¶1The ground relied on by the plaintiff for divorce was the alleged habitual intemperance of the defendant. Section 106 of the Civil Code declares that “habitual intemperance is that degree of intemperance from the use of intoxicating drinks which disqualifies the person a great portion of the time from properly attending to business, or which would reasonably inflict a course of great mental anguish upon the innocent party;" and the following section declares that such intemperance must continue for one year, before it is a ground for divorce. There is in the case before us no finding that the habitual intemperance of which the defendant was found guilty had continued for the period of one year, for which reason we are bound to remand the cause. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.
62 Cal. 176
Dunn v. Dunn
Decided November 23, 1882
California Supreme Court · decided 1882-11-23
Appeal by the defendant, D. G. Dunn, from a judgment in the Superior Court of the County of Placer. Myers, J. Action against the defendant, D. G. Dunn, for a divorce on the ground of habitual intemperance. The answer of the defendant denied all of the allegations of the complaint relating to intemperance. The case in the Court below was tried before a jury, and upon the question of intemperance two special .issues were submitted by the Court to the jury— •that is to say: 1.
Decided 1882-11-23