The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1896-04-10
NUMBER 81.
UNDER THE CIVIL DAMAGElLhW.
SHIT in Behalf of Herbert POrter's Wife
Against the DrisIanes for selling Him
the Liquor that Got Him Into the
Crime that Landed Him In Prison.

suit In Behalf of Herbert Portcr's Wife
Against the DrisIanes for Selling Him
the Liquor that Got Him Into the
Crime that Landed Him In Prison.
The papers were served Wednesday in
suit brought by Lawyer &. II. Robb
of Bellows Falls for the wife and chill
drcn of Herbert j. Porter against the
Drislanc Bros, Patrick, William and
Michael. under the personal liability
clause of the liquor law, under which.
where a man is imprisoned for an
offence committed while under the in
huence Of liquor, those dependent on
him can recover of the seller at the
rate of 50 day for the time of the
confinement. Porter's sentence of three
years besides tho four months already
spent in Jail, therefore, il counted full
day, would yield under the law a plum
S2420, though the writ is for
$500. Porter swore that the stuff on
which he got drunk the night that he
and his brothers attempted the train
wrecking on the Boston &Maine track,
was procured at Drislane's billiard
room in Hooker block. DrislaDe de-
MES ii, and il remains to be seen what
evidence there is to support either, or
what will be elected at the trial. a
point for the defendant is that Herbert
and Julius Porter both sworn at the
trial of Julius that they had nothing
to do with the obstruction and didn't
touch the chest but it was all the work
of VIII who had turned states eyi-
denco on them. Bnt Herbert after
wards contradicted this, pleading
guilty to throwing stones at the cars.
Both. however, admitted getting .heen
at Drislane's that night. and said they
had enough so they 'felt it, though
they weren't drunk. -
Wm. Drislane is out of town but
Michael and Patrick were arrested
Wednesday by Sheriff Starkey. Col. F.
Goodhue went bail for Pat and Pat for
his brother. G G Fits of this place
is associated with Rohb for the plain
titfs and the Drislanes have retained
Haskins & Stoddard.
The law is certainly Just one in
principle. There can be no argument
about that. Tho man who sells liquor
for profit certainly ought to bear all
the consequences of damage that result
from the sale. and if the dammage is
in the way - depreciation of support
for wife and children because of
crime committed while the purchaser
is drunk with that liquor, every con
sideration of morality and manliness
requires the principle to be applied
The only practical trouble ia in ?
rule of proof. 1t is more than an ev, a
chance that the drunkard in such
case will "discIose' on the man who
refused to sell him rather than the one
from whom he really got the stuff. So
to hold the seller more than mere
"prepon derance of evidence" ought to
be required. Perhaps it would be too
much to say the criminal rule of ''procf
beyond reasonable doubt should ap-
ply, but it should be something ap-
preaching that The law is penal to-
wards the accused seller. through re-
hating only to the civil rights of the
plaintiff.
There is a surmise that Col. Geo.
W. Hooker is the game they are really
cunning after IN this case. though
nothing in the action thus far indi
Gates it. he not being made code
fendant as might be done. The
law is-and with the same quail
ification as to evidence it is just
that the owner of the building
is equally liable with the liquor seller
in such case. provided be knows or
has reason to believe that liquor is sold
on the premises ana the Dflsianes
have been prosecuted twice and
plead guilty. 1t can hardly be ex
pectad in this case to collect big YER
diet, il CDe Is recovered. against the
Drieiancs. though their bodie could be
that the idea is to dcvelopc facts
enough 10 proceed against the Colonel.
Tho fact ahcut it Is that he has,
,,+j4 II +- ut cpt
the room with stipulations that 70
intoyicants should be sold there, and
Continued On 7th pagc.J