Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-02-28

The Urbana Citizen publishes lengthy
report of the very interesting case lately tried
in Champaign county, under the seventh sec
ton of San act to provide against the evils
resulting from the sale of Intoxicating liquors, T"
passed Nay 1, 1854. By this section, the wife,
child, parent, guardian, employer or other
person, who shall be Injured in person, property
or means of support, by an intoxicated person,
has q right of action against the party who
sold the liqnor, if sold contrary to law. The
case was Jane Brush VS.. Peter Lawson, and
the circumstances were given in account from
the Urbana Press, published in yesterdays
Leader. The Court charged the Jury as fol-
lows:
| In order 10 effect recovery at all on the part
of the plaintiff, you are to be satisfied in your
minds, that the defendant sold the whisky to
Reed Brush, contrary TO the statute. Now. a
person may lawfully sell Intoxicating liquors in
any quantity, if the liquor is not to be drank on
the premises, or in an adjoining building, pro-
vided It be not 10 a minor without permit, or
to person intoxicated or in the habit Of getting
| intoxicated. You are then to be satisfied that
]
Gated. And even though you find that the de.
fendant did sell the whisky to Reed Brush, and
that Reed Brush was in the habit Of
getting intoxicated, still the plaintiff will not
/ be entitled to a recovery, unless it be shown to
you that the defendant knew that Reed Brush
was in the habit of getting drunk. It matters
not though be did sell the whisky to Reed
Brush, and that Reed Brush was in the
habit of getting intoxicated if the plaintiff fail
to prove satisfactorily to you, that Lawson had
notice and knew of Reed Brush's habitual
drunkenness, she is not entitled to recovery.
Il also becomes necessary for the plaintiff to
prove that Reed Brush was intoxicated at the
time the wound was inflicted. 1t is not neces-
sary that it should be proven that ae was wholly
under the influence OF whisky, for if a man be
dead drunk, he is incapable Of committing a
wrong; if the brain and mind be SO Influenced
and excited with liqnor, as that the party will
take offense at, and resent, and seek to infiet
/ injury for matters that would otherwise pass
unnoticed that is intoxication. You are then
to be satisfied in your minds, before you render
a verdict fOI the plaintiff, that the following
propositions are true, VIZ:
Ist. That the defendant sold the whisky to
the plaintiffs husband.
%. That the plaintiff of husband was in the
habit Of getting intoxicated.
ID. That the defendant was informed, OF
knew Of his habitusl drunkenness.
4th. That Reed Brush became intoxicated
from such liquor.
And if IN your judgment the plaintiff has
failed to prove any of these propositions, you
will return a verdict for the defendant But
if you find that the plaintiff has thus far proven
her case, your Investigations 60 farther. You
are then to inquire whether the injury complained
of was occasioned by the intoxicstion produced
by the whisky sold BY the defendant. If it be
your opinion that the throwing Of the axe wai
the result Of the into1icatiOn or freRzied state
of mind, under which Reed Brush was then la
boring, Tou viii return verdict for the plaintiff
But If you discover that the injury resulted
from quarrel provoked by the plaintiff at the
time, then you viii return q verdict for the de-
fendant The amount Of damages is left
entirely with you. IfyOu find for the plaintiff
you will assess such damages as you in yOuI
sound discretion may deem right and proper.
The Jury retired, and after short consulta.
ton, returned q verdict for the plaintiff, assess
ing her damages at $1,000 lawson is worth
the judgment, made out out Of the nefariOuE
traffic