HABITUAL DRUNKARD. A person giv en to inebriety or the excessive use of intox icating drink, who has lost the power or the will, by frequent indulgence, to control his appetite for it. Ludwick v. Coin., 18 Pa. 172; Com. v. Whitney, 5 Gray (Mass.) 85. 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 get ting drunk ; Page v. Page, 43 Wash. 293,, 86 Pac. 582, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 914, 117 Am. St. Rep. 1054. The custom or habit of getting drunk ; the constant indulgence in such stim ulants as 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 daily occur rence ; 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 per son from attending to his business during the principal portion of the time usually de voted to business, it is habitual intemper ance ; Mahone v. Mahone, 19 Cal. 626, 81 Am. Dec. 91; but see Wheeler v. Wheeler, 53 Ia. 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 statu
tory 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 intem perate, so as to contradict his representation to the contrary ; Northwestern Mut. 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 re gard to the care of property ; and in some, they are liable to punishment. See Wads worth 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 Wet more, 6 Wash. 271, 33 Pac. 615.
While a woman is under guardianship as an habitual drunkard, she is conclusively pre sumed to be incapable of conducting her af fairs; she cannot transact any business, make a valid deed or bond, waive the notice of protest on a bill, or waive the provisions of her husband's will and elect to take dow er, or do anything which involves the exer cise of judgment or discrimination; Phila delphia 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'Amoureanx v. Crosby, 2 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 422; Penhallow v. Kimball, 61 N. H. 596.
See Rogers, Drinks, ete.; DRUNKENNESS ; DELIRIUM TREMENS ; INTOXICATION.