4 The British Journal of Inebriety SOME MEDICO-LEGAL RELATIONS OF INTEMPERANCE. BY STANLEY B. ATKINSON, M.A., M.B., B.Sc. Of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. IT is just three centuries since an Act was passed which first penalized “the loathesome and odious sin of drunkenness . to the great dishonour of God, and abusively wasting the good creatures of God.” Since then many pertinent questions relative to forensic proceedings have been raised for discussion by those interested in the possible medico-legal associations of the man addicted to POTUS. There are questions of immediate fact, involving skilled medical evidence; they rank as illustrations, and arise in the mass of unreported cases concerning intemperance. Thus, how can the condition of incipient or profound drunkenness be proved for practical purposes and differentiated from certain comparable disorders? In other words, Was this private citizen or that public servant “under the influence of drink ” as alleged at a stated time ? It is to be remembered in this connection that the fact of intoxication, if and when alleged in court, must be proved un- deniably by the affirmer ; for not only may the Bench or the jury be semi-sympathetic with the u weakness,” but the law presumes sobriety in all men. Again, the fact may be questioned, 1s this man ‘‘ an habitual drunkard ” ? There are also numerous occa- sions demanding the application of principles of law; when judicially decided, they rank as precedents. Thus, the fact of actual drunkenness, or of mental debility owing to the chronic abuse of intoxicants, being established, what possible legal con- sequences-advantageous or disadvantageous-can result ? Con- The British Journal of Inebriety 5 sidering the assertion that many men, on recovery from a bout of drinking, disclaim any desire to have become drunk, is it always right to speak of voluntarizcs dmon, or, with Baron Alderson, of " a madness for which the madman is to blame " (R. v. Meakin, 1836) ? Do the Lunacy Laws apply to this class of voluntary madness " dementia afectata ? and, further, should these laws embrace the subjects of toxic mental insanity as evidenced either by the various types of acute delirium, including delivirwt tventens, or by the varieties of chronic alcoholism? If a man becomes chargeable upon the rates by his voluntary excess, should not pro- ceedings be instituted to recover from him the cost of the medical or other treatment ? What, apart from the vague terms of the Act, is u habitual drunkenness " ? Thus, are the victims of each and every drug habit-the narcomania of Norman Kerr-to be regarded as exemplifying the definition ? for they are all the subjects of similar moral catastrophes, which are usually maximized by volun- tary vice. May habitual drunkenness, with its attendant annoy- ances, be matrimonial cruelty in law ? (Robson v. Robson, 1904). In 1903, in England and Wales, 437 separation orders were issued to husbands, and 281 orders to wives of habitual drunkards (Licensing Act, 1902, incorporating the Summary Jurisdiction, Married Women's Act, 1895). Beyond the interpretation of the clauses of special statutes, we are not concerned with the principles of legislation, either punitive or preventive. The whole matter may be summed up by the question, Under what circumstances may a man, or his compro- mised representatives, appear in court upon an allegation of the fact of previous alcoholic or other intoxication ? There are three sets of circumstances when such occasions may arise : I. A man may have to appear as a " police-court inebriate," a drunk," charged by a police constable (who, under the Licensing Act, 1902,may detain him in the lock-up until he is SO charged; cf. 70 Law Times, p. 42) with having made himself a public nuisance on a single occasion. If the offence is repeated at sufficient intervals, he may be dealt with under the Inebriates Acts as '' an habitual drunkard." Fines usually result ; alternative imprisonment, however, may follow certain public and dangerous 6 The British Journal of Inebriety exhibitions of uncomplicated drunkenness, as where, under the Licensing Act, 1872, Sec. 12, disorder or riot was caused; with drunken drovers and drivers (including semble automobilists) ; with those handling loaded fire-arms ; under the Licensing Act, 1902 ; with those in charge of a child under seven years of age ; and, lastly, with those infringing special by-laws to that effect. Under the Vagrancy Act, 1824, and the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, " idle and disorderly persons " may be incarcerated and SO secluded ; I' habitual drunkards " may have their personal freedom curtailed. The police complain that, where at times they had to deal with a drunken and violent, brutish working-man, the magistrates the next morning have brought before them a sobered and repentant British working-man, with whom they may be deceived into sympathy, in spite of the constable's evidence. It is, of course, contempt of court to appear there in a drunken condition. 