The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1874-01-05
TEE NEW LIQUOR LAW
Decision of the Munich
s..u. s. pal Court. -I I'D

important Decision of the hunfcf-
s..g. s.. pal Court. 80 I'D 1
II, the Case of the &atetor the use OF
Go6eney Us. Te,rig et..ai"1s
Judge Cranmer, Of the Municipal
Court, Saturday, rendered an inn
portant decision construingthe liquor
law of last winter. The declaration
alleged that, sometime since, Michaei
Gaffsney became intoxicated upon
LIQUOR said 10 have been bought at
the saloon Of Christian Viewig, and
during his intoxication he fell nom .
window to the ground, receiving
severe injuries. He then sued Vie
wig and his securities for damages IN
the sum of $1,000. The defendants
demurred to the declaration, and the
case was tried OH the demurrer, MIR.
Russell appearing for the defendants
and Messrs. Davenport and Dovener
for the plaintiff. In deciding the
case Judge Cranmer said: g..-n
"The first section OF the act Is the
one this suit is based upon, and IL. is
ON that section alone that the suit
can at all be maintained, II main
tainabIc. In the construction or q
statute the whole statute must be
considered, and not isolated por-
tions of it; again, the general words
of a statute are limited by the spe-
cific words enumerating the particu-
| lar persons who are injured. ~
By the first section ii is made ull-
lawful to sell or give away intoXica-
ting liquors unless bond, such as Is
therein prescribed, be first given.
The sale of liquors, however, undey
the conditions mentioned, is recogs
nized as Ia wful, except In the cases
enumerated in the third section,
viz: to minors, TO persons intoXiea :
ted, or to persons in the habit Of be-
coming intoxicated.
The first section is general and dc.
scriptive in its terms, defining what
| is a lawful and what an unlawful
selling, and defining the mode OF re-
covery by those parties who may he
Injured by the selling of intoxicating
IliGuors, but 1t does not attempt 70
define who those parties may he. I'm
the third section the act does desig'
nate the parties to whomitis uniaw'
full to sell. Then the sixth SECTION
proceeds to designate the particular
persons who may sustain an acttoll
against the offending party or par
ties, viz: "Any husband, wife,
parent, Child, guardian or employer
| bid the construction claimed Ivy the
plaintiff prevail, II seems to me that
great violence would be doue 10 the
intention of the Legislature, when
recognized the sale Of intoxicating
Iliouors IN the title Of the act, but in
tended, according to the title TO pro.
vide only against the erits resulting
therefrom. Both the title and the
act would be inconsistent, II every
one who became intoxicated could
personally maintain suit for dam,
| ages, for in that event any one
saw proper to shirk the divine com
mand "fn the sweat Of thy brow
shalt thou earn thy bread" |" would
only have to become intoxicated II
some saloon and then sue, for dama.
ges forlloss oftime and wages, and
recover. II take 1t that on, the other
hand, the legislature, recognizing
this, weakness in human nature,
which eventually grows into o. dis.
ease, battling all successful human
treatment, intended to- give TO those
who are so unfortunate as TO be de
lpendent on such, remedy .agains
lthose who, knowing the habits o
i the person, still knowingly sell 'ol
Ilgive to. him Intoxicating liquors Z
the detriment Of those dependent OF
lhimifo support, as well asIto MAKE
those responsible who invite to- In
| toxication such whom they know L
be possessed 'ofr means and morley
which when once obtained they ejec
j from their places, of business, thu
deprivipg the family of the necessa
ries OF life, as well as to guard tn
:. morals Of the young from the con
Illumination of, this vile and deadl.
practice. These being evils resulting
| from the sale Of intoxicating liqupr
| it limits the remedy which II pro
lyides to such and only such, and 3
mark with precision who they are, !
ldeslgnates them In terms in tn
!, Isixth section of the act.
The law never lendsitselfas an IL,
, strument to work Injustice by givini
la right to recover damages to- on
. who Is the agent Of his own wrohg,
J. not being the natural result of ia
|. defendants act :; or in other words
such consequence rs In the ordi
nary course Of things would fioy
from the act. 1t is a well establish
| ed principleiof law that ''damag
will be too remote when, II Is cause.
, wholly or principally by the act Q
the plaintiff himself I copclad'
that the demurrer to the declArn to'
must.be sustained on the grou1d tha
the party contributing to bis own Pin
Jury, voluntary, Is the one on whom
rests the blame, and not the 'defen
dant, because In the ordinary c0urs'
Of things such consequences sas re
suited to the plaintiff do not ordi
Jnarily flow from the act Of The de
fendant, who is pursuing BUSHES
= made lawful by statute.
The other questions arising on de
murrer, being subordinate to- thi
main question, it Is UNNECESSARY +
decide them.