The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-11-27
NO new TRIAL
FOR KEOUGH.
Appellate Court OvHTruI0d EX-
c0ptiOn in German Case.
FOUNDED ON BILL FOR RENT.
Claim Made BY Keuugh That Premises Were
Used for Illegal Purposes,
AND THAT RENT CANNOT Be COLLECTED
Court He'll That as ihs Plaintiff Took No Parl Ia
The legal Traffic He is Entitled %
Recover
AND THAT RENT CANNOT Be COLLECTED

The appellate court handed down an
opinion today i'm the case of Michael
German VS.. Patrick Keough. The case
was before the court on the defendants
petition for a new trial, jury having
given plaintiff verdict for $3.50 in a
suit for rent. The defendant had set up
that the premises were hired for the
illegal sale OF liquors lot only with the
knowledge OF the plaintiff. but with the
further agreement that the defendant
was 10 buy all his liquors Of the plain
tiff. who was to protect him in his sell
ing and furnish bail for him IL ne
should be arrested. Another plea OF
the defendant was put in as matter of
set-off an account for money paid To
the plaintiff for liquors lDught of aim,
through several years. for illegal Gale.
The amount Of this alleged set off las
$4,000.
The defendant requested the judge
to cnarge the jury: That if Mr.. German
knew that Mr.. keough Was selling
liquor there. and that Mr.. German
had furnished him with the liquor,
knowing that he was TO sell IL Illegally,
that under these circumstances he can
not recover. This request was refused.
MERE KNOWLEDGE INVOLVED.
Judge Stness. who writes the opinion
of The court, says, speaking OF the re-
Guest: 1t involved mere knowledge on
the part OF the lessor that the lessee
| Intended To use the premises for an IL
| legai purpose. In Almy VS.. Greene, IL
| II. L.. $50; Allen VS.. Keriey, rs X. L., l97.
| and Miller vs. Mcguire. Is n. l., 40, 1t
| was held that mere knowledge of the
use of leased premises for an illegal
! purpose. il there was no active parllcl-
| patton on the part of the lessor in the
| illegal acts OF the lessee. would not
| avoid lease. The court so instructed
| the Jury i'm this case, adding that II the
| agreement was. as claimed by the de-
fendant, 10 furnish liquors and bail,
| then the plaintiff could not recover.
| The plaintiffs brief comedies the cor
rectness of such a ruling. but claims
! that there was no active participation
! by the plaintiff in selling liquor 10 up
| defendant with knowledge of his illegal
I purpose. In AfrIy VS., Greene the rute
! in cases OF sales was applied to leas',
| as appears by the cases there cited.
! That rule rests upon the principle thar
il the vender does not take an active
part in az illegal act he is entitled to
recover for his goods. and that mere
knowledge on his part of an illegal pur-
pose on the vendee is not enough to
constitute active participation.
DECISIONS NOT HARMONIOUS.
Decisions on this point are not har-
! monious, and IN some cases where the
sale OF goous is for treasonable pur-
poses. or for use OF fragrant crime, Or
TO avoid revenue laws, a broader rule
has been followed on grounds Of pub
lie policy. But clearlv If the rule iaid
down in previous cases is controlling
as to leases much more should il be so
as to rules, from which ut is taken and
applied
Hence the rule that mere knowledge
of illegal purpose in vendee is not
sufficient TO defeat a recovery.
! being established as to leases. it must
also be the rule for sales. AS the jury
found for the plaintiff they must have
found that there was no agreement
such as claimed by the defendant and
upon this point the verdict is not
against the evidence.
THE exception is overruled
Upon the pea in set off the defend
ant claimed the right TO recover. under
Gen. Laws. chap 102. sec. so. ain ,ae
money VIII 1ch had paid to the plain
tiff for liquors which ne had bought of
him. The statute relates only TO liuuor
sold In violation OF law. AS the plain
TN had license TO sell Intoxicating
LIQUORS, the liquors bought by the de-
fendant were not Illegally sold.
NOT APPLICABLE.
THE authorities relied on by the de-
fendant to support his claim are simply
cases where purchaser from an ille-
gal seller has recovered under statu-
tory provisions like ours. and hence
they are not app icable to this case.
Here the defendant seeks TO recover
back money paid for goods which only
he himself has sold Illegally. To allow
him TO recover would allow him 10 take
advantage or his own wrong. and not
only so. but against a vendor who had
violated no law
The nonsuit was rightly rejected.
ease submitted for Judgment"