DIVORCE, § 18 — when evidence did not show defendant to be habitual drunkard as term is understood in law. On appeal from decree awarding defendant's husband divorce on grounds of habitual drunkenness, where it appeared that evidence was conflicting in that some witnesses testified they had seen defendant intoxicated, whereas, other witnesses testified they had never seen defendant drunk and were of opinion she was not habitual drunkard, held that upon evidence defendant was not guilty of habitual drunkenness as that term is understood in law and decree should be reversed.
See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.
Opinion by JUSTICE CULBERTSON.
Not to be published in full. Opinion filed January 7, 1946; released for publication February 7, 1946.