The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1858-05-15
Important Declsien Touching Liquors.
The Won en- head.

On the 9th of July 1856, in the town of
Rockpo Mass, some two hundred of the
women of the place got together, proceeded
to the different liquor shops, entered them
nv force. and destroyed the contents of
kegs. demijohns anFbottles. There was a
great time in town that day. and the female
mob was not interrupted until its work had
been accomE lished. The story went the
rounds Of the papers, and the pluck Of the
women was loudly cx,olcd by the Maine
Law Journals. After time, however, the
affair was forgotten, and nothing has been
heard Of the parties who performed the feat,
until, recently, one of the ladies appeared
in Court, vigorously for the rest, as defend
ent in a suit brought brought by one Of the
sufferers. This snit was decided at Salem
on Monday last, Chief Justice Shaw presid-
inc, in favor OF the defendent-on the ground
that individuals are justified in destroying a
nuisance After hearing Judge Shaw's
charge, the Jury speedily found verdict.
The parties to the suit were James Brown
VS.. Stephen Perkins and wife. MIS-. p. was
one of the two hundred. The Court ruled
rs follows:
These questions arise here:
/. Can all persons, without process Of
law, destroy such liquors?
9. lave they the right to use force to en-
ter place mot being a dwelling house, for
this purpoScE
3. Can a large number Of persons COM
Tine to use for,e2
/. All persons have a right to abate a
public nuisance. AS in cases cited by de-
! irndcnis, individuals may Gu, down gate
erected in a highway, or destroy bridge
thr wn over navigabe waters. ! am OF
sLos Ian cal
with the implements Of trade, having been
declared by law, a public nui ;ance, every
person may destroy them.
.. If kept in 4 store, not n dwelling house,
it i justItab,c to use so much force as is
necessary 10 come at such liquor and vessels,
FOR the purpose of destroying thcm-a
dw,llns.housc S surrounded with pecu-
liar sacredncss, and in that case the rule
would he otherwise. The law aboundS in
maxims declaring that a mans house Is his
castle.
3. If the act is jnstifiable when done by
one person, then it IS justliiab,e when done
bv The combined acton OF many. II the
az: * right and one may do II, and If three
may do il, DO not see why hundred may
not DO it.
I; is high right to be strictly construed.
There is danger in taking the law into ones
own hanl<, and IL at must be most lamen-
table state Of so e,y where such a necessity
exists. | do not see that the presence or
approval of husbands and fathers, mags
tratcS, policeman, ministers # the Gospel,
and dcacOnS renders such action any the
mole justitiablc, but if jnSttia1le Won d
make It all the r,ore formidable.
Il i, the right of individuals to aba'e
public nniSancc-thIS right must be most
cautiously exercised. II no liquor is found
in the shop so entered, or if unnecessary
violence il used, or any other articles are
taken or destroyed, the justification fails
1t must have been kept there for i'll gal
sale. II for sale at all. 1t was Illegal, as the
plaintiff has been proven not to have been
the authorized toxin agent. Was II for sale
at all? CT this the defendent must satisfy
you. II it were for sale then hold that
they had a right, using as little force a.
might be and irjurinG nothing else, to enter
the shop in question, and destroy the liquor
kept there, with the vessels IN which 1t was
kept and the implements of such Illegal
t,aiiic.
The Jury returned vcrdic, FOR the de-
feniyutS