Drunkenness

In medical jurisprudence. The condition of a man whose mind

The result of excessive drinking of intoxicating liquors; ebriety, inebriation, intoxication; the statewhich follows from taking into the body, by swallowing or drinking, excessive quantities of such liquors.* Dmnk. So far under the influence of intoxicating liquor that the passions are visibly affected or the judgment impaired. Drunkard. One whose habit is to get drunk, whose ebriety has become habitual. "Drunkard," "common drunkard" and " habitual drunkard," mean the same. While " common " imports frequency, the law does not specify the number of instances in a given time.'' It is impossible to lay down a v\jle as to when a man shall be deemed an " habitual drtmkard." Occasional acts of drunkenness do not make him such: it is not necessary that he be continually intoxicated. He may become intoxicated and yet remain sober for weeks together. The test is. Has he a fixed habit of drunkenness? Is he habituated to intemperance when opportunity offers? ' " Habitual " imports formed or acquired by habit; customary; usual; accustomed to intemperance whenever opportunity offers. An " habitual drunkard " is a person who by fre- 1 City of Kansas v. Collins, 34 Ean. 436-37 (1885), citing twenty-five cases. 2 State V. Ascher, 54 Conn. 306 (1886). s Exp. Stockton, 33 F. E. 96 (1887). < [Commonwealth v. Whitney, 11 Cush. 479 (1853), Merrick, J. ' State V. Pierce, 65 Iowa, 85 (1886); 64 id. 88 (1884). ' Commonwealth v. Whitney, 5 Gray, 86 (1855), Thomis, J. ' Commonwealth v. Mc Namee, 113 Mass. 286 (1873). s Ludwick V. Commonwealth, 18 Pa. 174 (1851), quent repetition has acquired an involuntary tendency to become intoxicated. The proceeding to determine whether a person is an habitual drunkard, and the legal consequences, are substantially the same as in a case of lunacy, q. v. 1. In civil law. A contract made by one too drunk to understand the consequence of his act is voidable, except when for necessaries or for goods kept after he becomes sober. " If, without fault -of his, he is unable to restore the consideration, provision for its repayment may be made in the fina Ldecree. Before a court of equity will grant relief the drunkenness must have been so excessive as to utterly deprive the complainant of the use of his reason. In that condition there can be no serious, deliberate consent.* Total drunkenness in the maker of a note, known to the payee, avoids it as to him. But this defense cannot be set up against the claim of an innocent holder for value.. A drunken man is responsible to an innocent person for an act done while drunk: he voluntarily produces his disability. 2. > In criminal law. " A drunkard," says Lord Coke, " who is voluntarius do Emon, hath no privilege thereby; but what hurt or ill soever he doeth, his drunkenness doth aggravate it." No other rule would be safe for society.' At common law, as a rule, voluntary intoxication affords no excuse, justification, or extenuation of a crime committed under its influence..But when a statute establishing different degrees of murder requires deliberate premeditation in order to constitute murder in the first degree, the question whether the accused is in such a state of mind, by reason of drunkenness or otherwise, as to be capable of deliberate premeditation, necessarily becomes a material subject for consideration by the jury.** See Intemperate; Intoxication; Insanity; Liquor; Option, Local; Prohibition, 2. ' Murphy v. People, 90 111. 60 (1878), Per Curiam. See also Mahone v. Mahone, 19 Cal. 629 (1873); Wheeler v. Wheeler, 53 Iowa, 512 (1880); Walton v. Walton, 34 Kan. 198 (1885), cases; Richards v. Richards, 19 Bradw. 468 (1886), cases. 2 Johnson v. Harmon, 94 U. S. 379-82 (1876), cases; 60 Iowa, 82; g Kent, 452; 1 Pars. Contr. 383. s Thackrah v. Haas, 119 U. S. 499, 502 (1886): 1 Wash., Va., 164; 04 N. T. 200. * 1 Story, Eq. §§ 230-31; 2 Pomeroy, Eq. § 949. State Bank v. Mc Coy, 69 Pa. 807-9 (1871); Mc Sparran V. Neeley, 91 id. 84 (1879); Gore v. Gibson, 13 M. & W. *626 (1845); Bush v. Breinig, 113 Pa. 316 (1S86): 26 Am. Law Reg. 40-41 (1687), cases; 1 Ames, Cas. Bills &N. 558; 18 Cent. Law J. 65-68 (1884), cases; 2 Kent, 451. = 1 Coke, Inst. 247; 4 Bl. Com. 26; 2 Steph. Hist. Cr. Law Eng. 165. 'United States v. Cornell, 3 Mas. Ill (1820); United States V. Mo Glue, 1 Curtis, IS (1831). e Hopt V. People, 104 U. S. 6.S4-35 (1881), cases. Gray, J. See also Jones v. Commonwealth, 75 Pa. 406 (1874); Tidwell V. State, 70 Ala. 46 (1881); Honesty u Common-

intoxication with strong liquor. This is an offence generally punished by local regulations, more or less severely. Although drunkenness reduces a man to a temporary insanity, it does not excuse him or palliate his offence, when he commits a crime during a fit of intoxication, and which is the immediate result of it. When the act is a remote consequence, superinduced by the antecedent drunkenness of the party, as in cases of delirtum tremens or manta a potu, the insanity excuses the act. 5 Mason’s R. 28; Amer. Jurist, vol. 3, p. 5-20; Martin & Yeager’s R. 133, 147; Dane’s Ab. Index, h. t.; 1 Russ. on Cr. 7; Ayliff’s Parerg. 231; 4 Bl. Com. 26. Vide Habitual drunkard.