nnsrou v. rumm. 17
rejects all nourishment, but violently ejects the stimulant which the
poor sufferer craves, but cannot retain. Then, weakened by the want
of food and suddenly deprived of the alcohol, which has become at once
its substitute and the anodyne for his humiliation and shame, he is the
most pitiable and wretched of the unfortunate, and it would seem that
not "poppy, or mandragora, or all the drowsy syrups of the world,"
could lull the sleepless nerves, and give rest to the tremulous and mis··
erable body. And yet a few days’ abstinence, with simple and well-
known treatment, will completely restore the sufferer to health. Ral-
ston was a "periodical drinker," and there is nothing in all -the evi-
dence which indicates, in his periods of sobriety, imbecility or great
mental weakness. So far as the evidence of the complainant goes, his
capacity to convey his property in his sober and lucid moments was as
unquestioned as that of hundreds of men whose capacity in this re-
spect would be conceded by entire communities.
The evidence offered by the respondent that Ralston was rational,
sober, and intelligent on the particular occasions when the deeds
were signed, is not even controverted. Mr. Proudfit, a witness to the
deedof August 28, 1880, testifies that he was sober and perfectly
rational. W. H. Ross saw Ralston about that time. He was rational
and sober; both of these witnesses are citizens of Macon, who knew
Ralston well. J. E. Jones, the president of the Southwestern Rail-
road Company, testifies that when he was sober he had capacity and
was "a smart fellow." Other witnesses corroborate this testimony.
Besides this, the correspondence put in evidence not only shows that
Ralston was exercising a reasonably diligent and watchful degree of
attention to his business, but on several occasions he speaks of his
excellent health. This evidence is more reliable than the testimony _ ,
of witnesses. Why should Ralston, on July 28, 1880, write that he
was enjoying good health if he was the miserable wreck the com-
plainant would have the court to believe? Why, on the day before
the last deed was executed, t. c., on the eighteenth of April, 1881,
should he write, "My health is splendid ?" This evidence, free from
afterthought, without discoverable impropriety of motive contempo-
raneous with the main incident, is of very great value. In generally
bad health, Ralston, like many other invalids, esteemed his physi-
cal condition of prime interest to his correspondent, and the letter
written at the time must be regarded as the truth. In the presence
of all this evidence to show Ralston in the possession of a sufficient
degree of intelligence to convey his property, and in the absence of
definite and satisfactory evidence to the contrary, the court is clearly
of the opinion that there can be no doubt, so far as this allegation of
incapacity is concerned, the deeds are valid, and the prayers of the bill
must be denied.
It is urged with great ability and force of statement and reasoning
that the relation existing between Ralston and the defendant was of
a confidential character; that the actual relation of guardian and
V.25F.I10.l*"‘2 V