· 14 _ imonmu. iuazroarus.
was intensely disgusting to these good citizens of the "Land of steady
habits." No doubt, in their opinion, he was not only "not a capable
business man," and "not worth his salt;" all of which may be true,
and yet he may have been legally capable of conveying his estate in
an interval of sobriety.
The testimony of L. R. Hurlbut, the physician, who was of course
called in when Ralston was at his worst, is unfavorable to the valid-
ity of the deeds. It requires no technical knowledge, but simply a
common degree of intelligence and experience, to know that a physi-
cian, who sees his patient only when in the furious delirium of drink,
or the terrible prostration and depression which follow a debauch, is
no reliable witness as to his mental condition at other times.
John O. Brintnall’s depositions show that he was a neighbor of the
Ralston’s in Stamford. Saw him frequently drunk. His mind was
thick and clouded. When his wife would go off, Ralston would go to
Shippan Point and get drunk. On one occasion the witness went to
the Windemere in New York, and Ralston came to the door in his
night-gown, and said to witness that he and his wife had been on a
drunk, and they had a little turn, (the reference to his wife having
been erased by the commissioner, counsel for defendant insists that
this was improper, and shows that the commissioners were not with-
out bias.) The witness states that he saw Ralston almost every day
- passing down to his yard. He also states that when Mrs. Ralston
wentto see the neighbors Ralston would not go, and that when visit-
ors went to the house to see them, Ralston would be out of sight.
The witness also testifies that Ralston did not have a prudent and
proper conception of the value of property. The opportunities of this
· witness to know Ralston’s business capacity were extremely limited
and imperfect. The value of his opinion is to be estimated in the
light of the facts upon which it is based. He specifies but three in-
stances in which he had a conversation with Ralston, and on each
occasion the latter was drunk. "I thinlc," he says, “I know his mind
had been impaired by the use of liquor." None of these witnesses
knew Ralston before he went to Stamford. It is deemed admissible
for a witness upon such facts as these, and with anaopportunity to
know the actual truth as meagre as this, to give his opinion; but the
opinion itself is of little moment.
Margaret O’Brien, known as "Sister Margaret," oneiof those holy
· and unselhsh women who devote their lives to the alleviation of human
misery and the betterment of human nature, is the next witness for
complainant. The good sister knew Ralston at the St. Elizabeth’s
hospital in New York. Both Ralston and his wife were there sick.
She saw him in Montclair, two weeks before he died, in 1883. She saw
him frequently throughout this period. She testiuedz "I would call
Mr. Ralston an habitual drunkard. He spent his money very freely.
He was not prudent or careful, but was very extravagant. 1 can’t
testify whether he had a proper conception of the value of property.