The Union and eastern journal. [volume] (Biddeford [Me.]) 1854-1858, 1858-05-07
Important Decision In u Liquor
"r..rE Question. ...
Right Of the Peopl, 10 destroy Liquors lie.
gally held for sale.

Right Of The Peopl, 10 destroy Liquors lie.
gally held for sale. .-
JuDoE SHAW, of the Supreme Court Of
Mass. has recently given decision in high
ly interesting case arising out Of the des,ruc-
ton Of certain liquors by the people Of Rock.
port, Mass, in 1856. The case is thus de-
scribed in the Salem Gazette. The parties
we're James Brown VS.. Stephen Perkins and
wife. The Gazette says .-F
"This was a'case growing out Of an occur
renee in Rockport on the 9Th 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 II
was claimed that the defendants, If they per-
formed the acts alleged, were justified in so
doing, inasmuch as liquors kept Tor sale, and
the shops in which they are kept are declared
to be common nuisances by the act of 1855,
and. as it was claimed by the defendants,
could be abated by the destruction OF such
liquors"
We think that the law Of Massachusetts, Of
1856, above referred to. is similar, or nearly
so, to one passed by the Legislature Of our
State, at the last session. Judge Shaw said
the case was one Of peculiar interest, ana en-
tirely new, and the decision Of it must stand
as precedent. He reviewed the case as fol-
lows:- -4.r
cit was one Of those actions of tort, for.
merly known rs trespass, quare clausnm.-
Brown complains that Perkins and his wife
entered his premises by violence and without
his consent, and asks damages for the injury
tlhne thereto, and for articles taken theretrom
and destroyed. In trespass jointly com.
mitted by many, all are principals, and sever
ally liable, and the plaintiff may elect out Of
the whole number engaged in the common
enterprise, one or more against whom to bring
his action. He can, however, sustain but
one such action and there can be no contri-
button amongst the wrong doors.
The measure of damages 10 the loss and
injury which the party sustains by the viola.
ton Of his rights Of property.
In answer to this claim q justification Is set
up. This presents novel points for consider
alton, and the court must pass upon them ut
once. expressing no doubts to the jury 1t
should entertain any-but Of course. reserv-
ing the right Of reconsidering the instructions
now given to this jury, in case the questions
should hereafter come before the who.e court
for further adyisement. ~ ...... ...,.rA
The questions are two. lst. Has the plain
tiff proved his casei I'd. Have the defend.
ants proved their Justification
The defendants are charged with being two
who broke and entered the door. There Ii
evidence introduced to show that they were
not near the door at the time II was entered.
Where many engage in a common enterprise
to do an unlawful act, or alawiul act In an
unlawful manner. all are responsible for the
acts done, and the consequences, legitimateiy
flowing therefrom, and the combining and con.
spring may be proved, as well by general
conduct as by specih; 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
rejoiced in what was doue. 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 wife, are liable, II they
encourage by their presence and do not inter-
fere. '..r
The great question 10 that Of justification.
Tha, which an individual may lawfully do.
number Of individuals may lawfully do. The
ground here set up is that all Intoxicating
liquors 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 a.
such. do not suppose q man would be jus
tilted in burning or tearing down building
used for the illegal purposes there named, TO
wit: gaming. prostitution. liquor selling.
These questions arise here Il
!. Can all persons. without process Of law
destroy such liquops .r.
2. Have they the right to use force to en-.
ter place mot being dwelling house) Tor
this purposes
3. Can large number Of persons combine
to use forcei
l. All persons have right TO abate pub. |
lie nuisance. As in cases cited by defendants,
individuals may cut down gate erected in a |
highway, OF destroy bridge thrown over nav. |
igsble waters. i am Of opinion that LIQUOR,
kept illegally for sale. with the implements az
trade. having been declared by law a public
nuisance, every person may destroy them.
2. IL kept in chop, not dwelling house.
IL 10 Unstable to use 20 much force a IL nee.
essary to come ct such liquor and vessels, for
the purpose Of destroying them--a dwelling
house is surrounded xitha peculiar sacred.
ness. and in that esse the rule would 30 9th.
erwise. The law abounds in msxims declar.
ing that mans house II his castls. - ~. /
.. II the act 10 jsstiiable when done By
one person. then Il 10 justaabls when done
by the combined action Of many. II the oct !