Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1900-04-13
The st. JOhnsbury Injunction Cases.

The following paragraphs from the
opinion of the supreme court, which has
been widely published, state the liability
of owners of buildings where liquors are
kept for unlawful sale. They cannot ex-
cuse themselves by want of knowledge
when the circumstances are such that they
have reason to suppose that their buildings
are being used for the unlawful purpose:
1.-THE act of 1898 gives the states attor-
ney authority to make the owner party,
and it is difficult to conceive in what cir
cumstances this discretion should be exer-
cised other than when there is ground for
belief that he knew of the unlawful pur-
pose for which his premises were being used,
and in which case there should be an allie
CATION in the bill of such knowledge. If
fact this is alleged and proved the owner re-
mains liable to the penalty under Yer
mont Statutes 4510, and he is also
liable to Injunction. The law would oper-
ate uniustly upon the owner, II his entire
hotel or other buildings were stamped as
a nuisance and an injunction were issued
against it and recorded in consequence of
the unlawful act of tenant, committed
without his knowledge-an act which, If
known to him, he would have disapprov-
ed. A tenant might secretly convert
room in a business or other block into
drinking nuisance during the temporary
absence of the owner from sickness or
other cause, and in violation of an express
condition in the lease. State VS.. Price,
92 la. 81, was in some respects such
case.
"The information contains no allega-
ton that either Howe or the bank had
committed an offence, nor that, in the eX-
ercise of a reasonable care over their build
| ing, in the circumstances, they ought to
have known that an offence was being
committed therein by other persons. There
is no reason to suppose that the legislature
intended to depart from the rule of the
common law which would not subject a
landlord to the consequences of his tenant
maintaining a nuisance without the land
lord being chargeable with notice of the
existence of the nuisance.
"The act of 1898 must be construed to
mean that the states attorney should
exercise his discretion to make the owner
of the building or premises party to the
proceeding when the owner has reason to
believe that the owner has knowledge of
| the existence OF tne nuisance. On Lne
hearing, if it is adjudged that the owner
had such knowledge, or, in the circum-
stances, he had reason to suppose that his
property was being used for unlawful pur-
poses, an injunction should be granted
against him as well as against the keeper,
and he should be liable for costs. On the
other hand, if the judgment sin his favor
upon this question, he should be discharg-
ed. If the owner is enioined, the injunc-
ton should be upon his entire building, be-
cause if he had knowledge of the nuisance
his assent to it is implied from the fact
that under the law he had power TO ter
inmate the tenancy. If he permitted the
nuisance to exist in one room of the build
ing, that being abated it would be likely
to appear in another room. If the in
| junction is against the keeper only it
should operate only upon such rooms as
are in his occupancy or under his control,
and it should issue against such persons
only as have power to control the tene-
ment and abate the nuisance, though 9th
ers may have an interest in the tenement"