The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1858-05-22
Important Decision Touching Liqaor-The
Women Ahead.

On the sth of July, 1856, in the town
of Rockport, Mass, some two hundred of
the women of the place got togethcr,pro-
ceeded to the different liquor shops, en-
tered them by force, and destroyed the
contents of kegs, demijohns aud bottles.
There was great time in town that day,
and the female mob was not interrupted
until its work had been accomplished
The story went the rounds of the papers,
and the pluck of the women was loudly
extolled ~ the Maine Law journals. At
ter a time, however, the affair was forgot
ten, and nothing has been heard Of the
parties who performed the feat, until, re-
Gently, one of the ladies appeared in
| Court. vicariously for the rest, ss defen-
dant in a suit brought by one Of the suf-
| ferers. This suit was decided at. Salem,
on Monday last, Chief Justice Shaw pre-
siding, in favor of the defendant---on tue
ground that individuals are justified in
destroying a nuisance. After hearing
Judge Shaw's charge, the jury speedily
found verdict
The parties TO the sua were james
Brown VS.. Stephen Perkins aud wife --
Mrs F. was one of the two hundred -
The Court ruled as follows:
These questions arise here;
l. Can all persons without process
of law, destroy such liquors.
2. Have they the right to use force
to enter place mot being dwelling.
house) for this purposcl
3. Can large number fpersons com
bine touse force?
L. Al persons have a right to ahat<
a public nuisance. As in cases cited BY
defendants, individuals may cut down ;
gate erected in a highway, or destroy
bridge thrown over navigable waters.
am of opinion that liquors kept Illegal
ly for sale, with the implements of trade
having been declared, by law, public
nuisance, every person. may destro,
them.
2. If kept in shop, not IA dwelling
house,it is iustitiable to use So much fore
, as is necessary to ccme at such liquor an
/ vessels, for the purpose of destroying then
"A dwelling house is surrounded with
: peculiar sacredness, and in that case th
. rule would be otherwise. The law abound
' in maxims declaring that mans hous
! is his castle.
, 3. IF the act IS justtiable when don
/ by one person, then it Is justiiable whe
e done by the combined action of many
5 If the act is right and one may do it, ,thre
may do it, and if three may do it, do nc
see why hundred may not do it.
n 1t is high right to be strictly constrt
|, ed. There is danger in taking the law il
: to ones own hands, and that must be
e most lamentable state of society whe,
r such a necessity exists. | do not see thi
c the presence or approval of husbands an
e fathers, magistrates. policemen, ministe
3 Of the Gospel and deacons renders sue
d actions any the more justiiable, but if il
d iustidable would make it all the more 70
n midabc.
A. 1t isthe right Of individuals to abate
Of public nuisance--thls rightmust be mo
n cautiously exercised. If no liquor
G. found in the shopso entered, or if unne
e. essary violence is used, or any other art
a. ces are taken or destroyed, the justific
r tion fails. 1t must have been kept the
of for illegal sale. lffor sale at all it was
o. legal, as the plaintiff has been proven n
ID to have been the authorized town agen
le Was it for sale at all? Ofthis the defe
ID dant must satisfy you. If it were Cor So
h, then / hold that they had a right, usi
IN as little force as might be, and injuri
to nothing else, to enter the shop in qu'
he tion, aud destroy the liquor kept thel
as with the vessels in which it was kept a
ly the implements of such Illegal traffic.
to The Jury returned "a verdict for the {
en- PENDANTS.