The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-11-25
CARELESS SALE OF OPIUM
DRUGGISTS are LItsLE FOR
DAMAGE ms CERTAIN CASES.



Harvard, ct al. the Supreme court yes.
terday decided that where a druggist sold
mans wife opium after he had been
prohibited BY the husband from doing
so and the use Of the drug affected the
woman's health the druggist is liable for
damages.
This action, which was tried at tho
September term Of Wake Superior court,
the parties being residents of Apex, is
novel one With the exception OF the
ease Of Hoard VS.. Peck GO Barb 202,
which in its most important aspects re-
sembles the ease here decided the court
was able to find no precedent in the Eng
lsh law courts, or in the United States.
The court held that though the case was
Il novel one and without precedent it rest
cd upon principle not new, but one sound
and consistent. The principle, as laid
down by Justice Story, is this: Who
ever does an injury to another Is liable
in damages to the extent of that injury.
1t matters not whether the injury is to
the property, or the rights, or the reputa-
ton Of another" 1t was held that
married woman owes the duty OF com
partnership to her husband and
Of rendering all such services
in his home as her relations of wife
and mother require Of her. The husband
as a matter of lawis entitled to her time,
her wages, her earnings and the product
of her labor, skill and industry. He may
contract to furnish her services to others,
and may sue for them as for their loss
in his own name. And whoever wilfully
joins with q married woman in doing an
act which deprives her husband of her
services and Of her companionship, is
liable to the husband III damages for
his conduct Therefore the court held
that the defendant owed the plaintiff
the legal duty not to sell his wife opium
in the form Of large quantities of lau-
danum rs a beverage, knowing that she
was by using them destroying mind and
body and thereby causing loss to the
! husband.
1t is also held that while there is no
statutory provision in North Carolina
prohibiting the sale Of laudanum rs a
beverage or as medicine its law
fulness or unlawfuness depends upon
the circumstances Of the sale, and the
uses and purposes to which ii is to be
applied"
This opinion was written by Judge
Montgomery and reyerses the decision Of
the lower court
As TO INSANE PERSONS.
Another very important case yesterday
decided Is that in re Hybart from Cum
berIand county,
In this case it il held that the word
INDECENT" in Article NJ Section 10, of the
Constitution, as applied to the insane,
in the asylum after providing for the
support of those who are dependent upon
them, according to their condition III
life 1t is held that where a person has
no one dependent upon him the Legisla-
ture has TIE power to provide for appro-
priating his income for his support, but
that so far tie Legislature has passed no
such act 1t is held also in the same case
that where it becomes necessary to APP
point d receiver because no one qualities
as guardian of an insane person under
Code, Section 1876, a motion TO appoint
must be made by the Solicitor as in the
case Of the appointment OF receivers for
infants undet Sections 1884 and 1885.
1T il also held in the same case that
the receiver or guardian when appointed
should allow the wife of an insane per-
Soh III GQn1lAlHG III IE51tiE lit HIS AAanNAOtA
house and to use the provisions raised on
his farm If he resides on one or left by
him stored in his granaries or smoke
house.
This opinion is written by Judge Avery
and is especially important to those in
charge Of asylums and similar institu-
tions.
OPINIONS HANDED DOWN.
Opinions were handed down yesterday
afternoon as follows
Holleman vs. Harvard, from Wake, re-
versed.
Ballard vs.. Insurance Company, from
Durham, new trial.
State VS.. Craig, from Forsyth, affirm
ed
McPhail rs. Commissioners, from
Cumberland, reversed.
Water Works VS.. Tillinghast, FROM
Cumberland, affirmed
Cathey VS.. Shoemaker, from Iredell, af-
frmed.
Hedrick vs. Byerly, from Davidson, af-
frmed.
Cecil VS.. Henderson, from Davidson,
new trial
Jones VS.. Besman, from Greene, af-
firmed.
Whitley vs.. Railroad, from Cabarrus,
reversed.
Andrews VS.. Telegraph Co, from Cum
berland, affirmed.
Cox VS.. Bank, from Greene, affirmed.
Bank of New York, &c, VS.. Citizens
National Bank Of Raleigh, two cases, az
firmed.
Turner VS. Lumber Co, from Pender,
affirmed
g. and Il. Association VS.. Black, from
Moore, affirmed.
In re Hybart. from Cumberland. re-
yersed.
Utley vs. Railroad, from Cumberland,
affirmed.
Mining Co, VS. Smelling Co, from
Davidson, new trial
Cooke VS.. Smith, from Cumberland,
reversed.
Williamson VS. Nealy, from Columbus,
affirmed
Morgan vs.. Roper from Richmond, re-