neuron v. warm. 13
closely scrutinized where great mental weakness is alleged. It is, of
course, incumbent upon the complainant to show by evidence this
"great mental weakness" at the time the deeds were executed; that
is to say, on the twenty-sixth and twenty-eighth of August, 1880, and
the fourteenth of April, 1881, or so nearly thereto as to affect the
transactions occurring on such occasions. .
The first witness whose evidence was introduced upon this feature
of the case was James Olmstead, an attorney at law at Stamford,
Connecticut. Mr. Olmstead saw Ralston once only, and in February
or March, 1881. He had been drinking heavily, and was in maudlin
tears at the time the witness saw him. He promised anything, took
an oath to keep the pledge, was loud in praises of his wife and in de-
nunciation of himself. He seemed physically weak, and stated that
he had suffered from "tremens" several times. The witness concluded
that his will power was totally gone. This evidence is clearly not
satisfactory, and proves nothing except that Ralston had been drink-
ing heavily and was drunk then. , The picture drawn by the witness
is unfortunately no unusual spectacle. The lugubrious penitence of
a drunken man is so far from serious mental derangement that it has
become a part of the stock incident of humorous writers of notion.
A few days’ or hours' abstention from drink, with proper medical
treatment, would have restored Ralston to the possession of his usual
faculties. Undoubtedly, had thedeeds been executed at the moment ·
when the witness saw Ralston they would be held invalid; but the
condition described by the witness does not necessarily or naturally _
argue continued great mental weakness.
Sarah H. Hubbard describes, with the indignation of a good woman,
Ralston’s fits of intoxication, and gives her opinion that he was un- -
able to attend to any business from April, 1880, to April, 1881. This
testimony is of little value. Had Ralston been continually in the ex-
treme condition of drunkenness in which she describes him, and as
weak physically as she describes him, no medical skill could have
-kept him alive a month. She testifies that he referred matters of n
business to his wife, and said, "You know I can’t think, " as an ev-
idence of his weakness: The court is pretty clear that is rather evi-
idence of the fact that, even when under the influence of liquor, he
was sensible enough to know that he had better not act for himself
while in that condition.
The testimony of Henry A. Hubbard, the husband of the last wit-
ness, is substantially the same. They were neighbors; they both ap-
pear to have been offended with Ralston, and speak of him with far
too much bitterness to leave the mind under the impression that they
regarded him as an imbecile. The last witness testides that, when
not drunk, there were a few times during the year when Ralston was
fit for business, and in another connection says: "I would not judge
Mr. Ralston to be a capable business man, or fit to do business as
men ordinarily do it." No doubt the dissolute conduct of Ralston