The Kansas herald of freedom., 1858-06-05
This Act to take effect and be in force
from and after its passage.
fSigned,l g. w. DEITZLER,
Speaker Of House Of Representatives.
C. w BABC0CK,
President Of TIE LoESca-
Approved February L, 1853
II II DENVER AefigG Gorer11r
Important Decision Touching LiquoE-Tke


On the 9th of July, 1856, in the town of
Roekport, Mass, some two hundred OF the
women of the place got together, proceed
ed to the different liquor shops, entered
them By force, and destroyed the contents
of kegs, demijohns and bottles. There
was a 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 were loudly
extoI.ed by the Maine law journals. After
a 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, vica-
riously for the rest, as defendant in a suit
brought BY one of the sufferers The suit
was decided at Salem on Monday last,
Chief Justice Shaw presiding, in fauor Of
the deteadant-on the ground that individ-
uals are justified in destroying nuisance.
After hearing Judge Shaw's charge, the
iurv speedily found verdict.
The parties to the suit were james
Brown Us. Stephen Perkins and wife.
Mrs. P. was one of the two hundred. The
Court has ruled as follows
These questions arise here ,:
/. Can all persons, without process OF
law, destroy such liquors?
2. Have they the right to use force to
enter place (not being a dwelling house,
for this purpose?
8. Can large number of persons COM
bine to use force
1. All persons have right to abate a
public nuisance. As in cases cited by
defendants, individuals may cut down a
gate erected in highway, or destroy a
bridge thrown over nayigable waters. 1
am opinion that liquors Kept illegally for
sale NTH the implements of trade, having
been declared By laa0 public nuisance, every
person may destroy them.
2. If kept in a shop, not dwelling
house, it is justifable to use so much force
as is necessary to come at such liquor and
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 abounds
in maxims declaring that mans houseis
his castle.
8. If the act is justifable when done by
one person, then it is justiiable when done
by the combined action of many. If the
act is right and one may do it, l do not see
why hundred may not do it.
It is high right to be strictly construed.
There is danger in taking the law into
ones own hands, and that must be a
most lamentable state of society where
such necessity exists. do not see that
the presence and approval of husbands and
fathers, magistrates, policemen, ministers
of the Gospel and deacons, renders such
action any the more justifable, but II
uniustifable would make it all the more
| formidable.
It is the right of individuals to abatt
public nuisance-this right must be most
cautiously exercised. limo liquor is found
in the shop so entered, or if unnecessary
violence is used, or any other articles are
taken or destroyed, the justification fails
1t must have been kept there for illega
sale. If for sale at all, it was illegal, a:
the plaintiff has been proven not to have
been the authorized town agent. Was il
! for sale at all OF this the defendants
must satisfy you. IF it acre for sale. tie'
I hold that they had right, using as it'll
! force as might be and iajuring nothing else
to enter tie shop in question, and destroy tn
/ liquor Kept there, a0ith the vessels IN 1UhtcI
it acas kept, and the implements Of such lille
gal traffic.
The jury returned a verdict for the de
1 fendant.-N. y Times.