18. rmommr. zsmronrmn.
ing with acute alcoholism. This the court understands to be delirium
tremens. He saw him afterwards when suffering with acute pleurisy
from alcoholism: the first time, December 19, 1882; the second, De-
cember 22, 1882,--20 months after the last deed was executed and
shortly before his death. He did not know Ralston in 1880 and 1881.
This testimony is of little value.
The testimony of Howard E. Jones, who knew Ralston in 1880 and
1881 in New York, does not materially differ from the evidence ofthe
other witnesses for complainant who are not experts, except that he
states that Ralston was sober half the time; the rest, he was under the
influence of liquor;
The depositions of Ida Ralston, it is true, present a terrible ac-
count of her husband’s drunkenness. Her evidence will be more
_ fully considered in another connection. It is perhaps sufficient at
this time to say that she speaks of several intervals of sobriety dur-
ing their married life. This began on the third of January, 1880.
For three months Ralston was sober. After signing the deed of 1881
he keptthe pledge not quite two weeks. He must have been sober
at the time he signed the deeds, or her testimony would have indi-
cated otherwise. His signatures are clear, steady; betraying none of
- that tremulous quiver which characterizes tl1c handwriting of the in-
ebriate who is suffering from the effects of a debauch. The com-
plainant herself, long after the execution of the deeds in controversy,
received from Ralston a deed to two valuable stores in Macon. She
thinks him competent to execute these deeds because, she says, "they
had a valid consideration." After the execution of these deeds to her,
as late as November 27, 1882, shetakes from Ralston u. written prom-
ise to consent to a "bill of separation" if he does not abstain from
drink. This paper is executed with great formality. Its interlinea-
tions are marked with the initials of Ralston, and it is signed by him
with an easy and graceful sweep of the pen, which indicates no dim-
inution of nervous control.
The court has confined its attention to the evidence for the com-
plainant. This is scarcely fair to the defendant, and yet, inthe opin-
ion of the court, it is unmistakably clear that no evidence is afforded
sufficiently satisfactory of such great mental weakness as will vitiate
these deeds. It is not to be denied that Ralston was generally a
drunkard. It is perhaps equally clear that he could not have success-
fully managed any business which required his continuous or even
daily attention; but it is not clear that he may not, when sober, intel-
ligently have conceived, and lawfully have carried out, a scheme for
the distribution of his property. Many men of large and successful
business capacity are heavy drinkers. Many intellectual men of great
power indulge in periodical sprees, and pour the various dilutions of
alcohol into their stomachs, until the brain, if distilled, would pro-
duce alcohol, and the stomach, revolting at the caustic poison which
has seared its membranes and paralyzed its healthy functions, not only