Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1875-07-09
The Liabilities OF Liquor Sellers.


SUIT FOR CIVIL DAMAGES AGAINST TOWN
LIQUOR AGEST-HEAvY VERDICT FOR THE
PLAINTIFF.
A very remarkable case was tried in the
Orange County Court, before Judge Red
field, last week. 1t was a suit for "civil
damages" brought by wife against town
agent, for selling man alcohol. by
which he was made intoxicated, and under
the influence of which he killed her
husband. The jury gave her YER
dict for Sl.O5O. Though the civil
damage clause was added to our State law
in 1869, it is said that but two suits have
been actually brought to trial under it. of
which this is ore, the other being SUIT
against a saloon keeper in Windham
County, in which the Supreme Court ap-
proved the cons:itutionality of the clause,
and the plaintiff recovered damages We
condense from the WdtchmGn a report of
the trial
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
The suit is entitled, Margaret Stanton vs..
David Simpson. The plaintiff claimed to re-
cover SO, 900 damages. 1t was brought by
Leslie & Rogers. of Wells River, with whom
was Joined Mr.. E. W. Smith, a promising
Young lawyer of the same place. Judge
Powers was originally the leading counsel
Tor the defendant; but his elevation 10 the
Bench forced him to relinquish his brief.
and the counsel for the defence at the trial
were o. 5. Burke, Of ST. JOhnsbury j 7.
Lamson. of Cabot; c. W. Clarke, of Chel-
sea. and Nelson Rand. of Craftsbury. The
plaintiff has been resident of Newbury for
the last five years. She and her husband,
John Stanton, came to this country from
England about eight years ago. AMI he sup
ported them by peddling dry and fancy
goods around the country. ln June '73 he
called at the house of james Snow, IN Wal
den and was ordered away by Snow who had
been drunk for week. Stanton drove in
to the middle OF the road, said he was in
the highway. and shouldn't go till be got
ready he guessed SnOS 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 10 Stanton's face,
and he fell from his cart dead. Snow was
tried at the Caledonia county court, and
was sentenced to the States prison for life.
Snow is SAID 10 have been a gOod-natured
man when sober but when maddened with
drink, he was tough customer. 1t was
claimed BY the plaintiff that the liquor /
which caused Shows intoxicatiun was fur
nished by the defendant, Anowing that 1t
would be improperly used. Tne defendant
admitted the furnishing; bat alleged that !
Snow had represented 10 him that he want /
ed the liquor alcohol, 10 make essence |
with, and that he had no suspicion that 1t /
would be used to produce in;oxicatIOn. This |
was the main issue IN the case.
The most important witnesses on the part |
-. 4 .
Walden. one of Shows cOmpanions and |
Sylyie Ann Porter, a girl lJrmerly in the
employ of kittredge. They testified that
year before the murder they stopped at
Simpson and Kittredge notified him that
Snow was making bad use OF liquors.
The main witnesses fer defendant were
bmself and wife, who acted as his clerk.
They testified that when Snow first came, be
Teprcs5 nted himself to be an essence peddler
and manufacturer that they always sup
posed him 10 be using the alcohol for the
manufacture of essences, and had not the
slightest suspicion that he drank 1t. Their
cross examination developed some incidents
that might have excited their suspicious.
1t appeared, for instance, that once when
Snow was fishing upon Greensboro pond. he
came TO the defendants house. procured a
quantity of boiled eggs from Mrs. Simpson.
and also some alcohol representing 1t was
for essences, as usual The incident. it was
claimed by plaintiff, was little too ''fshy"
to carry out the presumption of good faith
on the part Of deiensn,s. Defendant and
wife denied the n otifcation by kittretge.
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
Judge Redield, in his charge. ruled that
defendant, as town agent, could sell liquor
for special purposes only. Ii he sold gen.
orally, making no inquiry to ascertain the
purpose of the buyer. 1t was unlawful, be-
cause his right was limited. Ii he sold 1t
for lawful purpose, and acted honestly in
that, believing il 10 be intended for law
ful purpose. and made such inquiries as sat
isfed him that it was lawful sale, then al
though there NAV be evidence that he act
ed indlscreetly, We can't try that in this
case That might be a very proper ques-
tion for the county commissioner. Ii the
defendant made no inquiry. and the liquor
was used for drinking, and this evil result
ed. he l. liable. because an agent Is not
authorized TO sell generally. Ii he sold
recklessly, that i. sold with such careless
ness As to show an indifference a. to whether
it was 10 be used for a lawful OF an unlaw-
ful purpose. that would show bad faith and
would not be an honest exercise Of his office,
and he would be liable Tor damages.
VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF.
The jury, after long deliberation. came
IN on Friday morning and returned YER
iict in favor of plaintiff for s 050 So. The
defendant has made motion to set the YER
ilct aside, and hearing will take place
'0me time this week. 1t not successful in
hat, defendant will take the case to the
supreme court. on a question as TO the val
dlty OF the proof of marriage OF the Stan
.ons. which took place in England.