Pomeroy weekly telegraph. [volume] (Pomeroy, Meigs County, Ohio) 1860-1866, 1860-03-13
The Liquor Law of Is54--Heavy Verdict
Under its Provisions in the Champai
Court of Common Pleas.

ohueF aus Provisions in the Champ align
Court of Common Pleas.
The Urbana Citizen publishes q
lengthy report of very interesting case
lately tried in that place, under the sew
enth section of can act to provide
against the evils resulting from the sale
of Intoxicating liquors., passed May l.
1854. BY this section, the wife, child
parent, guardian, employer Or other per.
son, who shall be injured in person
property Or means of support, by an in
toxicsted person, has right of action
against the party who sold the liquor, il
sold contrary to law. In the present
cause, the plaintiff, Jane Brush, alleged
thatshe was the wife of one Reed Brush
an intemperate man, and that the de,
fendants Peter Lawson, though cognizani
of tie habits of her husband, sold him a
pint of whisky on the 2Sth of April
last, in violation of the law, with which
he became intoxicated, and in his
drunken fury chopped off the left foot Of
the plaintiff. In compensation for this
she asked damages in the sum of $40
900. The defendant denied the allega-
tions, and introduced testimony to sub
stantiate his denials, and further offered
to prove the immoral character of the
plaintiff, but the Court-Parsons, j.
decided that evidence on the latter point
was inadmissible. The Court informed
the jury in regard to the issue between
the parties, and charged as follows
In order to effect a recovery at all on
the part of the plaintiff, you are to be
satisfied in your minds, that the defend
ant sold the whisky to Reed Brush, con-
trary to the statute. Now, person may
lawfully sell intoxicating liquor in any
quantity, if the liquor is not to be drank
on the premises, or in any adjoining
building, provided it be not to minor
without permit, or to person intoxi-
Gated, or in the habit of getting intoxi-
Gated And even though you find that
the defendant 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 recov-
cry, unless it be shown to you that the
defendant knew that Reed Brush was in
the habit of getting drunk It matters
not though he did sell the whisky to
Reed Brush, and Reed Brush was in the
habit of getting intoxicated, if the plain
tiff fail to prove satisfactorily to you,
that Lawson had notice and knew of
Reeds habitual drunkenness, she is not
entitled to a recovery. -
1t also becomes necessary for the
plaintiff to prove that Reed Brush was
intoxicated at the time the wound was
inflicted. It is not necessary that it
should be proven that he was wholly un-
der the influence of whisky, for if a man
be dead drunk, he is incapable of COM
mitting a wrong; if the brain and the
mind be so Influenced and excited with
liquor, as that the party will take offense
lat, and resent, and seek to infict injury,
for matters that would otherwise pass
unnoticed, that is intoxication. You are
then to be satisfied in your minds, before
you render verdict for the plaintiff
that the following propositions are true
viz: .... -,.z .... .......
1st. That the defendant sold the
whisky to the plaintiff husband
I'd. That the husband of plaintiff was
in the habit of getting intoxicated
Sd. That the defendant was informed
or knew of his habitual drunkenness.
4th. That Reed Brush became intoxi.
Gated from such liquor.
And if in your Judgment the plaintiff
has failed to prove any of these PROPOSE
tions, you will return verdict for the
defendant. But if you find that the
plaintiff has thus far proven her case
your Investigations go farther. You are
then to inquire whether the injury com,
planned of was occasioned by the intoxi
cation produced by the whisky sold by
defendant. IF it be your opinion thai
the throwing of the axe was the result
of the intoxication or frenzied state O.
mind, under which Reed Brush was ther
laboring, you will return a verdict fol-
; the plaintiff. But if you discover tha
the injury resulted from a quarrel pro
voked by the plaintiff at the time, ther
you will return verdict for the defend
ant. The amount of damages is left en-
tirely with you. If you find for thu
plaintiff, you will assess such damages al
you in your sound discretion may deem
E right an proper. t,f
The jury retired, and after short con
sultation returned verdict for tn,
plaintiff, assessing her damages at S., 900