(From the “Albany Law Journal.”

During the dry and thirsty days of last summer we meditated a while on these sub jects, and now, in the cool, damp days of March, we return to them. The “public” says that these drinks are adapted to all times and every season ; cooling in summer, warming in winter, drying in wet, and wet ting in dry weather. In California a judge told a jury that to render a man an “ habitual drunkard ” the intoxication must be such as completely to disqualify him from attending to his busi ness vocations. But the Court held that that was laying down the rule in too stringent a manner, and that if there be a “ fixed habit of drinking to excess to such a degree as to disqualify a person from at tending to his business during the principal hours usually devoted to business,” it is habitual intemperance (Mahone v. Mahone, 19 Cal. 627). The lowa Supreme Court, on the other hand, was not prepared to say that if a person has a fixed habit of drinking intoxicating liquors to excess, is frequently drunk, and that such is his normal condi tion during the night and the time not de voted to business, his wife would not be entitled to a divorce on the ground of hfs “ habitual drunkenness” (22 Alb. L. J. 66). “ Drunkenness is a species of insanity ” (Duffield v. Robeson, 2 Harr. 375). It is not correct to say that one is “in the habit of becoming intoxicated ” when he has only once been seen drunk, and only some times takes a drink (Calder v. Sheppard, 61 Ind. 219). Not only is the owner of a place for the unlawful sale of strong drinks considered the “ keeper ” thereof, but also any one who is in possession, has control, or is running the business (Schultz v. State, 32 Ohio St. 276). Boys will be boys, as old Richard, or some one else, remarks ; and will be con tinually getting others into trouble. 