Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1875-06-08

thing desirable to sell, and probably did
not have an enemy.
On the 28th of June 1878 John Stan
ton was shot dead in the town of Wal
den by one James Snow, who had been
drunk on alcohol nearly week, and was
lying on his lounge when Stanton called
at his house and offered to sell Mrs.
Snow a shawl Snow ordered Stanton
TO leave the house, but Stanton said he
was in the highway, and shouldn't leave.
Snow told him again to leave, and, get
ting up, went to the door at the same
time Stanton drove into the middle of
the road, and said he was in the high
way then, and shouldn't go till he got
ready; he guessed Snow wouldn't hurt
| any one. Snow told him he would let
him know whether he would or not !;
went in, got his gun, returned to the
| door and shot him. The charge lodged
] in Stanton's face, and he fell from his
/ cart dead. Snow was tried at the, Cale-
4 1,.;s,s., ;sess. a
to the state prison. for life. Snow is
! said to have been good natured man
when sober but when maddene1 with
drink, he was tough customer. eE.
| The suit was brought by the mother
of Stanton against the liquor agent of
| the town of Greensboro, and it was
claimed by her that the liquor which
caused SHOWS lntoxication was furnished
by the-defendant, knowing that it would
be improperly used. The defendant ad-
mitted the furnishing, but alleged that
Snow had represented to him that he
wanted the liquor -alchohol-to make
essences with, and that he had no. sus.
picion that it would be used to produce
intoxication. This was the main issue
in the. case. - ...,5 --.-.
The defendant, Mr. Simpson, is one
of the leading citizens of Greensboro,
has been one 'of the selectmen, and is a
substantial farmer He lives on the
west side of Greensboro pond, on what
was known rs the Sheriff Williams
place. He has very good reputation
in the community where he resides, and
his nGighbors and acquaintance, includ-
ing such men as Senator Tolman, Samuel
Ingalls, and Judge Bell, stand by him
steadfastly. Ex-senator James NJ
Simpson, of Craftsbury, is one of his
brothers.
The plaintiffs evidence went to show
that Mr.. Simpson sold liquor in large
quantities, and recklessly, to Snow. The
most important witnesses testified that
early in January, 1872, they notified
Simpson that Snow was making a bad
use of liquor. The defendants evidence,
which consisted chiefly of his own tes-
timony and that of his wife, who acted |
as his agent, showed that they supposed |
Snow to be using the alcohol for the
manufacture of essehic and had not
the slightest suspicion et, he drank it.
cross examinations ,eas very rigid, /
and cIero'epeI sot.4O ftiyae4,lie0 tii4I 4L4is"s
nave excited their suspicious. 1t appear
ed that once when Snow was fishing
upon Greensboro pond, he came to the
house, procured a quantity
Of boiled eggs from Mrs. Simpson, and
also some alcohol, representing it was
for essences, as usual. This incident, it
was claimed by plaintiff, was little too
''fshy" to carry out the presumption of
good faith on the part of defendants. |
1t did not appear that Snow, who had |
bought alcohol to the amount of $405O |
of Simpson, from the fall of 1871 to the |
last sale in June, 1878, had done n very |
large business of pedGling essences. |
There was considerable impeaching tes- |
timony on both sides. The defendant
and his wife denied that they had been
notified that Snow was making bad use |
of his alcohol.
Judge Redfeld, in his charge, which
is considered very able and impartial,
ruled as follows in regard to the respOn-
sibility of the defendant, which is the
most important point in the case
eff defendant was the agent, and held |
the office, he had the right to sell liquor |
for special purposes only. If he sold |
generally, making no inquiry to asceT-
tain the purpose of the buyer, it was un-
lawful. because his right was limited.
If he sold it for lawful purpose, and |
acted honestly in that, believing it to be
for lawful purpose, and made
such inquiries as satisfied him that it was
a lawful sale, then, although there may
be evidence that he acted indiscreetly,
aud without proper vigilance, we can't
try that in this case. That might be
very proper question for the county
If the commissioner ap-
points an agent, who is iudiscreet,
though honest, and does not make such
vigilant inquiries as an agent should, it
is very good reason why he should be
removed But when an agents allowed
to hold the office, and uses his best dis
cretion, sells honestly for purpose that
is lawful, although the liquor is misused,
although he is deceived, and a man of
uore VIGILANCE would haYe .detected, the
a man is permitted to hold the office,
and, honestly using his best discretion,
sells for lawful purpose, then, although
he misiudges, although he is wanting in
proper skill and vigilance, still it is
lawful sale. If the defendant sells gen.
orally, making no inquiry, and the
liquor was used for drinking, and this
evil resulted, he is liable, because an
agent is not authorized to sell generally.
But if defendant made such inquiries as
induced him honestly to believe that this
alcohol was to be used for chemical or
medicinal purposes, and made such in
quiries and got such evidence as satisfied
his judgment that the sale was within
the statute and a lawful sale; in other
words, if he made inquiries and acted in
good faith, then he is not liable. If he
sold recklessly, that is, sold with such
as to show an Indifference
as to whether it was to be used for
lawful or an unlawful purpose, that
would show bad faith and would not be
an honest exercise of his office, and he
would be liable for damages"
The jury, after long deliberation, re-
turned verdict in favor of plaintiff for
81, 1,05O.S6. 1t was generally believed
that they would not apran and tho ra