The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1878-06-21
An Important 0piuion.
THE SUPREME COURT ON THE DAMAGE
CLAUSE OF THE ACT OF 1876.

court recently is the following
Grouse Ell al. vs.. The Commonwealth. Err
ror to the common pleas of Bedford county !
Opinion of the court by Turnkey, J..
Ellen j. Null obtained judgment against ,
Lewis A. Grouse, a licensed inn keeper, for
causing the death of her husband by furn-
ishing him intoxicating drinks in violation
of the Act of May s, 1854. The third sec
tion of that act, in connection with the acts
of April 10, 1851, and April 2G, 1855, ena-
bles any person aggrieved to recover full ,,
damages from one who, in violation Of an ,
existing law, furnishes liquor to an intoxi-
Gated person, or person of known intem-
perate habits, thereby causing his death.
Fink VS. Garman, Wr. 80. This action
was brought for the recovery of said judg-
ment upon Crouse's bond, which was given
in pursuance of the act of April -, 1875.
p. l.. 40, upon the granting of his license.
The defense set up in the affidavit is that
the judgment recovered against Grouse was
not for any damages for which he became
| liable for violation Of said act of 1875, nor
in any action instituted under its provis.
ions.
By said act, no license to sell Intoxicating |
drinks shall be granted to any person until
he shall have given bond with surities, in
the sum of 50 900, conditioned to pay all
damages which may be recovered in any ac-
ton which may be instituted against him
under the provisions of this act, and all costs
fines, and penalties, which may be imposed
upon him in any Indictment for violating
this act, or any other law of this common
wealth relating to selling or furnishing in
) toxicating drinks" The grammatical and
natural sense of the prescribed words is,
that the bond is security for such damages
only as arise from violations of that act.
So obvious is that that no attempt has been
made to give them a broader sense, without
> stripping the condition" by shifting the
words "and all costs, fines and penalties
which may be imposed upon him in any
indictment for violating this act" The cor
a rect rule is to construe statutes in their
i grammatical and natural sense, unless the
# content show clearly thata different sense
y. was intended. Pot, Dwr., Stat, 1876. All
l
r supplied by the act of 1875 regulating and
restraining sales of intoxicating liquors con-
= tinue in force, and the whole are to be con-
J.. strued as one. Ibid, 1S9. For some pur-
e poses, if need be, it is competent to call in
" aid repealed statute to assist in the con-
o struction of the one supplying it. Ibid l91
# Section 10 of the act of March 81, 1856
|. prescribed the bond given prior to 1875. 1t
J. was in the penal sum of $1,000 for al
Y above the seventh class, and in $500 for all
;. in and below the seventh, conditioned 'fol
" the faithful observance of all the laws of this
Is commonwealth, relating to the business OF
N the principal obligor" Clearly that bono
te was not forfeited for violation of any Law
te not relating to the business of licensed ven
'. ders of liquor The act or 1875 declares
20 much severer fines and penalties than prio
er acts for various offences. For selling intoxi
r. eating drinks on any election day, or or
70 Sunday, or at any time to Minors or to 6
l. person visibly affected by intoxicating
er drinks, the fines are largely increased.
IN The act also provides that any husband
wife, parent, child or guardian of any persol
u having the habit of drinking to excess, ma.
I give written notice not to sell or deliver in
ie toxicating liquor to the person having sucl
y habit, and if the person so notified shal
Oh within twelve months thereafter, sell or de
g. liver such liquor to the person having sue
u habit, the one who gave the notice may re
n cover of the one notified damages not les
lis than $50 nor more than $500 In case q
NC death of either, the action and right OF &C
he ton shall survive to or against his execute
ny or administrator, without limit a to dana
III ges. Larger fines declared and damages a
~ lowed by the act of 1875, called for an il
OF creased penel sum in the bond and th
a' provision for damages explains the verbs
ue change in its condition. Apt words are use
ef to include the very things which the priI
cipal obligor may become liable for violi
Nv ton of laws relating to his business, tt
~ content, instead of showing a different meal
e' ing than was intended, demands adherent
III to the usual sense of the words directed fl
Us the bond
'er Wilfully furnishing intoxicating drin
~ by sale, gift or otherwise, for use as beve
Vi age, to any person of known intempera
ie- habits, to any person when drunk or intoS
nc Gated, to a minor, or to an insane person,
'eu made misdemea amor by the act of May
he 1854, In the numerous changes of the
""- cense laws, that act has remained undistur
on ed. Itapplies to all persons in whatever bu
aus mess or occupation. Whether the pers
o''' violating it was licensed or not, is not an
eau ement of the oflense, nor of an aggriey
ohs persons right to recover damages. A juC
MY ment for an injury occasioned by its VIC
tion is on an equal footing with judgme
Vi for injuries by whatever negligence or
'so fault. Surviving relations have like secu
oni ty, and no better, for damages recovered
!, if the deceased had died of beating or
,oo injuries caused by other negligence of
same offender. The act of 1854 cannot
So considered as a part of the license syste
- No just Interpretation of the act of Ia
"a would make the bond therein required
-, curity for damages arising from violations
- the act of 1854, and it is said il never wa
~ understood. To hold such damages will
,ha the act of 1875 requires too much impli
ono tion and too great departure from the ob
- Gus meaning of the bond, which is in 8
scarcely sufficient as security for the ds
ages, costs and penalties specified in its c.
en. dition. Judgment reversed.
, of
ave The law of checks was plainly defined
.ree Judge Thayer, of Philadelphia in cha
No | IN q inrv He bal1 that hafora tho anlO,