The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1896-08-26
Verdict for Governor Woodbury..

The arbitrators in the suit of Urban
A. Woodbury. against the Herald and
Globe Association of Rutland, for libel,
have decided for the plaintiff, and have
ordered the defendant to pay 81 900
damages and the cost of the suit. Gov
ernor Woodbury. has the moral effects
of victory, although he RECEIVERS but
one-fiftieth part of the damages for
which he sued. But as it was vindi-
cation of his character and professions,
rather than money, that the plaintiff
sought, he is undoubtedly satisfied with
the money award. The arbitrators re-
cite the circumstances that led up to the
suit and the submission of the question
for adjudication, and say:
4" Thus it appears that under the submits
sion the only questions presented by the
case for our decision are; First, whether
the language OF that portion OF the article
declared upon Is susceptible Of the mean
ing ascribed to it by the declaration, and II
yes, then second. whether the same is true
in that sense; for the defendant cannot
justify in any other sense"
Reviewing the testimony in those
cases in which the guests, whether in
divduals or associations, brought their
own liquor to the hotel, the arbitrators
conclude:
1.-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 a greater or less extent. He was not
however until the occasion in 1893, aware
that money had ever been obtained at the
| office with which to pay for liquor, al
though he might have ascertained the fact
by inquiring. He purposed in good faith
not to violate the law against the traffic in
| Intoxicating liquor; but beyond that he
did not undertake to go. On these facts the
the question is whether the defendant has
made out justification. To do so, it must
show sales by the plaintiff co-extensve
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"
The cases in which liquor was pre-
cured for guests at their tquest by the
bell-boys and walters are thus dis
missed:
| Whatever the guests might have sup
posed, every such request was in fact re-
quest to procure liquor from parties other
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 waiter; through him the
guest paid the money for the purchase,
whether furnished by himself, the boy, or
the house. II the boy 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 drug
gist, bar, or saloon-keeper to the guest, as
there was no understanding to the contrary.
transactions under the law of agency
whereby every transaction by an agent
within the scope of his authority is the
transaction of his principal. Therefore, as
sales, all these transactions by the bell
boys and the walters stand in law as though
the guests had themselves made the pur-
chases. The legal quality of the act is not
changed by the source from, which the
money came. In none Of them did the
title Of the liquor pass from the plaintiff to
the guests and none of them constituted
sales by the plaintiff"
The court declares that the question
whether any of these transactions con-
stituted furnishing on the part of the
plaintiff was not submitted to it, The
court was composed of Jonathan Ross,
chief judge, ]. w. Rowell and J. NJ.
Tyler, assistant judges, of the Supreme
Court, and the decision in the case is
final by the terms of the agreement to
| arbitrate