New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-05-06
IMPORTANT DECISION uyDER 4
LfQrOR Law.
The RIGHT TO ABAIE NrIsANcEs

H. tie ,eN 1856 a BODY OF two tuaireJ wopsc
.p,s,sf iSs stores of m. l9uor dealer. IN Rock por
FISK Ccu,ty Mss'.. srd Destroyed By force o. The
raue.s they ceu,d ird. james Brown ooe OF the
,ufer-,. tlou.lt sui, fcr ,espsss against Stephen
Perkirs snd wife, who w,re coDcefrtd in the move
meat. The case was trial beiore the Supreme
C.u,t E, SAem las, week. We give below a. sKisss,
fam tie ruling II Ju;ge SHAW. Tie hrst QUESTION
asked was whether the plsintf bad proved bis eAss
Tfa was rot denied TIE second Wa, Have the ee
PENDANTS proved their justification On tas 'hs Ch@
Justice rules o. follows;
TIE gfest question is thst 81 jrs'ihcssfnn. IaA
whch an individual may ls~fuily do. number OF az
di,idrsls may lawfully 90. The ground here Get up
ia that ell Intoxicating fquofs illegally kept Tor So,
together with the vessels and mpemcsts OF The trsds
ard the building in which they found ere common
Iu;ssrces, which indivdusls may ahate.
Two sets Of the year 1888 decls!s those to %
suis.tces 10 be regarded and treated as such. Do
IL. suppose 3 man would be justified in burning Or
teairs dcwn building used for the Illegal purposes
there named, 10 wit, gaming, protrrhoo hSoof-
selling.
Thee questions srse here:
l. Can all per Cps wi:h' ut procsss OF law, destroy
>. Have IL ey the light to use force 70 ente, p.aoe
tot beir z DIV ellir g-houssl for this psrpcss'
3. Can large sumber OF persons combine to ~
foroe7
erected N hwsy destroy bridge thrown naNis shs
waters spfaion not heso,s kert aessSt Sr ssk.
,l the iaJnsais - trade haEfag bsSs declared ~ fav
y.Bl;c nsisercs ere's rers0r rdy destroy hen ...
Aept shop dwelling house 10 justihshle 10 uee
st such qsor and vesses
Tor the purpose Of destroying them. dsehns houss se-
rou sw with peculiar sciejness and " thss os.e tes
lr would ohe'~is The Law sbounts IN msxss declsrssa
thst man. house Is bis castle. 81,
little &C, 10 jusGfsbe when done BY persoa then I've
rstfle By the conbir cd stion Of many the
&C, is then three do IT, md thrss
n Az 60 ~, I do not VIII . hundred may not do v
It's q high right to be ,trctly copstrued There ~
danger in tskirg the law into ores own hands, and
that must be most lameptsbe state Of society where
such necessity exists do dot zee that the pres-
er ce sid approval Of husbands and fataers msgis-
trsres policen en-, ministers of the Gospel and dea-
cons renders such action any the moro ustitabae,
but Il u, us fable would mskeit oil the more ornid
able.
is Ire right Of individuals to sbste public puis
sroe-this right must be most cautiously exercised II
10 au6r fouId in the shop entered, or unneces-
ss,y violence used any other articles are tsken
or destroy ed the jusfcsi fall II must have beeo
kept there oI Illegal sale II for sale at all i was Tile
gal as the plaintiff has been proven rot to have been
the authorized town SCENT Was Il for sale at oil VI
this the defe Ldsbts must satisfy you. II was for
tale then bold that they bad right, using as little
force as night be- and niuriog nothing else TO enter
the shop in question and destoy theiquor kept there
with the vessels which il was kept end the iniple-
II eIts of such illegal traffic.