The Conservative. (M'connelsville, Ohio) 1866-1871, 1870-05-06

OlS
Ohio and the decisions of our courts.
1t was claimed that so far as the labor
was performed, andthe furniture, ap-
%aratus, and liquor were furnished for
the purpose and with the knowledge
that they would be used for the pur.
pose of facilitating the sale of ardent
spirits to be drank on the premises
where sold, the claim for such labor
and property is void, for the reason
that all express contracts made under
such circumstances are absolutely void
and that the law will notimply aprom-
Use to pay for gaods furnished or labor
performed to the ~furtherance of IN IL
legal enterprise. Judge Paine, in de-
Gliding the question, said:
1.-THE principal question in the case
is, does the testimony show that the
business of this firm was illegal or un-
lawful in the sense and to the extent
clain.ed7 And, if so, hence the par
ties performed labor and furnished ma
terials with such knowledge and in
tention and under such circumstances
as that the court will refuse its aid In
inforcing the contracts and thus help
the parties to compel payment of their
claims.
The first section Of the act of the
legislature entitled tan act to provide
against the evils resulting from the
sale of Intoxicating liquors in the State
Of Ohio" reads as follows:
"SEC. |. Be it enacted by the General
Assembly of the State OF Ohio, That
it shall be unlawful for any person or
persons, by agent or otherwise to sell,
10 any quantity, intoxicating liquors
to be drank, in, upon, or about the
building or premises where sold, or
sell such Intoxicating liquors to be
drank in any adjoining room, building
or premises, or other place of publ c
resort connected with said building"
The eighth section of the same act
provides that for a violation of the
first section, "every person so Offend
ing shall forfeit and pay q fine of rot
less han s. nor more than $50, or be
imprisoned in the Jail of the county
not less than ten more than thirty
days or both OF them, at the discre-
ton of the court, and shall pay the
costs of the prosecution"
No one can read this section without
noticing that the legislature intended
to strike a fatal blow at the sale of in
~toxicating liquor to be drank on. in,
or about the premises where sold. The
language of the act lis general, en-
bracing and making it CT m nal for any
person or persons, lin OF them, or by
his or their agents, to sell intoxica ing
to be drank not on'y in the room
where sold but in any anjadent room.
or even an adjacent building, or ad,
Timing premises.
The yenalty inflicted for a violation
of the statute is severe, fine and i'm
prisOnment, or both, at the discretion
of the court, slowing unmis'ak- bly,
that the lawmakers regarded the
offence as a serious one.
Can any one who is emrloyed to fit
up the pace 18th a knowledge that it
is to be US d for this criminal purpose,
and with a knowledge hat without the
mechanical skill which he bestows and
he materials which he furnishes the
place wonld not be suitable, and would
not and could not be used for the pur-
pose of violating the criminal law
can he ask a court to help him obtain
compensation for his criminal labor?
How does dhis cate differ in %princi-
pie from a case will supposed Aman-
ufacturer of counterfeit coin employs
a teamster to haul his press and apa-
ratus for making bogus mon'y FAR into
the fores' for the purpo-e OF facilitating
and c%oncealing the gully party in his
wicked work. / suppose the party
thus employed TO have full knowledge
of the intentions and purposes oof the
manufacturer, and that the bogus coin
is really made. The team ter is not
paid and he brings suit against his
employer t" the price and val
ne of hi. services and the facts appear
on the trial rsI eave supposed. is there
a court in any civilized country where
he eauld get a .judgem.n mt, and which
woul1 not look on his unblushing i'm
pudence with contempt, and admon-
ish Linn that the ~renitentiary was
awaiting his presence? And is there
any diff renee in principle between
the cas- supp sed and the one on t isl?
If there is, ! confess l am unable to see
it.
But how is it with him who furnish
es the intoxicating liquor with the
knowledge from day 10 day that it is
used for this purpose, and who in fact
furnishes it for the purposo Of having
a. thus used7 Would it be better for
him who should furnish the ,ase me-
al for the purpose and with the knowl-
edge that it would be made into coun-
terfeit coin ard that il was procured
for that purpo e. e IN with the team
ster in the casesupposed1 ] think not.
The trouble, not to say crime with
both is that they have voluntarily.
knowingly and purpo ely aided in the
commission rfwhat our statute has de-
clared to be a crime. and courts hrve
no right Or pow by the ngercy and
energy of the law to aid either the
creditor OF debtor. If the services or
property have been paid for, the court
will not help cover it back, and if
they have not been paid for, the court
will not lend itself to obtain payment
ills Honor here cited many author
i'ies at some length.l
From these authorities and many
Others entitled ia respect, i conclude
the law settled in this state, that where
a party performs labor or furLishs ma
terials showing they are to be used in
the prosecution of q business made
criminal by our statute, and they are
thus used, he a not o damages
in our courts.
The result is that the defendant,
Craw, cannot be allowed his claims for
such articles of bar and other furni
ture as he furnished to the establish
ment to be used in the business of sell
ling or dealing out spiriiuoua liquor to
be drank m the premises where sold;
nor can he be allowed his claim for
such liquor by him furnished and used