FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110  
111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   >>   >|  
o repudiate it and restore the consideration, if any, within a reasonable time, he would become bound. The courts are still more reluctant to admit intoxication as an excuse for criminal acts. The courts hold that one who voluntarily deprives himself of self-control must have intended the consequences, therefore it is everywhere held that one who voluntarily becomes intoxicated, although he did so with no purpose to commit a crime when intoxicated, cannot claim immunity from criminal responsibility, or even a mitigation of the penalty, though having no capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. And yet, like so many legal rules, there are some marked exceptions to this one. Thus, since burglary is the entering of a house with the intent to commit a felony therein, one who blunders into a strange house because he is too drunk to know where he is or what he is doing has not committed the crime of burglary. So one who carried off the property of another through drunken ignorance does not commit larceny, as there is no intent in such a case to convert the property to the taker's own use. Another application has been made in cases of assault with intent to kill a person. Again, says Peck, "if one is visibly intoxicated, it is the duty of those who come in contact with him to take his condition into account, and their use of due care will be judged in view of that fact. Even if the drunken person and the other are both negligent, the sober party may be liable under the doctrine of the last clear chance, if he fails to exercise toward the drunken man the degree of care which is evidently required to avoid injuring him. Especially is a common carrier, in dealing with a passenger who is on its car in an intoxicated condition, bound to take his helpless condition into account in removing him from the car or otherwise handling him, and not put him in a place of manifest danger to one in his condition." It has also been held that the intoxication of one who uttered a slander may be admissible in mitigation of the damages, as utterances of a drunken man could not seriously impair the reputation of any one. =Equitable Remedies.=--Elsewhere we have told how courts of law differ from courts of equity. In some states no separate courts exist, and wherever legal proceedings are established by a code or system of statute law, the form of complaint addressed to a court is quite the same in an equity case as in any other. Bu
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110  
111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

courts

 

condition

 

intoxicated

 
drunken
 

intent

 

commit

 

mitigation

 
burglary
 

equity

 

person


account

 

property

 
criminal
 

voluntarily

 

intoxication

 
required
 

evidently

 

exercise

 

degree

 

Especially


helpless
 

passenger

 
common
 

carrier

 

dealing

 

injuring

 

judged

 

excuse

 
doctrine
 

removing


liable
 

negligent

 

chance

 

handling

 
proceedings
 

established

 

separate

 

states

 
reluctant
 

differ


addressed

 

complaint

 

system

 

statute

 
uttered
 

slander

 

danger

 

manifest

 
admissible
 

damages