The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1858-05-18
Important Decision Teaching Liquor ..
The Women Ahead. m.

vi the ON oI July, 1000, IN the tOWn
of Rockport, Mass, some two hundred of
the women Of the place got together, pro-
ceeded to the different liquor shops, enter
ed by force, and destroyed the contents Of
kegs, demijohns and bottles. there was a
great time in town that day, and the fo-
male mob was not interrupted until its
work had been accomplished. The story
went tho rounds Of the papers, and the
pluck of the women wac loudly extolled
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, vicariously
for the rest, rs defendant in suit brought
by one Of the sufferers. This suit was
decided at Salem on Monday last, Chief
Justice Shaw presiding, in favor OF the de-
fendant--on the grounds that individuals
are justified in destroying nuisance. Az
ter hearing Judge Shaw's charge, the ju-
ry speedily found a verdict.
The parties to the suit were James
Brown vs.. Stephen Perkins and wife.
Mrs. p. was one of the two hundred
The Court ruled as follows:
These questions arise here:
l. Can all persons without process of law,
destroy much liquor. -
2. Have they the right TO Use force to
enter place not being dwelling house)
for this purpose?
8. Can large number of persons COM
bine to use forceG
l. All persons have right TO abatc a
public nuisance. As in cases cited by de-
PENDANTS, individuals may cut down a
gate erected in highway, or destroy q
bridge thrown over navigable. waters.
am of opinion that liquors kept illegally
for sale. with the implements Of trade
having been declared, by law a public nui
sance. every person may destroy them.
2. If kept in shop, not dwelling
house, it is justifiable to use so much force
as is necessary to come at such liquor end
vessels, for the purpose Of destroying
them-a dwelling house is surrounded with
a peculiar sacredness, and in that case
the rule would be otherwise. The law a
bounds in rnaxims declaring that mans
house is his castle. '''''''' -
8, If the act is justiiable when done by
one person, then it is justi6able when done
by the combined action Of many. If the
act is right and one may do it, and if three
ay do it, do not sec why hundred
may not do it.
1t is high right to bo strictly construed
There is danger in taking the law into
ones own hands, and that mt st be a most
lamentable state of society where such d
necessity exists. l do not see that the
presence or approval of husbands and
and fathers, magistrates, policemen, min
saes sisBs aatiJBs af ths &psqSe ABa
if unjustifable would make it all the
moro formidable.
1t is the right of individuals to abate n
nuisance-this right must be most eau
tiously exercised. If no liquor is found in
the shop SO entered, or if unnecessary vic
lence is used, or any other article arc Ia.
ken or destroyed, the justification fails
1t must have cen kept there for illegal
sale. If for sale at all, it was illegal, al
the plaintiff has been proven not to have
been the authorized own agent. Wasi,
for sale at all? Of this the defendan must
satisfy you. fit were for sale then
hold that they had right, using as little
force as might be and injuring nothing
else, to enter the shop in question, and de
sroy the liquor kept there with the yes
sells in which it was kept and the implc
ments of such illegal traffic.
The Jury returned verdict for the do
fcndant.