Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-09-18
DRUNKENNESS AND DI1ORoE.
What Constitutes y Habitual Drunkard and
Entities Il Wife to q Divorce.

w NAT constitutes II daDttuul Drunkafd and
Entities Wife to Divorce.
A memorandum was fled by Judge Wilkin
yesterday to the application for rehearng in
the case of Mary Hers against CHARLES Hers.
1t will be remembered that u decision was rem
dered BY Judge Brill on July 9lst to the appli.
cation for u dissolution of the bonds of matri-
mony, and that an order was issued granting q
decree of divorce. The case is quite interest,"
ing. lnasmnch "a it determines with what
chances of success ~ husbs nd and wife may
seek divorce on the grounds Of drunkenness.
Following ia the full text If the memoran.
dunn: This case appears to have been tried by
the defendant upon the theory that habtual
drunkard, within the meaning of the statute
in reference to divorce. ia one So entirely given
up to drunkenness as TO disQualify himself for
business and for the support Of his family,
and this view of the case strongly urged
upon the court by. defendants counsel upon
the motion for new trial. Conceding that
upon an application for the appointment of q
guardian or com miitee to take charge of the
es ate of n dru, kald, to proven, the wasting of
n's substance, the position Of the learned
counsel for defendant would be correct, we
cannot admit that in an action for divorce, the
capacity OF the husband to attend to his busi-
mes. il the proper test by which t" determine
whether he is q habitual drunkard within the
meaning of the statute.
1t was the object of the statue, as we conceive,
to relieve the wife from the wretchednrss and
misery almost necessarily attendant upon CO.
habitation with person given up to the habit
Of intoxication. Had it been the intention Of
the legi,la. ure to relieve the wife
from TIE bonds of matrimony,
in case of the failure upon the part of the hus-
band to support his family, that intention
woald have undoubtedly been declared, by
making such failue a substantial ground Of
RI 10 t<N<x hcnvv =
neolion, that under our statute, the habitual
drunkenness of the wife, as we'll as that IF the
husband. ia q sufficient cause of divorce upon
the application Of The agrieved party. 1t is also
claimed by counsel for defen 'ant that the de-
cisiOn of the court in this case ia against the
weight of evidence. There are q number of
very respectable persons, it is true, who testi-
fy that they have knowa the defendant
for long time; that they have been
accustomed to meet him frequently
during the day and occasionally in the evening,
and that they did not consider him drunkard.
But there are none of them who have been in
the habit of wishing him at his home, and he
himself testifes that his evenings were mostly
spent at home. It appears, moreover from the
testimony of some OF their witnesses, that he
was in the habit of drinking more OF less, and
that they have "ftentimes seen him when. to
use their own expression, he was excited, or
seemed to feel we'll" There are some per-
sons as Is we'll known, who are so constituted
as TO be able for series of years to attend to
business durisg the day with considerable sue.
cess, and who nevertheless after the ind ulgencee
of the day, bring up at night in state of in
toxication.
Such persons exhibit but slight, if any signs
of intoxication, in meeting them constantly,
or npon ordinary business, but their families
suffer the consequences of their nightly intoxi-
cation. Upon the part of the plaintiff there is
not only the testimony of the wife herself, but
that of several other persons residing in the
same house with defendant. As to his habits
of intemnerancs, the evidence of their wit
resses shows their constant opportunity to OBJ
serve the habits of defendant. They testify
clearly and positively to his daily intoxlcatio,,
when at home, and there was no attempt to
impeach their testimony. In this state Of the
evidence DO not feel justified in interfering
with the decision Of the court before which the
hearing was made.