The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1875-02-20
WIVES OF DRuNKEM HUSBANDS
SUING FOB DAMAGES.
rurrH. DAMAGED FEELINGS NOT
ms- AM ELEMENT III THE CASE.

- Am ELEMENT III. THE CASE.
They Must show Actual Damage IN G
Order to Recover. ii
- From The Dixon Sun. - Iii
In the suit Of Mrs. Amy While VS.. Phil !
ip Brautigam to recover damages for the
sale Of liquor to plaintiffs husbsnd, and
which was appealed by defendant from the
Justices court to che circuit court, and from
there to the supreme court, we last week
gave the points made by defendants at
torney upon which it was supposed the
supreme court reversed the previous DE-
cisions. As this is case of considerable
importance. we give below the decision m
full The suit has cost Mr.. Brautigam
about $3.50, but the saloon keepers OF our
CITY have united to make this test case
under the new law, and pay their pro-rata
of the expense.
This Is an appeal from judgment Of the
circuit court of Lee county, rendered in
an action originally brought before JUS
tice of the peace of that county by Amy
While, wife of John While, under section
5 of the Liquor Law Of 1872 The DANA
ges claimed were two hundred dollars, and
for this amount the jury found verdict,
and the court rendered ajudgment, having
overruled motion for new trial The
defendant had q license to sell spurious
liquors. The jury have found by their
verdict that John While, to whom he scld,
was the husband Of the plaintiff, and that
he was in the habit of getting intoxicated.
There ismuch testimony in the record
rendering it doubtful if defendant was
guilty, as it was shown her husband drank
frequently at one Martins on the day
charged and kept whisky and beer at his
own house. But it may be conceded there
is testimony sufficient to sustain the ind
ing on this point.
Objections are made to the Instructions
given on behalf of the plaintiff, and TO the
ruling of the court ON instructions asked by
defendant.
2Ifthe jury were not properly Instructed,
and thereby injury has resulted to the de-
PENDANT, it is welLsettled doctrine that the
Judgment must be reversed. In cases ike
this, il Is all important the law should be
clearly and correctly given to the jury, and
no better authority for the law of the case
is to'be found than that declared in report
ed decisions of this court, in causes arising
under this statute. i--~ ~ a. g.
The section of the statute under which
this action was brought, gives the action
among others, to every wife who shall DC
injured in person, or property, or means
of support, by means Of selling spurious
or intoxicating liquors to the person de
scribed. This is all for which the wife car
claim damages, and courts cannot ado
other items or causes to those specified.
In Freese VS.. Trip, decided Septembe
term, 1873, which was the first cause com
ing before this court under this law, it wa
heldthat mental suffering of any kind, o
the wife, was not an element in the az
sessment of damages, and reference wa
made to milford vs. Cleude, q Ohio st. I
l9l, as authority ON this point. Obi
being the state from which we have take
this statute, the decisions of courts Of tina
state on the point are entitled to respec
The decision of this court being before th
circuit court the following instruction asl
ed by the defendant was refused:
6.7'In this case the measure Of dams
ges is the injury, if any, shown by ii
proof, to the person or property of Il
plaintiff, or to her means of support, an
the jury have no right in determining Il
Aou06OO, A any Ah tLAo OosoSS w soAS 49,
consideration any modification to 1T
plaintiff feelings, or mental suffering
her"
1.-The same ruling was held in all Il
subsequent cases coming before til
court, in which the question was raise
and is to be taken as the law of the ca
on this point. 1t was error to refuse th
instruction. 1t was also complained tn
the court modified defendants first
struction. As asked, it was as follow
u. If the jury believe from the eviden
that the defendant in good faith instruct
his employees not to sell or furnish iqu
to John While, the husband of the plai
tiff, and himself refused to furnish hi
liquor, but that the employees of defen
ant, through mistake or caprice, did fl
nish it to said John While, then the 10
would have no right to give exempla
damages or smart money. The mod
cation was made by erasing the wor
then the jury would have no right to 81
exemplary damages or smart money" a
inserting in lieu thereof these word
Such fact should be considered by t
jury upon the question of exemplary dal
ages" This court held in Freese
Trip, supra, and in .Keedy VS.. Howe
al decided at January term, 1874, th
whenever in good faith the employees Of
saloon keeper were instructed not to s.
to the person who is the subject of t
action. being one intoxicated or in t
habit of getting intoxicated, and the 8,
want wilfully disebeys the instruction
the principal is not liable to exempla
damages. Tine instructions, therefor
as modified did not 90 far enough, I
left it discretionary with the jury to fir
or not, exemplary damages. This v
error.
1t is apparent from the verdict, in goi
to the farthest extent of the law that
jury did not con6ne themselves to |
actual damages, but, influenced by the
struction that they could allow for men
anguish and suffering, have gone
whole length.
This court held in the cases cited, a
in Belorman vs. Arnold and Meirdell
Anthis, decided at January term, Is
and in Feltz vs.. Meadows, decided at u
term, A. ID. 1874, that under this statu
exemplary damages could not be allow
unless actual damage was found, unles!
should appear the party charged had 9
after warning and notice not TO sell. ~
would present fair case for exempl
damages. The statute nowhere count
ances the idea that exemplary dana
may be awarded at the mere caprice of
jury.
This record may be searched
vain for proof that appellee was injured
her person, in her property, or in 4
means of support by the act of appella
We would infer from the testimony, {