Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1873-01-10

another trial.
From the Concord. N. II. Independent Statesman.
Civil Liability of LiquOr-Sellers.
One of the most effective and effectu-
al remedies ever devised for the proven
ton of imtempt rance is what is called
the civil damage law, statute original
ing we believe in Ohio, but already
adopted in many other States, which
makes the seller of Intoxicating drinks
responsible in civil suit against him,
not only for all damages caused directly
to any party by the intoxicstion of the
buyer, but, also to the parent for all
damages indirectly resulting from the
intoxication of the minor child, and to
the wife for the consequences of the in
toxication of her husband. We are re-
joiced to notice that the Supreme Court
of Ohio is giving to this statute such a
liberal construction in favor of the in
Jured parties, as will make it the terror
of all evil doors. One clause of the act
gives to the wife, who is deprived of the
means of support through the intoxica-
ton of her husband, an action against
the rumseller for that cause. In the
case of SCHNEIDER Us Hosier, recently de-
cided, the court held that the phrase,
means of support" included the hus-
bands capacity to labor, as we'll as the
proceeds of such labor. In still more
recent case. Milford Us. Clewell, from
Crawford county, Chief Justice WEIGH,
in delivering the opinion of the court,
thus disposes of another cavil on the
same words
In order to sustain her action under
these statutes for injury to her means of
support, it is by no means necessary that
the wife should show that she has actu-
ally been without support, or been, at
any time, in whole or in part, deprived
of means of support. Means of support
relate to the future as well as the pres.
ent. 1t is enough that she show that the
sources of her future support have been
cut off or diminished below what is rea-
sonab'e and competent for person in
her station in life. and below what they
otherwise would have been.
In the same case, the learned Chief
Justice thus disposed of two erroneous
instructions, given to the jury by the
court below at the request of the rum
sellers counsel, in relation to notice, and
consequential damages;
If the drunken husband wrongfully
converted the wife's chattles, the injury
thereto, which the statute speaks of, was
complete, and she might sue the vendor
Of the liquor at once, without any pre-
vious demand or notice. The action is
not brought for the vendees, but for the
husbands conversion of the property,
committed while under intoxication eff
fected by the defendant. 1t was enough
if the husband knew the property to be
hers, and knew that she claimed it as
such. The object of the statute is to
make the liquor-seller liable for the has.
bands wrongful act for which the de.
PENDANT was sued, was not the conversion
of the property, but the sale of the liq.
uor.
1t seems to us. also, that the court err.
ed in saying to the jury, as it did, that
in order to maintain case under these
statutes, it must appear that the injury
resulted directly and Immediately from
the drunkenness, and during its contin
uance, and not from insanity or sickness
induced by intoxication. The health Of
the husband, and his ability to labor
are often, to a greater or less extent, the
means of the wife's support, &C., &c.
Now, under such an Interpretation as
the court in Ohio seem fully determined
to give to this statute, we are confident
its enactment and enforcement in New
Hampshire would do more to suppress
the business of rumseiling than all our
prohibitory laws have ever accomplished
BY all means, therefore, let such a law
be enacted by our Legislature. We have
no doubt the reasonable construction
given to its provisions in Ohio would be
sustained here, and thereby the liquor.
seller would be made to feel the respon.
sibility of business more sensibly than
he has ever yet felt it.