Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1896-08-28
THE VERMONT NEWS.
Gov. Woodbury. Wins.

and the fees of the arbitration. The
award of Judges Ross, Rowell and Tyler
as arbitrator was filed Friday. There
was an agreement before the case was
heard that there should be no appeal.
The award states that this is an action
on the case for libel, to be heard and de-
termined upon the law and evidence and
the pleadings in the case. The article in
question charged that Gov. Woodbury. had
been and then was engaged in selling in
toxicating liquor in violation of law and
had continuously, while owning and oper-
ating the Van Ness House, thus sold in
toXcating liquor therein to the guests of
the house and delivered it at their rooms
and the public tables therein in great va
rieties, by the glass and otherwise, with
view TO profit, in total disregard of the
laws of the state, and with the same free
dom that the business of selling intoXicat-
ing liquor is carried on in hotels in other
parts of the world, where such traffic is by
law permitted in hotels; and that the
plaintiff did this without any restraint as
to the hours of the night, and in defiance
of the moral sanction of the law as to the
observance of the Sabbath, and therein re-
sorted to various schemes and devices in
order to avoid the consequence thereof,
but that neither these schemes and devices
nor anything else checked nor restrained
him in that behalf; that such illegal traffic
has been and was an essential and profit
able part of the business carried on by him
in said house; that the traffic has been car
ried on to such an extent and in such a
manner that in the view of the law-abid-
ing citizens of the state said house has he
come and was a rumhole; and that al
though the plaintiff was the governor of
the state, he continued to carry on said
traffic as aforesaid.
Gov. Woodbury. bought the Van Ness
House in 1881 and w. +. Bowman was its
manager for two years. The bell boys
were instructed not to bring liquors into
the house. In 1883 Gov. Woodbury. bought
the lease of the American House, except
the bar and billiard room, which Mr.. Drew
retained. Drew became manager of the
Van Ness House with the American House
attached, which was used only in the sum-
mer. II. n. Clark has been manager of
the house since 1898. Gov. Woodbury.
has not resided at the hotel, and has been
engaged in other business. The managers
knew that guests brought liquors with
them and drank it in their rooms, and
that guests who were at the house for
some time had packages of liquors sent to
them by express.
Guests have frequently requested the
head walters in the dining room to bring
them beer and wine, and in few in
stances, whiskey. They were generally
told that those things were not kept by the
house, and would sometimes request the
waiter to send out for them, or he would
suggest that he could send out, which he
often did. The testimony is conflicting
taI,at hoe haos, 1Apa vrit ha
money of the hotel and paid by the guest
with his general bill, but in few in
stances it has been so done. Even this
practice was not with the view to profit,
but sprang'up and was continued from a
desire to accede to the wish of guests.
When banquets have been held at the
house contract has been made for the
supper, and if liquors were furnished they
were brought by committee, but the ia
BILE walters sometimes helped serve the liq-
uors.
Intoxicating liquors have frequently
been obtained by the guests through the
bell boys. In most cases the guests would
give the boys money and send them out to
make the purchase. At times the boys
would purchase the liquor with their own
money, which the guests would repay to
them. Guests would sometimes direct the
boys to get the money at the hotel office,
which they would do. In such cases the
clerk, if he knew the guest, would let the
boy have the money and make memo
randum of it as cash upon the hotel regis
ter against the guests name. Sometimes
the money would be repaid by the guest to
the boy and sometimes with his bill at the
office.
The bell boys had an arrangement with
drug store by which they received a
commission on what liquor they bought,
and they usually received profit from the
guests. In the summer or fall of 1898 the
plaintiff was at the office one day, and saw
Mr. Clark hand the bell boy some money,
and on inquiry was told that it was to buy
bottle of ale for guest. The plaintiff
then forbade the use of hotel money for
such purposes. Thereupon Mr.. Clark
told the boys not to apply to the office
thereafter for money to buy liquor with,
and they did not to his knowledge, though
they did occasionally get it there without
his knowledge. The obtaining of liquors
by bell boys has been of no profit or bene-
fit to the hotel other than the benefit in
directly derived by accommodating and
pleasing its guests.
The plaintiff did not personally know of
the practice of obtaining liquor through the
bell boys, but from the circumstances he
must have understood that it prevailed to
greater or less extent. He was not, how
ever, until the occasion in 1898, aware that
money had ever been obtained at the Office
with which to pay for liquor, although he
might have ascertained the fact by inquir
| ing He purposed in good faith not to
violate the law against the traffic in intox-
| icating liquors, but by that he did not I'M
dertake to go.
On these facts the question is whether
the defendant has made out justification.
To do so it must show sales by the plain
tiff co-eXtensive with the charge. 1t is
manifest that when guests brought their
own liquor to the hotel and had it served
to them the plaintiff made no sales of it to
the guests. This disposes of those cases
in which the guests, whether individuals
or associations, brought their own liquor
to the hotel. 1t leaves for consideration
the cases in which liquor was procured for
guests at their request by the bell boys and
the walters.
Whatever the guests might have sup
posed, every such request was, in fact, a
request to procure liquor from parties 9th
er than the plaintiff as he kept no liquor
for sale. In purchasing liquor of the
druggist, bar or saloon keeper the guest
acted through the bell boy or the walters
through him. The guest paid the money
for the purchase, whether furnished by
himself, the boy or the house. If the hoy
furnished it, or got it at the office, he did
it at the express or implied request of the
guest. The property in the liquor passed
directly from the druggist, bar or saloon