Blue-grass blade. [volume] (Lexington, Ky.) 188?-19??, 1891-06-06
ANTI-NUISANCE WORK.
ATEST CASE ON THE VALIDITY OF ALL
LICENSE LAWS.

A Case Pending Before the Supreme
Court of Indiana-coi. e. F. Ritter
Moving for 81 Deeision-Tae National
Anti-N"isanee League mt Work
Col f. F. Ritter of indianapolis, a
prominent lawyer and well known
Prohibitionist, has long been an ar
dent advocate Of the principles of the
National Anti-Nuisance League.
The following statement of the pres
ent status of an important ease now
pending in the Supreme Court of In
diana will be read with interest. Col
Ritter hopes for decision at opening
of September term, and no matter
what the result may be, the League
will continue to urge judicial inquiry
along this line. The sale of pOisons
for beverage purposes is contrary to
the spirit of the constitution, and Ii
cenSe and revenue laws sanctiOning
such sale are unconstitutional
In the pending case Mary e. Hag-
CART and Sarah c. Rathwell allege that
they have owned real estate with
dwelling house thereon, and occupied
the same for more than five years, on
College avenue in the second ward of
the city of indianapolis. The locality
is thickiy settled with residences by
people distinguished for morality.
There are nine churches. three public
schools, female college and an
orphans home, but no manufacturing
establishments nor business houses,
except a few small groceries and drug
stores in the immediate locality.
Never has been saloon in the neigh
borhood or ward. Real estate and
residence property is sought for by
people whose views are in harmony
with the sentiments of the neighbor-
hood. Residence property, on ac-
count of said conditions, had, prior to
acts complained Of, an enhanced value
intrinsically and for rental purposes.
George Heidt owns real estate with
building thereon adjoining the plain
tiff's property, fronting on the same
street and also on the corner of that
and Seventh street. On the sixteenth
day OF June, 1880, John III. Stehlin,
with full knowledge and consent of
defendant Heidi, from whom he had
leased the property for the specific
purpose opened a saloon and began
the sale Of intoxicating liquors. He
advertise5 his business by putting in
large letters on the front the words:
Beer Hall and Saloon" and on the
side the word, Saloon :" invited per-
sons to meet and to buy and drink
and sold to them intoxicating liquors.
He had an entrance from the front,
side and alley in the rear Persons,
male and female. white and black, are
seen by the public going in and out,
sometimes under the influence of liq-
uor, day and night The aforesaid
acts and things done AID observed are
very offensive to people living in the
neiShborhoOd, and TO persons who
seek to purchase or rent real estate in
that locality. On account thereof, the
real estate OF the plaintiffs has been SO
injuriously affected, that though it
would have readily sold prior to the
acts complained Of for $500. it would
now not sell for more than $4,000, and
would have rented for S35, but now not
more than $50 per month.
These defendants assert that they
are protected in the acts and things
herein complained of, by virtue Of
some license or legal authority, but
| the plaintiffs alleqe the fact to be- that
Observation-Disclosures for- eses~-' ~ -cryr-T-71
have any licenseAor authority FROM
any source, auth6fizing or protectiny
them in said acts. but that said aCts
7 and things herein complained of are
/ Illegal and unlawful That the plain
/ tiffs by reason OF said acts and thia-s
/ have been damaged in the sum If ,vc
/ thousand dollars 2,OO0. anil nus
continue TO suffer great and irrepara-
bic damages for which they can have
no adequate remedy at law, unless
said defendants be eniOined from tie
maintenance and continuance of each
and all of the acts and things herein
complained Of Wherefore said plain
| tiffs ask Judgment against said de-
| PENDANTS for $4,000, and that they be
enjoined from the maintenance and
/ continuance of each and all of the acts
and things herein set out.
| To this complaint the defendants
separately answered, setting up Ii
| cense issued to the defendant Stehlin
by the board of commissioners of
Marion county, Indiana, to scil spir-
ituous, vinous and malt liquors in
less quantities than quart at time,
with the privilege of allowing the
same TO be drank ON the premises
where sold.
| To these separate answers the plain
tiffs demurred, upon the ground that
such license is no defense, because
the law pretending to authorize the
same is unconstitutional and void.
The court Overruled the demur, and
the plaintiffs have appealed the case
to the Supreme Court of Indiana,
where it is now pending. The case
went through the lower court without
argument or particular contest, and
ii was understood by both sides that
the case was intended for the Supreme
Court. The case will be argued orally
and by briefs in the Supreme Court,
and will be pressed by the plaintiffs
for all there is in it.
If the decision is against the saloon
as common nuisance, this will be
one of the most important cases in
the record of the jurisprudence of the
world, and will mark an epoch in the
war of the commonwealth against the
lioucr traHi1
Chicago's Ks ti~yor.
Mr.. Hempsted washburn, the
| MayOr of Chicago. riyeS us to under