The Worthington advance., 1891-08-20

PeoA VI tuo AuCe VI tue ueeu, OF ny the
condition. that lit saved any actual or
substantial benefit to the grautor. -
Also, that there is no evidence in the
case, as it now stands, outside of the
deed, that the Railroad Company could
or would receive any actual or a.,y sub
stantial benefit were the condition full
filled. They say: "That unless it can
be said az a fact, that property is more
valuable in a village where liquor is
not sold than in one where it is sold,
that they do not see how the preven-
tion of the sale of liquor in Worthing-
ton could be of any actual or substan-
tial benefit to the Company."- Also
that there was no evidence that the
Company owned any other property in
the village or Its vicinity, after it sold
these specific lots. They also say:
"tllat perhaps the sale of intoxicating
liquors in the village of Worthiugton
may offend the lofty moral sense OF the
Corporation plaintiff, but if SO, it does
not appear from the evidence" They,
therefore, find that for the lack of the
proof of some actual and substantial
benefit in the enforcement of the
clause, the Company is not entitled to
recover.
We learn from the attorney of the
plaintiff that the cases were submitted
purposely, without any evidence on the
above points. knowing that, if needed,
it was the easiest matter in the world
to supply the evidence on the second
trial, and with the intent to obtain the
decision of the Supreme Court on the
question fairly and sQuarely presented,
whether II clause against the sale of
Intoxicating liquors on u specific lot,
ina village, is ''merely nominal" aid
whether it shows on its mere reading
that it "evinces no intention of any
actual or substantial benefit to the
seller" 1t is possible that the appel
late Court may hold that wife who
can keep her husband from the temp
tation of the saloon, or the father who
can keep his son from the same temp
talion. or railroad company that can
keep it's employees from the dangers of
the 'tippling shop" may receive an
'actual benefit" and even "substan-
tial benefit" thereby. without the need
OF showing that the price of town lots
is also increased. All the "benefit" to
one In this world is not necessarily
wrapped up in the question of dollars
and cents. It is also believed that no
court of last resort will, in this day,
hold such clause to be, on its face,
and without evidence one way or the
other, ''merely nominal"
We understand that an appeal has
already been taken, and that the ques-
tion whether such a condition is
merely nominal, and on its face
shows no intention of actual or sub
stantial benefit" to the company, will
be presented for decision at the coming
October term Of our supreme court.
This will settle the law one way or the
other, and the cases will then be ready
for the second and final trial at the
March term of next spring.
Mr.. Wilson is the attorney for the
defendants, and Mr.. Rohrer for the
company. Mr.. Rohrer assures US that
whatever the outcome may be, he is
amply repaid in the splendid indorse-
ment his client has received in the
finding that 1.-THE corporation" plain
tiff is possessed of a "lofty moral
sense" 1t is not every man who is
possessed of "moral sense" much less
q lofty" one, and when the ordinary
run Of ''corporatioDs'' is considered
he insists that his client has received
an 'actual and substantial benefit" by
this endorsement, that it has the right
to be proud of.