‘ xansrou v. munrru., I5
I don’t think he was very easily influenced. . In 1880,1881, and 1882
his mind appeared to be all right. It had not been impaired, so far ,
as I know. He was very seldom sober during that time. In the
hospital he was allowed from three to nve milk punches a day, and.
he would try to steal out for more. The effect was to make him stupid
and helpless after going out." Further on, Sister Margaret testifies:
"I do not think he was capable of business in 1880, 1881, and`1882,
because of his drunkenness." And, after a moment’s reflection, the
excellent sister says: "I do not know whether he was capable or not."
The court attaches very great importance to the evidence furnished
in the depositions of this witness. Her truthfulness is apparent in
. every utterance. She saw Ralston frequently; she watched him
closely; his mind was "all right" in 1880, 1881, and 1882, except
when he was drunk. Then he was "incapable," she thinks, but does
not know. She has none of the characteristics of the swift witness.
Her amowr propre had not been offended by the purse-proud insolence
of Ralston as had been the Hubbards. Accustomed to view the suf-
fering and the afflicted, her judgment is not startled from its pro-
priety by the spectacle of drunkenness or prostration. Unlike the
physician, her observation is not connned to that moment of frenzy
when the solicitude of friends has prompted the cry, "Run for the
doctor." She is the patient, watchful, even-tempered, and unruiiied
nurse; and, moreover, her veracity is unquestioned. Besides, her
testimony is entirely consistent with the observation of practical men
in cases like that of Ralston. It is lamentably true that, in spite of
the efforts of the good and the pious, this observation may be had in
almost every community; and the court repeats that it does not re- H s
quire the science taught in the schools of medicine to discover that
the simple outline of this unfortunate character drawn by the sister
is accurate and true in the light of practical intelligence.
It is true that two expert medical men, Dr. W. Gill Wiley and Dr.
William R. Pryor, testify that in their opinion Ralston’s mind, in
1880, 1881, and 1882, was not competent to the discharge of business
functions. Dr. Wiley testifies that at times during this period his
mind might have been clear. Dr. Wiley, in his own language, always ‘
saw Ralston when he "needed the doctor." He testifies that Ralston
used intoxicating liquors almost habitually, at times excessively, and
a greater part of the time "I should say," testifies the doctor, "that he .
did not have a proper conception of the value of property." While
stating that his mind was impaired by the use of liquor, Dr. Wiley
qualifies his statement, "But I saw him when he needed a doctor."
An important statement of this witness discloses the character of
Ralston's its of drunkenness. "When he started to drink,". said the
witness, "he drank until he broke down, and this weakened him both
physically and mentally." The testimony of this witness is to the
effect that Ralston was incapable of managing a general business cone
tinuously, and this is all. Dr. Pryor saw Ralston when he was suifer·