New-York tribune., 1879-03-10
n1MAGRS E0R pRAMSELLING.

Recent decisions Of the Court of Appeals
have established the validity of the Clvll
| Damage law " to the fullest extent .; and
| the verdict Of $jl inst recovered by Mrs.
! Harriet Scully, for supplying liquor to her
| husband, shows its efficiency. This law has
! been seldom invoked, heretofore in this city
| AT least Judge qnd counsel seemed on the
| trial 10 regard it as a questionable novelty.
| But earnest practical temperance retoTners
| may find it q good weapon a remedy Wuch
| does not interfere with Others and IL un-
embarrassed by the differences Of opinion which
have hampercd others. Legislative protection
| against the evils of liquor-selling has been
sought in three directions. /. Regulated Ex-
else and License laws. ?. Entire prohibition.
g. Suing the seller for the damage done. The
theory of this last method is to allow the
traffic. but hold the trader to a strict pccuniary
responsibility. As he makes the profit, so
he shall pay the damage. Sell if you see fit,
sir, but for al injury which the liquor you
supply causes through your customers mis-
conduct, to any third person, you shall make
full compensation.
Twelve Of the States now have these civil
damage laws in actual operation, and what
ever causes may have delayed the Ncw-l Ork
law in coming into frequent use in this city,
experience elsewhere shows that il embodies
an element of 10 little potency. Inartistic
some Of its clauses may be eminent counsel so
declare, and friends OF thc law will doubtless
welcome suggestions toward verbal inn
pIoyemgnt. But the substantial! principle
may be made vcIy effective IN control
ling the mischief Of reckless sale Of
liquor. Every person, a husband, wife. child
or stranger, who su,tains injury al person or
property or means of support from an IntoX-
Gated person, or in consequence of any ones
iutoxlcauon, can recover damages from the
seller of the hquor, or from the proprietor Of
the premises, if he permitted them 70 be used
FOR such sales. 4 wide scope has been
given, IN the various States, to this principle.
Ii has been freely applied to tie protection Of
wives. Some actual loss must, indeed, be shown
to have been sustained by the wife; mortIdca-
ton or sorrow over husbands misconduct
is not, alone, ground for resort TO the Civil
Damage law. but for all the varied personal
and pccuniary injuries which intoxica,ion
of the husband may bring upon the wife,
the law aims TO give redress. Where drunken
husband has driven his wife ont Of house and
home to wander throughout the night; or has
with violence locked her up in her room; or
has taken her property and sold 1t to
pay his tavern bills; or where his
degradation has reacted upon her social posi-
uon 80 as to involve loss of opportunities,
and embarrassment in labor, capable of est-
mAion in damages, she has been allowed 10
recover. Where his habits have deprecated
his ability to earn for her the support 10
which she is by law entitled, this is held by
a majority of the decisions to be a ground Of
recovery, in some cases Of severe one.
Twelve thousand dollars has been awarded,
in one case in Illinois, for the loss
sustained by Il wife through her lus-
bands falling into habits Of intemper-
ance, disseminating his business and wasting
his means Beyond these are cases where
the husband has come to injury or death
through drunken inability to take care OF
himself, and the wife has claimed damages
for her consequent loss OF support. The
courts are not agreed how far the liability
extends in these cases, nor how to draw the
line between an injury attributable TO the
lquor-seliIng and one Teterable to other
CAUSES But the lawsuits that have arisen
are cautiOnary 10 dealcr@. One drunken man fell
from wagon, and was hurt so as to cause costly
sickness aud permanent disability. Another
wa- drawn into a fight with p0t-companion5
amt killed. Another, too intoxicated to walk,
was sent home in a wagon, and u barrel in
the wagon ruled upon and crushed him.
another, hrlplt Soly staggering past railway
ciossing, was run over by the train. Another.
roaming along the streets of the town, fell
into an open cellar and was never able TO
work after. Another, growing quarrel
some in drink, insultcd stranger, who
retaiated with stab, of which he
died. Another, shot in u drunken quarrel,
died from the effects OF an amputation. In
all these cases suits were brought 10y the in
jured wives in some, recOYeries were allowed,
IN others they were denied. The existence of
such Il remedy, the dependence in The courts
OF such a question, Is well adapted TO restrict
sales within bounds believed TO be prudent.
Let it not be understood that the law aids
wives only. Any person may invoke it. In
the Court of Appeals case in which the con-
stitutionality of the law was unsuccessfully
contested, the plaintiff was the father Of the
drunkard. The son borrowed his fathers
horse and buggy for fOur-mlle drive. lie
drank at several saloons on his way, became
intoxicated, and drove the horse so violently
that it died. The father brought SUIT for the
value of the horse, not against the saloon
keeper. but against the owner of the hotel.
The point was urged that 10 condemn III
owner OF building in damages for such re-
mote consequences of his tenants Trade, was
contrary TO justice aud beyond the power
of the lawmakers. The Court said
that it appeared to be an extreme
measure, but it was not unconstitutional. and