The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1885-10-27
SUPREME C0URT.-.0CT0BER TERM.
FRIDAY, Oct. 23rd.

Jackson VS.. Lovejoy.
Continued from yesterdays issue.)
Mr.. Jackson sworn: l have spent
about S12 or SIS at the anchor since
March. l never kept account. Have
been to other saloons. | cannot say
how many times l have not worked
from sickness and from want of
work. 1 spent 5 or 10 minutes at
the saloon when l went there. Per-
haps l have INDUCED more than 1
could bear, but generally speaking,
/ think not. Have been sick when
not drinking.
Cross-eXamined by Mr.. Kinney:
l think 1 had no bottle that Sunday.
My wife told me she had forbidden
them giving me liquor when l was
under the influence of drink. After
she had notified them, l have been
intoxicated, partly at the Anchor.
That Saturday, l had two drinks,
one at the Empire and one at
Dodd's. 1 found myself at my own
door. Was intoxicated. Had one
drink at Sullivan's, the rest else
where. Brodie never told me not
to drink. 1 was not locked up for
striking my wife. After they were
forbidden, / have left there once
with too much. 1 did not get it all
there. Have never left there help
less. Don't remember my wife help
ing me home. Liquor excites me if
any person troubles me. Don't think
l ever made the remark Lang quoted.
l have frequented the Anchor Saloon
more than any other for the last few
months. l have used almost any
language to prevent Mrs. Jackson
bringing this suit.
Mr.. CROOKS sworn: remember
the conversation of Sunday morning.
l think it was in July. Sullivan told
jackson he did not want him there
any more, and wouldn't serve him
any more liquor. Three Or four
other gentlemen were called to give
evidence on several points of fact
recited by the principal witnesses;
after which the jury was addressed
by Messrs. Hatch and Kinney re-
spectively.
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
In the judges charge, the follow
ing specific instructions were given !:
The wife in this action, CONTRARY
to the general law), can sue alone
without joining her husband, and
whatever damages she may recover
belongs to her personally.
2. 1t is not necessary that the
party selling should have been warn
ed not to sell in order to entitle the
plaintiff to recover. Such fact
may aggravate the case and may en-
title one to recover exemplary dam
ages, but it is not necessary in order
to recover. The law imposes the
obligation OH the licensed dealer to
see to it that he does not sell under
such circumstances as to result in
damage to others, in their person,
property and means of support.
3. 1t is not necessary to show
that all the damage complained OF
was caused by the defendant. II
he, through his bar-keepers caused
the intoxication in whole or in part
of Mr.. Jackson and OH any such
occasion the plaintiff suffered dam
age in her person or means of sup
port, the defendant is liable for the
whole damage sustained. The dam
age cannot be apportioned.
4. The defendant is responsible
for the acts of his bar-keepers ever
though he did not know what they
were doing, and though they made
the sales contrary to his express
directions. This is an elementary
principle of law and is instantly APP
piled in every class of business
The principal is responsible for thu
acts of his agent. 1t is no defence
that others also sold liquor to tn
husband.
5. You must find that the plain
tiff has suffered actual damage be
fore she can recover. Actual dam
age to her person or means of sup
port may be proved by showing, TO
instance, assaults by her HUSBAND
whereby she was injured in her per
son or which has caused her Hines
or by showing that the husband wa
unable through drink to attend L
his work. If actual damage
proven, you may then give exen
plary damages if aggravating Gil
cumstances are shown. If such