Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1858-05-05

CAt~tEtS
" This was case growing ont of an occur
renee in Rockport on the Sth Of July, 1856.
Some two hundred women collected together
on that day, and proceeded to several places
where liquor was sold, and entered the shops
by force, and destroyed the liquors there
found. Among other grounds of defence, it
was claimed that the defendants, if they per-
| formed the acts alleged, were justified in so
doing, iDasmuch as liquors kept for sale, and
the shops in which they are kept, are declared
| to be common nuisances by the act of 1866,
and. as it was claimed by the defendants,
could be a5ated by the destruction of such
liquors.
Judge Shaw, before whom the suit was
tried, remarked that it was one of peculiar
interest, because entirely a new one in this
Commonwealth, and the decision of it must
stand as precedent. He reviewed the case
as follows. We copy from the report in the
Gazette:
1t was one of those actions of tort, formerly
known as trespass. quare clausum Brown
complains that Perkins and his wife entered
his premises by violence and without his con-
sent, and asks damages Tor the injury done
there. and for articles taken therefrom and
destroyed. In a trespass jointly committed
by many, all are principals, and severally LA
bic, and the plaintiff may elect out of the
whole number engaged in the common enter
prise, one or more against whom to bring his
action. He can, however, sustain but one
such action. and there can be no contribution
amongst the wong doors.
The measure of damages is the loss and in
jury which the party sustains by the violation
Of his rights of property.
In answer to this claim justification is set
up. This presents novel points for consider
alton, and the court must pass upon them at
once, exercising no doubts to the jury if it
should entertain any but of course reserving
the right of reconsiderng the instructions
now given to the jury, in case the ques-
tons should hereafter come before the whole
court Tor further advisement.
The questions are two. l. Has the plain
tiff proved his case 2. Have the defendants
proved their justification
The defendants are charged with being two
who broke and entered the door. There is ev-
idence introduced to show that they were not
near the door at the time it was entered.
Where many engage in common enterprise
to do an unlawful act, or a awful act in an
unlawful manner, all are responsible for the
acts done, and the consequences, legitimately
flowing therefrom, and the combining and
conspiring may be proved, as well by general
conduct as by specific acts of participation.
These defendants do not deny they were
near the scene of action, with hundreds of
others-as some witnesses have said, the
whole population of Rockport-and that they
rejolced in what was done. Three or more
| persons, assembled for an unlawful purpose,
make riot Persons standing in relations Of
authority to those who act as father to
child, husband to q wife, are liable, if they
fbos~ 4
fere.
The great question is that of justification.
That which an individual may lawfully do, a
number of individuals may lawfully do. The
ground here set up is that all Intoxicating IL
quOrs illegally kept for sale, together with the
vessels and implements of the trade, and the
building in which they are found, are common
nuisances, which individuals may abate.
Two acts of the year 1855 declare these to
be nuisances, to be regarded and treated as
such. do not suppose a man would be JUS
| tilted in burning or tearing down building
used for illegal purposes there named, to wit !:
gaming, prostitution, liquor selling.
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 (not beng dwelling house, for this
| purpose
g. Can large number of persons combine
| to use force
/. II persons have right to abate a pub
lie nuisance. As in cases cited by defend
ants, individuals may cut down gate erected
in highway, or destroy bridge thrown over
navigable waters. l am of opinion that IL
| quors kept illegally for sale, with the imple-
ments of trade, having been declared by law
public nuisance, every person may destroy
them.
2. Ii kept in shop, not q dwelling house.
1t is justihable to use so much force as is nee
essary to come at such liquor and vessels, for
the purpose of destroying them-a dwelling
house is surrounded with peculiar sacred
| ness, and in that case the rule would be other
wise. The law abonnds in maxims declaring
that mans house is his castle.
8. If the act is justifable when done by one
| person, then it is justifab when done by the
combined action of many. If the act is right
and one may do it, and three may do it, do
not see why hundred may not do 1t.
1t is high right to be strictly construed
There is danger in taking the law into ones
own hands, and that must be most lamenta-
BILE state Of society where such a necessity
exists. do not see that the presence and
approval of husbands and fathers, magistrates.
| POaiOShCh3 IHlulblcfS VI lu6 OO6peI, ana Qea-
cons, renders such action any the more iusti-
fable, but if unjustifable, would make it all
the more formidable.
1t is the right of individuals to abate
| public nuisance-this right must be most eau
tiously exercised. If no liquor is found in
the shop SO 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 Ii for
sale at all, it was illegal, as TIE plaintiff has
been proven not to have been the authorized
town agent. Was it for sale at all OF this
the defendants must satisfy you. If it were
for sale, then l hold that they had right,
using as little force as might be, and iniuring
nothing else, to enter the shop in question,
and destroy the liquor kept there, with the
vessels in which it was kept and the imple-
ments or such illegal traffic. as 3. a,..-s-s-'s
The jury returned verdict for the defend
ants.
Lately, the Post Office Department Of
France issued circular, Intended to be post
ed at all the offices Of the country, indicating
to the people the manner in which they ought
to arrange the superscription of their letters