Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1872-03-14
Decision Of the Supreme Court
upon the Liquor Question.

b John Bowers VS., Mary a. POmery ct
al. Error TO, the Court of Common
pleas. of Summit County, reserved in
the District. Court. = E-..t .rt.
h Mcllvaine, j. Held: Fss.e
/ Justices f.the Peace, under the 7th
section of the act of May 1st, 1854, en-
titled san, act, 10 provide against the
evils resulting from to sale of intoxi-
lcating liquors in the State of OHIO"
as amended April Is, 1870, ,f67 o. L.10l)
have no. jurisdiction ofan action of an
owner or lessee of premises, who know
Eiagly permits Intoxicating liquors to
sbe sold thereon by any other person not
! tie agent ofsuch owner or lessee, in
violation of law.
s 3. Such Jurisdiction is inhibited by
! the sixth clause of section 10of the act
Eef March II, 1853, S. & O., page 772. 1t
being an action in which the title 70
real estate is drawn in qustion. Judg-
ment reversed.
/ No. 36l. Mary /. .Mulford VS.. Abra-
ham =. Crewell. Error to the Common
Pleas of Crawford county.
/, Welch, C. J i.sl.t....-a-
7 L. 1t IS no ground of error that the
lcourt ordered stricken from plaintiffs s
petition count containing no cause, OF
j;lction, or toreject testimony tending to
/ prove the same. -,,.i,f.if, -J..,.} ...,-
] 2. Where the court during the trial,
lpand before the evidence IS closed, erron-
\ ,,lIe0usly strikes from the petition one OF
1.-The causes therein contained, the error
lis not cured by the court instructing the
'liury, after the close of the testimony,
q TO consider the matter contained in the
Ieoant so stricken out, and the evidence
liappllcabler thereto. r...al ls.-...is, v.
Y 81, Under the acts to provide against
ftbe evils resulting from the sale of in
liquors, Is, & G. I4S1; and 81
10. L.. 101 } an action against the vendor
Ifor injuries to the 'iperson" of the plain
I tiff, occasioned by the drunkenness .oi
the yendee, cannot be sustained with;
fout showing an assault, or some actual
4 violence, orssome physical injury, to the
person, or the health; and it is not suf-
4 1ficient to sIfow mere mental anguish, OF
disgrace, or loss ofsociety or compan-
'fienship. .-,f....!s.5 d.
4. In order to sustain her action under
said statutes for injury to her "means OF
!sssupport," it is not necessary for the wife
Ito show that she has been at any time,
lin whole or in part, without present
means of support. 1t is enough that the
tmeans of her future support have been
! lieut. off, or diminished below what is
: reasonable and competent for a person
I In her station in life, and below what
they otherwise would have been. And
the rule of damage in such case should
lIbe, not The amount of loss occasioned
! TO the husbands estate, but the diminu'
ton, if any, thereby resulting to hel
means of present and future support. b,
5. In an action under said statutes for
injury to her property" the wife may
? recover against the vendor of the liq.
uor damages sustained by her by rea-
son of the sale of her chattels by the
II husband, without first demanding the
Ichattels:of the yendee, or notifying him
! that she claims them TO be her proper.
sIty. d
3. The liability of the defendant, in
, actions under these statutes, for injur-
Try in the ''means of support" is moi
. .lconfined to cases of injury resulting
4 from drunkenness, but extends as vel
, to cases where the injury results from
!, insanity, sickness or inability, induced
|, by intoxication. san
: Judgment reversed and cause remand.
ed for further proceedings. -.-sa