, 1875-07-12
THE COURTS,
Selling Liquor to tho Husband When For
hidden by tho Nife.
Complaints Of a Bad Trade...The
Divorce Business.
Judgments and Now Suits.

RESPONSIBILITY OF LIQUoR.pEALERs.
IH1EREsr,k0 DKIfB1oN nf THE SUPREME COURT.
Thp following Ia a recent declaton Of tho 6u-
promo Court on csso carried up from Macon
County rola.lvo to tho responsibility Of persons
HeilnR tIquos 10 druakarls Aitor due notice given
BY tho wifo:
Appellee brought action again.t appellant bcore
damages for selling Intoxicating liquors 10 her hus-
harl II apps1fs that as and bur husband reside IN
y rs Il nd Fsss |
n, ,t ?, b,.5 in na:sss :Rsss 9sa % Sase
rosms to 10 intiuatrlous and hstd-working woman.
a.s.na aas s,S III @hte . IL IL went
to own, placed SO of tho amount IN The handa Of an
m opportunity. with the baIaneo Of Tho money hs
wont 70 appellants aaoon, got drunk. was arressed
.ua pao: a .no sai.eoose md rsn as
10 tho e1tent of this oss Of appe!ees noney. ot this
thers Hnuld seem to bs no 9ucht'nn.
o,se h. Grat Viii With b. See.ua n.5.
caseI. Oh tho other hand, tho husband Of appel!ce
i!cs On tbe afternoon Of That day anil from the eyl-
dance Of o,Aets thero can bo no queson Ut ha being
tnsrs A i ' bs hs
that he Was continuing to drink Il long ~ Ills dFuuk-
onnens incresacd:
thn occasion, and "a 1t IL mol ahown that e obtained
liquor 4 other places after he cams ther the .lalo.t
liant ln this tho srIetce Of ths husband OF splalice
but II il urged that be WAS contradscei BY 1argo
number Of Witnesses. careful examination Of the
testimony. wo think, fall. to show that be was. iie
scsses TINT ho purchased Il Of 10th appellant and his
o.hers but den!os that he drank Aud appellant sweara
that he did not give Humphrey liquor TAs has the
lin na.of and ye have no1d il to him. Ms sou fcati.
tea that ho nrat saw Humphrey In tho saloon About
sn t Il h. tbs Nm s'SnnE s E:s4 aa
liquor. il viii b observed that he would not atso
ae blu anything to drink. In further at.tcs that he
lint Humphrey about u ou1ock, al" thn eyI-
Ieace shows In then quito drunk. For hnJth ng
i.e testdrd to, Humphrey may have many times drank
At The ar beore that time sud tho presumption u 10
had. i seem: hs ras .oon .tssr arrested 9hcs a %s
evidence be Of hut 1ilto weight, unets thcy had
,.oen constantly watching to see 4 ho did dfink This
dencs prcponde.ated III favor Of the vesdlst aud IL
| should 10 Sustained.
Impeachment Of appellee, for te ju1y, and they
II Ia aiso urged that Tho damage" are EXCESSIVE We
laye secn that appellee sustained actual damsRcs and
that being o. ths could rscoyor exemplary damages
under tho statute, warranted by tho evidence. sne
'nsa ha @ ,1s md % sppean, ia Ii. ss.non. iii rot
ey The staemsut ard 70 muss teSasa, i ~ tue,
or pallasion when tho sale IL tnaln which tends to
pfoiice Drunkenness, which produces tho damages.
w1cn aaio IL thus mado. It tnd!estos reckless dlsre
gard Of law and ths Fghta Of nnrs that merit. pun
ishmsnt The fats of tho drunk lrAa wlfo and family
Is hard enough without its beirR knowingly, ii mol
Intentionally aggravated b. continuing TO tantaze and
degrade him. and tncrcass the shame miferJ, aud stif
ferlng of his family. Nu lght.'hlnk!ng rerhnn cau
sympathise with The drssolles oeeauae ho rea'on
ingy sells to the drunkard in opposition to tho *.
pressed nt4hes Of tho wio. We perceive no error Id
thls record for which tla Judgment shoula be tesozs
| el. and IL u affirmed.