The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1893-12-26

A DECISION of great Importance to per-
sons engaged in the liquor business in In
diana and of interest to liquor dealers,
temperance reformers and Prohibition
lists generally, was rendered in the Su-
preme Court of Indiana last week. In
1891 one John Stehlin put up business
block on ground adjoining the residence
of Mrs, Mary Haggard, on College ave-
nue., q street of private residences in In
dianapolis. Stehlin subsequently got a
license to keep liquor saloon in his
building. This license was issued in due
form by the county commissioners, the
owners or occupants of the private houses
in the vicinity protesting. Stehlin open
ed saloon, and has continued to keep it.
Mrs. Haggard. who is opposed on gen.
eral principles to saloons, brought suit
against him in the Circuit Court to re-
cover damages for the injury which, she
averred, had been inflicted upon her
properly by the proximity of the saloon.
Her counsel. a prominent Prohibitionist,
took the ground that the liquor business
is nuisance of itself, tending to depre-
ciate the value of property near which it
is carried on, and that there must be
remedy in the shape of damages to the
injured party. Moreover, the liquor law
is unconstitutional. Testimony to es-
tablish such injury was offered for the
plaintiff. The counsel for the de-
PENDANT maintained that his license
by the county commissioners, according
to an act of the State Legislature, was
law gave him the license if he violated
his license, or kept disreputable or dis
orderly house, the law could punish him !;
but for the incidental damage if any, to
from licensed liquor shop, its keeper
could not be made responsible in dam
ages Otherwise, the law would treat as
an injury what it had authorized and
sanctioned.
The Circuit Court found for the de-
PENDANT, holding, in effect, that since a
licensed saloon is legally authorized to do
business, its keeper is not liable in dam
ages for any injury to adjoining property.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme
Court, and that body affirmed the de-
cision The plaintiff thereupon petilioned
for rehearing, which was granted, and
the case was again argued before the
Supreme Court. That court has now
given judgment for the appellant in an
opinion that fills the Indiana Prohibit
tIonists with profound thankfulness. The
court holds that the law for liquor Ii
cense is constitutional, but that the IL
quor business is immoral, licensed on that
account by the law, so that the commun-
ity may have a legal safeguard against
the dangers of the unrestricted sale of
liquor. The rights of the citizen are not
to be sacrificed because the liquor traffic
Is regulated by act Of legislature. 1t
could not have been the purpose of the
makers Of the liquor license law to autho-
rize an injury to the property OF the citi-
zen Though the law licenses the keep
ing Of a saloon, IL cannot confer any right
to lDiure the property OF the citizen. A
law cannot authorize the creation or
maintenance of anything eonfessedly in
furious to any mans property, unless it is
clear that general public benefit, trans
cending the particular injury, is thereby
secured. A saloon that lessons the value
of property is a nuisance at law, and can
be abeted as nuisance and, moreover,
the person whose property is injured by
q saloon is entitled to recover from the
keeper damages equal TO the injury sus-
tanned.