The opium habitué realizing that he is looked upon as one who has given himself up to a vicious habit, a habit in which he persists from mere desire to enjoy the pleasures of opium—pleasures which, be it ever remembered, soon give place to its pains—and so liable to the censure which a vicious indulging involves, is impelled—by a feeling common to us all of guarding our good repute—to yield to the protective temptation to untruth. But to this there are numerous exceptions, for many a captive to this drug, though well nigh crushed by his captivity, and that “cruelty of ignorance,” which the unjust reproaches of should-be friends entails, still refuses to seek refuge behind such subterfuge, and scorns to tell a lie. And do we not note this same impulse to deceit in most non-habitués who, lapsing from the right, make effort to avoid the sequence of their sin? Does the swindler always confess his swindling? Do the thieves, the forgers, the rascals of any degree, never deny their wrong doing? And while, in these cases, such double wrong may be the outcome of a general depravity, that, of itself, tends to prove that if the pernicious effect of opium in this regard were due solely to its baneful effect upon the morale in general, we should note the same tendency to lying along the various lines of life, whereas, it is a fact that on any question other than one involving his opiate taking, and consequent accountability, the habitué may be, and often is, a very prototype of truth. What is the bearing of this question on the medico-legal status of these cases? If they be held culpable for the inception and furtherance of their condition, whatever outcome there may be affecting the jurisprudence of their action, must, from such erroneous view of the situation, fail of that legal justice which a correct appreciation of their case demands. The writer was recently called upon to testify in the case of a physician who had been under his care for treatment of narcotic inebriety. This gentleman was the subject of delusions and hallucinations, so marked, that, in my opinion, he was not accountable for his conduct. Suit for separation was brought against him, and the referee’s remarks during the trial, and his final decision, were in keeping with the belief that the defendant was responsible for the consequences of his alienation.