, 1873-06-11
THE taYERs.MACK LIQUOR CASES
judge Treo Decides tho First Point In tho
First Liquor Case Under the
Now Liquor Law.
The Statute Respecting the Liability
" of galoon-Keepers for the Death
Of Husband Defined.

His Honor Judge Troo rendered his docision,
yesterday, which wo Summarize. in tho caso Of
Lizzie Myers " Frederick Mack and George r.
Bay. Ills Honor said this waB IN action
brought by plaiitiR to recover $4,000 for tho
loss Of hor husband through intoxication caused
by tho drinking Of liquors purchased from F1ed-
crick Mack, a saloon-keopor; George 2: Day
being also sued % tho loaaor Of tho SALOON Mack
occupied. Aftor royiewlng tho facto Of tho oaHo, !,
tto first OF isB nntnro ulldor tho now Liquor law,
tho Court stated TINT tho defendants havo intor-
posed demurrer to tho 1overal counts OF the
declaration, and tho Questions raisoa involve IN
Interpretation Of tho ilftil section of tho not u-
dor Which tho suit Is brought. eoc. provides
thnt-
Every hu.band, wifo, child. parent. guardian, ON
pioyer, or oshcr parson wo ahtil 70 injured ~ per-
son ar property, means Of support by 1ny inox1-
catod person, In consequence Of tho iilo1tca4onf
habIta otherw!ec, Of any pcraot shall liavo right
Of action in his hor name 6orerally OF Jointly,
agsnss any person persona wllo nhn, by selling or
giving intoxicating liquors, have cauacd the intosica-
and any rorson porous owning, renting leaning.
permitting tho occupation Of any building Or lre1nlacs
a Gving knoWege hnt m on are 10 70
ether purraca, ahn knowingly permit thore!n The sale
Of any Intoxicating quors that hsve cauued n whole
bio, eovcraly joIntly With the rcrson persona
selling or gyng Intoxicating li1Hora aforesaid for all
damages sustained, enu for exemplary damages.
ter Of tho whole act, mud tho obscurenoss Which
In obgoryallo in tho language used In tho sec-
tion undor cousldoration. Which was explained by
the n,1nposinR of CERTAIN cageB the Court said:
rtnt niso,utc proh,h,o, ,vn. mt lin irtcntton of
tho Legislature, think ia evident from othor aectioua
Of tho act and especially ths first onc which author
lies tho eac Of liquor, provided ccrno ia obainea.
M ~ ~ ~
- soetn, n ;s sao IL cears ~ o
unlawful. or tat It was sold with the ntontion.
knpwledge, or expectation, that It would causo tho
into1ca1on in wlioc III part Of tAe percon rer-
sons whosa into1catton resulted III an injury to tho
plaintiff
With regard to tho liability OF tho ownor Of tho
promises the Court said TINT, II liable ut all, ho
Is 80. not. only for all actual damages aua-
for exemplary damages, namely. tlloao allowed
for torts committed with fraud, actual malice, or
deliberate violence Or orproBsion and are given,
not only as q compensation to tho sufferer, butt
also by way Of punishment for wltul wrong OF
the,offendor; that tho traffic in liquor is lawful
undor the statute itself. provided tho party has
tho required licenge therefore tho owner Of the
building WHO ai'nply leascB hiR promises MI II
place wherein liquor may bo sold, rents It for
Boem to DO a. reasonable construction
OF tho statute that lo Should be liable
| for exemplary damages, by reason OF tho
J intoxication of person. caused On tho promiscs,
unlcss the circumstances show TINT such iuto1i-
cation was caused with hia knowlodso Or ~ his
procurement or assistance. Iho Court did not
| think that 1t appeared TINT the premises in
| question y were rented Tor tho purpoao OF eolllng
! liquor. The Court cited MI imaginary case Of q
| landlord leasing premises generally without re-
strictions aa to use, whero tho tenant opens .
| ealoon wherein pergon becomes Intoxicated