Eaton weekly Democrat. [volume] (Eaton, Ohio) 1866-1875, 1872-02-01
LOCAL DEPARTMENT.
Important Decision.

Our Supreme Court a few days ago,
rendered a decision in the case of
SCHNEIDER VS.. HosIER, which was
tried in u Common Pleas a few years
ago, and taken UP to that body on
error. Some of the points decided by
the Court are, as we regard them, of
vital importance to the vendors of
"benzine" in this State, and we invite
their special attention to this decision,
before selling too much. The case
was in substance this: Mrs. Hosier,
the defendant in error, and the plain
tiff in the Court below, alleged in her
petition, that her late husband, Zirim
Hosier, was a poor but industrious la
boring man, and when sober regularly
earned $3.50 per day that the daily
labor of the husband was the only
means he possessed of supporting
himself and wife that her said hus-
band vas a nan in the habit of getting
intoxicated that the def't, Schneider
Intoxicating liquor, upon which he
became intoxicated and unable to
work for a number of days, and final
ly died, and claiming that by reason of
said sales she was injured in her means
of support 100000. The case was
tried by a jury in our Common Pleas,
and a verdict rendered against Schnei-
der for $4,000; he moved for a new
K,;o1 wyh1oh ITO oroprr,lo1 onl ozooD
tions taken, upon which the case went
to the Supreme Court on error. The
suit was brought under the 7th section
of the Ohio Liquor Law, of 1854
This section p Divides among other
things that, "if any wife, parent, child,
guardian, employer OF other person,
shall be injured in their person, prop
erty or means of support, byIeason CT
the i~ntoxication, habitual or otherwise,
of any person, every person so injured
shall have a right of action in his or
her own name, against any person
who by unlawfully selling liquors
shall have caused the intoxication of
such person."
The principal points relied upon by
the plaintiff in error, were that the
phrase "means of support" in the
statute was and is too ambiguous for
legal construction, and that a wire's
-neans of support" did not mean "the
husbands capacity to labor" and that
although the husband was made drunk
and prevented from laboring, yet this
was nc legal injury to the wife, and
to her action. Butthe Supreme Court,
it seems were of the opinion that the
phrase "means OF support" in the stat
ute does mean something, and is aus
ceptibie of construction, and secondly,
that the wife has the right to rely on
the labor of the husband as her means
of support, and that whoever rong-
fully interferes with the capacity of the
husband TO perform labor, is injuring
the wife in her means of support, and
is liable to her in an action for DANA
gcs therefor, and the judgment of Mrs.
Hosier in our Common Pleas is affirm
ed accordingly. AS this is the law
as given by the Court of last resort in
our State, it cannot fail to be perceived
that it is a matter of very great interest.
If the liquor seller is liable in an action
for damages to the wife every time he
makes a poor husband drunk and in
tcrferes with his capacity to labor, he
is in a hard row for stumps, and had
better keep a sharp look out The
Court, as VIC understand it, decides
just that thing and nothing shorter,
and gives a wide latitude to those who
would lead a life of dissipation and
idleness- So to all vendors of |'forty
rod whisky" we say, have a care what
you are about, or you may get picked
up as orr friend Schneider did. This
case was fully and ably argued in the
Supreme Court by the Hon. W. j.
GILMORE, for plaintiff in Error, and j.
H. Zoos, Esq, for defendant in Error.