Habitual Drunkard

A person given to ebriety or the excessive use of intoxicating drink, who has lost the power or the will, by frequent indulgence, to control his appetite for it. 5 Gray (Mass.) 85. Occasional drunkenness is not enough (18 Pa. St. 172), yet daily intoxication is not required (112 Mass. 285).

A person given to Inebriety or the excessive use of intoxicating drink, who has lost the power or the will, by frequent indulgence, to control his appetite for it. Ludwick v; Com., 18 Pa. 172; Com. v. Whitney, 5 Gray (Mass.) 86. One who has the habit of indulging in intoxicating drinks so firmly fixed that he becomes drunk whenever the temptation is presented by his being near where liquor Is sold. Magahay v. Magahay, 35 Mich. 210. Within the meaning of the divorce laws, one who has a fixed habit of frequently getting drunk; Page v. Page, 43 Wash. 293, 86 Pac. 582, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 914, 117 Am. SL Rep. 1054. The custom or habit of getting drunk; the constant indulgence in such stimulants all wine, brandy, and whisky, whereby intoxication is produced; not the ordinary use, but the habitual use of them; the habit should be actual and confirmed, but need not be continuous, or even of dally occurrence; Williams v. Goss, 43 La. Ann. 868, 9 South. 750. If there is a fixed habit of drinking to excess, so as to disqualify a person from attending to his business during the principal portion of the time usually devoted to business, it is habitual’ intemperance; Mahone v. Mahone, 19 Cal. 626, 81 Am. Dec. 91; but see Wheeler v. Wheeler, 53 la. 511, 5 N. W. 689, 36 Am. Rep. 240. Habitual drunkenness of a husband has been held not to entitle the wife to a divorce; L. R. 1 P. & M. 46; contra, 1 Bish. Mar. Div. & Sep. 1781. And in many of the states statutory provisions make such conduct ground for divorce. The fact that a man has had delirium tremens once does not prove, as a matter of law, that he is habitually intemperate, so as to contradict bis representation to the contrary; Northwestern MuL Life Ins. Co. V. Bank, 122 U. S. 501, 7 Sup. Ct 1221, 30 L. Ed. 1100. By the laws of some states, such persons are classed with idiots, lunatics, etc., in regard to the care of property; and in some, they are liable to punishment. See Wadsworth V. Sharpsteen, 8 N. Y. 388, 59 Am. Dec. 499; U. S. v. Forbes, Crabbe 558, Fed. Cas. No. 15,129; In re Guardianship of Wetmore, 6 Wash. 271, 33 Pac. 615. While a woman is under guardianship as an habitual drunkard, she Is conclusively prefairs; she cannot transact any business, make a valid deed or bond, waive tbe notice of protest on a bill, or waive the provisions of her husband’s will and elect to take dower, or do anything which Involves the exercise of judgment or discrimination; Philadelphia Trust, Safe and Deposit Ins. Co. v. Allison, 108 Me. 326, 80 Atl. 833, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 39; see Cockrill v. Cockrill, 79 Fed. 143; L’Amoureaux v. Crosby, 2 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 422; Penhallow v. Kimball, 61 N. H. 596. See Rogers, Drinks, etc.; Drunkenness; Delirium Tremens; Intoxication.

A person given to ebriety or the excessive use of intoxicating drink, who has lost the power or the will, by frequent indulgence, to control his appetite for it. 18 Pa. St. 172. One who has the habit of indulging in intoxicating liquors so firmly fixed that he becomes intoxicated as often as the temptation is presented by his being in the vicinity where liquors are sold is an "habitual drunkard," within the meaning of the statute. 85 Mich. 210. In England, it is defined by the habitual drunkards' act, 1879, (42 & 43 Vict. c. 19,) which authorizes confinement in a retreat, upon the party's own application, as "a person who, not being amenable to any jurisdiction in lunacy, is, notwithstanding, by reason of habitual intemperate drinking of intoxicating liquor, at times dangerous to himself, or herself, or others, or incapable of managing himself or herself, or his or her affairs."

one who is so frequently drunk as to manifest a design of repeating the same act. By the laws of Pennsylvania a habitual drunkard is put nearly upon the same footing with a lunatic; he is deprived of his property and a committee is appointed by the court to take care of his person and estate. Act of 18th June, 1836, Pamph. p. 589. Vide 6 Watts's Rep. 139; 1 Ashm. R. 71.