2. A man may wish to be relieved by the court from the legal consequences of some untoward conduct during what, the jury are persuaded, was a fit of drunkenness, leading to the alleged criminally or civilly obnoxious results. Seldom will this plea avail, and to succeed at all he must show that his contemporary state was one of actual intoxication-not merely that he was a recognised toper (H.M. Advocate w. Dingwall, 1867 ; cf. '' testa- mentary incapacity is not proved by drunkenness," Johnson v. Rice, California, February 4, 1881). The legal view is that drunkenness aggravates the wrong done, it is not an excuse ; as Lord Coke quotes approvingly, nam omne crinzen ebrietas et incendit et detegit. Commonly, the plea of intoxication is set up in miti- gation of a serious indictable passional offence, or of the conse- quential penalties thereof. It is claimed that the offender's conduct was banefully influenced by the liquor he had just taken ; in such criminal charges proof of delirium tremens is his only safe defence. Occasionally the plea of intoxication appears in civil suits. Philip sober may desire to annul an alleged contract entered into by Philip drunk. A man's personal representatives may desire to reduce his propounded last will, which was executed while his treatment included a course of alcohol, either voluntarily imbibed, or taken under medical direction, as in the so-called stimulant treatment of wiorbus cordis. The intoxicant may be alleged to have disturbed the normal balance of the man's mind, The British Journal of Inebriety 7 or the intelligent exercise of his mental faculties, so that he erred in vision and stumbled in judgment, and perhaps totally forgot the ‘(delivery of his act and deed,” or the 6‘ placing his signature at the foot or end thereof” respectively. The legal effect of a testator’s signed and attested will is not annulled by,his burning it when himself consumed by a passionate fit of delirium tremens, for thereby he manifests no aninzzts vevocaizdi. The Probate Court treats the testament as merely lost, for, as Lord Justice James said, ‘(All the destroying in the world will not revolie a will, nor all the intention in the world without destroying ” (Wills Act, 1837, Sec. 20). An insurance company may deny that the assured was in fact “sober and temperate in his habits,” as affirmed in the declaration which led to his life, sickness, or acci- dent policy (Thornson v. Weems, 1884: the assured died from chronic hepatitis eight months after the policy was issued, and the company was upheld in its refusal to pay ; Mair v. Railway Pass. Assurance Co.) ; or the company may assert that the present clam arose directly as a result of his wilful intemperance, as where he suffers from piles, hzmatemesis, ascites, neuritis, or the effects of an accident. A wrong-doer may seek to excuse some minor, if expensive, indiscretion, as that he spoke the truth in drink, or that he was guilty of some professional negligence in act, sufferance, or default ; the law, however, declares Qui fieccat ebrius, lwt sobrius, and to that extent holds a man legally responsible for his moral irresponsibility. A charge of ‘‘ grave misconduct “ may be laid at the door of a public official addicted to the abuse of “drink,” usually after considerable anxiety on the part of responsible superiors and committees associated with the inevitable disorgani- zation of subordinates, or the guilty official may be discharged summarily-a proceeding which may lead forthwith to an action based upon alleged wrongful dismissal, and also possibly to an action for defamation of character and consequent pecuniary loss (Battersea v. Martley Guardians, Worcester Spring Assizes, 1904). The culprit’s private medical man seldom affords much aid; usually he certifies vaguely : (( Neuralgia and gastric catarrh.” 3. If a man’s life ends in “ unnatural death ” from excessive “ drinking,” that fact should be certified and duly reported to the coroner, though this functionary comparatively seldom hears of such cases, if the Registrar-General’s returns of ‘‘ cirrhosis of the liver” are numerically correct. The inquest jury should include 8 The British Journal of Inebriety this cause of death in their verdict, if it is evidenced by clinical and pathological conditions. It is felo de se for a man to slay himself while drunk. Recently published facts seem to suggest that I' licensed victualling " well might be classed among the dangerous trades. In 1880 a man was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on a charge of manslaughter, it being shown that he had plied with 'I spirits " his not unwilling mistress until she died--" pickled in drink" (R.v. Paine). At the Leeds Winter Assizes, February, 1905, a medical man was successfully sued for libel ; he had communi- cated his suspicions to the solicitor of a female patient whom he had reason to believe was being poisoned with narcotics by her impecunious relative.