“Drunk” in the Eyes of the Law

GEXTLE~1Ex,-The idea underlying this paper originated in my mind in 1909, when I was specifically invited by a police surgeon to give him a definition of "drunk," or at least some definite line to go upon, if and when he were asked in Court whether a given person were "drunk." After some consideration of the subject, 1gave him a strict definition, possibly impelled thereto by the old adage about angels and other people. Be that as it may, I was so far enamoured of my own conceit that in 1910 I introduced my definition into the sixth edition of Taylor, in the hope that one of my critics might take up the point, and thereby enable me to ventilate the subject. I have also adopted my definition for my own lectures on medical jurisprudence. I am bound to confess that my original inquisitor has not availed himself of my assistance in giving his evidence (nor, indeed, has any other police surgeon, so far as I am aware), a circumstance at which I am neither surprised nor disheartened, for it requires some boldness on the part of a medical witness to try to show to a magistrate or Judge that the question, in the eye of the Law, is one for him as President of the Court and not for the witness to answer. I am, however, somewhat surprised that the profession as a whole has not accepted such an obvious and easy way of escape from a responsibility thrust upon it, not by the Law, but by the executive of the Law. To plunge at once into the difficulties of the whole situation, and " by opposing end them," I define" drunk" as