Eaton weekly Democrat. [volume] (Eaton, Ohio) 1866-1875, 1873-03-06
TIE eEdGis. Lac.

=
suits have been brought in the
past year-several in this county
has just Received an i%nterpre-
tation Of construction by Judge
John l.. Green, of Columbus,
very different from that given by
several other Common Pleas
Judges of the State, and which
will doubtless result in bringing
it speedily before the Supreme
Court The State Journal gives
a brief abstract of Judge Green's
opinion, which we copy for the
information of our readers: .
/. The Judge decided that
in so far as the first clause Of the
amended section in the act of
April. 1870, confers a right of
action upon the persons named,
against a person selling intoxi-
eating liquors, which cause in
toxicatioD, such sale having beer
made in the usual and lawful
course of trade, or given for any
purpose, not forbidden bylaw; the
said clause IS anassumption of an
lthority not conferred by the cons.
stitntion; that tits attempted to be
asserted in O manner in deroga-
Etion of the rights Of person and.
Of property, and that it conflicts
with sections 1, 10 and 20of the
bill of rights, aud is therefore
void. '@l q
2. He expressed doubt whethz
err. as this law attempts to i'm
pose an additional penalty for an
act made unlawful bv a former
law, such penalties can be en-
forced under a new law that fails
to refer to such unlawful act as
the cause of the penalty. But,
in view of the doubt, he must SO
interpret the clause as giving the
right of action where the liqnor
causing the intoxication is aver-
red to have been spldin violation
of law. But in all actions under
this law he held, further
8. That it must be averred in
the petition, thatathe liquor was
sold, by the defendant, In viola
ton of law, referring to the law
alleged to have been violated and
in what such violation consists.
A. That it must appear, by
Sufficient averments, that the in.
efqwhich the plaintiff com
plains was "direct, by the act of
a<person at the time intoxicated,
which intoxicatlon was caused
in whole or in part, by The I'M
lawful sale to such person of the
liquor BY the defeudant-or that
such injury was az consequence OF
such intoxication-ofs person4
SO caused by the defendant as
~aforesaid. That the remedy is
not given for Injuries in conse~
quenee of habituak intoxication.
The, defendeat is liable only for
his own act, or It's consequences,
not for the acts of Others, OF tEeir
Consequences. sol 50
r. s. That, no two or more of the
persons named can join as plain
tiffs in the action. 81
6. It will not beproper to aver
that the. liquor sold by the de-
PENDANT caused the intoxication
sin whole or an part.'' These words
import separate acts, at different
times and places and by differ
ent PERSONS, and it must be stat
Fed on which the plaintiff relies.
That il. actions, against the
landlordyofthe building OF, premi-
Hses, in which the liquor is afleg-
led to ha We been sold in violation
of lazy, it must be averred that
the diqenr5that caused theintoxi-
cation, in whole or in part. and
which resulted direetty or in con
sequence of such intoxication, IN
injury to the plaintiff, was sold
with the knowledge and by the
permission of such landlord. 1z
| = VI r. H- 81 .@e nv -a