk. But when be 10 afsc..
cd BY liquor to an extent showing that be is
either mentally or physically controlled, or
go strongly iDfueecsd BY Il ~ to bs posi-
lively driven or moved on. OF bis normal
condition, hs must be said To- be drunk;
though 10 enc case be nigh. walk wVll, and
ia sno'hsr bic mind bespparsu,ly clear.
Then II ysa should Hnd ,ha, there was
frequent drunkenness on the psrs Of the
dsfe endsnt, was 1t hdJitudl! Tha: 10, vss
il customary, usual or com mon, % dis,iu.
gushed from stldon, unusual or OCCASION
OIL?
We again repeat. fyou should be Of tho
opinion sha. the defendant 10 Ia. tho hsbit Of
getting drunk, l! makes no difF.rerce, and
constitutes no defense 10 this procsedisg,
that you should believe ,ha. be is still able
to take care of himsslt asd manage bis es-
tate. Va are cot inquiring Into bis cspsc-
ity 10 attend siIher TO himself or his estate.
bat simply wAe.aur he ls an habitual
drunksId. II be 10, the law fxes the rest. !"