Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1858-05-28
IMPORTANT DECISsoN IN A
Gi8j OR CASE.
Right Of the People Destroy
when Illegally held for sale.

! 4 highly intercytin. css,-heing tina. Of
james Brown Y. ii pasn Perkins aud wfe--
was tried before the Supreme Court Of Salem
recently. The cas- Is thu, described in the
Salem Gazette
This was a case growing cat fan ne,nr-
renee in RockpoIt on the Ssh # Juiy. i 80
,me two hundred women collected together
on that day. and proceeded = several jl4ea>
whara liquor was stla, and entered the shops
hy force and destroyed tie liquors t5ero
found Among other -r0u0!s of defense il
wA> claimed That the aei5uiaut>, !. taay r
formed III. acts alleged. wera justified in -
doing, iaasmuch as liqaJrs kcp1t5r Stle, and
1ae shops in which they are kept. are de-
elared IL he common nuiSlacr- - tie aet J!
ISIS, and, rs it was claim / by the / 'eai
ants. coild he abated ~ ;ae destruction OF
such lilao
Judge Shaw, before whom tie suit was
tricl. remarked that il WIS one Of peculiar
interest, because entirely new one in this
I Commonwealth, and the decision Of it must
stand AS a precedent He reviewed the case
as follows We copy from the report in tho
Gazette:
at was one of those actions of tort. for
Brown complains that Perkins and his wife
e tered his premises by violence and with
out his consent, and asks damages for the
! injury done thereto, aud for articles taken
theretrom and destroyed, In trespass joint
ly committed by many. all are principals.
and sevsrally liable, aud the plaintiff may
elect out Of the whole number engaged in
the common enterprise, one or more against
X hon I-Ir4 II. Il y.ar
sustain but one such action. and there can
be 70 contribution amongst the wrong do
{ ers.
The measure of damages is the loss and IN
jury which the party sistains BY the yiola-
ton Of his rights Of property.
In answer to this claim a justification i
set up. This presents moved points Tor con-
sideratiln. and the coart must pass upon
them at once. expressing no doubts to the
jury il il should entertain anv-hut Of course
re<erving the right OF roconsidering the in
strnctions now given I, this jury. in ease
the questions should hereafter come before
the whole court for further advise
ment.
The questions are two. /. Has the plain
tiff proved his case? .. Have the dt.fynl-
ants proved their justification.
two who broke and entered the door. There
Is evidence introduced to show that they
We're not near the door at the time it was
entered. Where many engage in common
enterprise t. Do an unlawful act, ur a lawful
act in an unlawful manner, all are response
BE for the acts done. and the consequences
lesitimately flowing therafr9m, and the com
blning and conspiring may he proved, as
well By general conduct us by specific acts
Of participation.
These defendants do not deny they Were
near the scene Of action, with hun reds OF
otaers-as some witnesses have said, the
whole population of Rockrort-anl that
they rcloiced in what was done Three or
more persons, assembled for an unlawful
purpose. make riot. Persons standing in
relations Of authority to tbs who act As
father = a child, husband to 4 wife. are la
he, ii they encourage BY their presence and
do not interfere
/ The great question is that Of Justification.
That which an iadiyidual may lawfully do.
a nun Der Of individual may lawfully do
/ he ground here st up is that all intoxica-
ting liquors illegally kept for sale, together
with the vessels ard implements Of the trade
and the building in which they are fJuna.
are common nuisanccs, which individuals
may ahttc
Two act, IF the year lS5j, declare these
u b nuislnc1s, and to be regarded and
treated as such. do hot suppose a man
would be justified in burnin. or tearing
down building used for the illegal purpJs $
there nam ID, to wit: gaming, Prostitution.
liquar-s5lling.
These questions arise here
al l. r
destroy s4eh liquors?
=. Have they the right 10 use force to en-
ter Il lace (not being a dwelling house, for
this lurpos ?
3. Can a larse number IF persons combine
to use force?
/. All persons have right 10 abate q
public nuisance. rs in cases cited by Gs-
f,ndants, individuals may Gu; d5wn gate
erected in highway, or destroy a brils
thrown over naYigablc waters. | am Of
+. opinion that liquors kept LEGALLY for sale,
/, with theinplements OF trade, having been
declared by law a public nuisance. every
person may destroy them.
,. If kept in shop, not dwelling house.
it is iustihable to use 50 much force as is nee
essary TO come at such liquor and vessels,
for the purpose ofdestroying them--a dwell
ing house is surrounded with peculicr sa-
cre1ness and in that ease the rule would be
otherwise. The law abounds in maxims
declaring thai q mans house is lis cas-
tie
,. If the act is ustifable when done BY
one person, then il is justiiable when done
by the combined action of many. If the act
i RIGHT and one may DO it, and if hree NAV
do it, Do not see why hundred may not
doit
1t is high right to be strictly construed
There is danger in taking the law into one :
own hands. and that must be a most lament
able state o. society, where such necessity
exists. | do not see that the presence and
approval Of husbands and fathers. nagis-
trates. policemen, ministers Of the Gospel
and deacons render such action any the
more .iustifabe, but if uniustiiablo would
make it all the more formidable.
1t is the right Of individuals 10 abate a
public nuisancs-this right must be most
cautiously exercised If no liquor is found
in the shop 50 entered, or if unnecessary vio
lence is used, or any other articles are taken
or destroyed. the justification fails. 1t
must have been kept there for illegal sale
If for sale at all, it was Illegal, as the plain
It'll has been proven not to have been the au-
thorizel town agent. Was it for sale at all?
OF this the defendants must satisfy You. If
it were for sale then hold that they had Il
right. using as little force as might be and
iniuriug nothing else, to enter the shop IN
question, and destroy the liquor kept there,
with the vessels in which it was kept and
the implements OF such illegal traffic
The Jury returned verdict for the de-
PENDANTS.
The correspondent of the New York