What constitutes habitual drunkenness?

That was the question posed by the Millville Daily Republican in April 1924.

At the time, Millville recently had passed an ordinance that any man arrested twice for being intoxicated within a given time could be legally punished as a habitual drunk.

But a problem with the ordinance arose that spring when a local woman called the mayor's office requesting police to come for her husband.

Drunk and unruly, he was said to be foul mouthed and a nuisance to his neighborhood. After arresting the man, authorities quickly discovered that he was a repeat customer.

Just before Christmas, a full 14 weeks earlier, he had been picked up by police while on a bender and had pleaded guilty.

So now, this second offense made him an "habitual drunk" under Millville law.

But when arraigned before the mayor, the accused entered a "not guilty" plea.

He admitted to having been arrested for drunkenness in December, but claimed he had not been sober since. Having been on the same drunk for more than three months and having already paid a penalty, he argued, he could not be fined twice for the same offense.

Neighbors testified that they "had seen him drunk lots of times," that "he would wake up the neighborhood early in the morning by his racket," and that "he was a street preacher when he was intoxicated."

According to the Daily Republican article "Man attacked ordinance," he contended that "a drunkard is a man who fails to attend to his business affairs." And, having paid his December fine, even while intoxicated, he felt he was clearly able to be a productive citizen.

"I get whiskey when I have the price," he said. "I have drank it for 40 years and will drink it for 40 more if I live that long."

But, in the end, the judge was not swayed. He fined the accused $25 and costs, for a total of $38.55 due.

The man, who by his own account may have been on the longest bender in Millville history, was to remain locked up until the full fine was paid.

Read or Share this story: