DRUNKENNESS. In Medical Jurispru dence. The condition of a man whose mind is affected by the immediate use of intoxicat ing drinks.
This condition presents various degrees of in tensity, ranging from a simple exhilaration to a state of utter unconsciousness and insensibility. In the popular phrase, the term drunkenness is applied only to those degrees of it In which the mind is manifestly disturbed in its operations. In the earli er stages it that the mind is not only not disturbed, but acta with extraordinary clearness, promptitude, and vigor. In the latter the thoughts obviously succeed one another without much relevance or coherenoe, the perceptive facul ties are active, but the impressions are miscon ceived, as if they passed through a distorting me dium, and the reflective powers cease to act with any degree of efficiency. Some of the intermediate stages may be easily recognized ; but it is not al ways possible to fix upon the exact moment when they succeed one another. In some persons pecul iarly constituted, a' flt of intoxication presents few if any, of: these successive stages, and the mind rap idly loses its self-control, and for the time is actu ally frenzied, as if in a maniacal paroxysm, though the amount' of the drink may be .comparatively small. The same' phenomenon is observed some times in persons who ha7e had some injury of the head, who are deprived of their reason by the slightest indulgence.
The habitual abuse of intoxicating drinks is usu ally followed • by a pathological condition of the brain, which is manifested by a degree of Intellectu al obtuseness, and some insensibility to moral dis tinctions once readily' discerned. The mind is more exposed to the force of foreign influences, and readily induced to regard things in the light to which others have directed them. In others it pro duces a perinanent mental derangement, which, if the person continue to indulge, is easily mistaken by common observers for the immediate effects of hard drinking. These two results—the mediate and the immediate effects of drinking—may coexist; but it no less necessary to distinguish them from' each otber, because their legal consequences may be very different. Moved by the latter, a person goes into the street and abuses or assaults his neighbors ; moved by the former, the same person makes his will, and cuts off with a shilling those who have the strongest claims upon bounty. In a judicial in vestigation, one class of witnesses will attribute all his extravagances to drink, while another will see nothing in them but the effect of . insanity. The medical jurist should not be misled by either party, hut be able to refer each particular act to its prop .
07 source.
Drunkenness may be the result of dipsomania. Rather suddenly, and perhaps without much prelim inary indulgence, a person manifests an insatiable thirst for strong drink, which no considerations of propriety or prudence can induce him to control.
Ile generally retires to some secluded place, and there, during a period of a few days or weeks, he swallows enormous quantities of liquor, until his stomach refuses to ,bear any more. Vomiting suc ceeds, followed by sickness, depression, and disgust for all intoxicating drinks, This affection is often periodical, the paroxysms recurring at periods va rying from three months to several years. Some times the indulgence is more continuous and limit ed, sufficient, however, to derange the mind, with out producing sickness, and equally beyond control. Dipsomania may result from moral causes, such as anxiety, disappointment, grief, sense of responsi bility; or physical, consisting chiefly of some anom alous condition of the stomach. Esqutrol, Mal. Men. ii. 73 ; Marc, de la Folic, ii. 605 ; Ray, Med. Jur. 497; Macnish, Anatomy of Drunkenness, chap. 14.
The common law showed but little dispo sition to afford relief, either in civil or crim inal cases, from the immediate effects of ' drunkenness. It has never considered that mere drunkenness alone as a sufficient rea son for ,invalidating any act. In Crane v. Conklin,. 1 N. J. Eq. 346, 22 Am. Dec. 519, it was said that the early cases held that relief could not be granted a con tract made by one who was intoxicated, un less the intoxication was brought about by the other party, but that rule had been changed ; that courts will not interfere to assist a person on the ground of intoxication merely, but will, if any unfair advantage has been taken of his situation. To the same effect, Baird v. Howard, 51 Ohio St. 57, 36 N. E. 732, 22 L. R. 846, 46 Am. St. Rep. 550, but such contracts been held void where it appeared that actual intoxication dethroned the reason or that the party's understanding was so impaired as to render him mentally unsound; Burnham v. Burn ham, 119 Wis. 509, 97 N. W. 176, 100 Am. St. Rep. 895; Wright v. Fisher, 65 Mich. 275, 32 N. W. 605, 8 Am. St. Rep. 886 ; that the drunk enness must have been such as to have drowned reason, memory and judgment and to have impaired the mental faculties to such an extent as to render the party non compos mentis for the time being; Martin v. Harsh, 231,I11. 384, 83 N. E. 164, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1000; that at the time the party did not fully understand the nature of the transaction; 7 Idaho 292; that the party was incapable of knowing or understanding the mature or quality of the act; Benton v. Sikyta, 84 Neb. 808, 122 N. W. 61, 24 L. B. A. (N. S.) 1057; so destitute of reason as not to know the consequences of his con tract; Fowler v. Water Co., 208 Pa. 473, 57 Atl. 959; incapable of knowing what he was doing; Cook v. Timber Co., 78 Ark. 47, 94 S. W. 695, 8 Ann. Cas.. 251.