Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1900-04-05
Important Decision by Vermont
Supreme Court Limiting
Scope of Injunction.
OWNER CANNOT BE A PARTY
Unless Prosecutor Can Prove He Had
knowledge That Illegal Business is
Being Conducted There-No Opin-
ion Given in Case of the Bur-
lington Druggists.

!
sion Of the Supreme Court assembled at
the court rooms yesterday morning with
Chief Judge Taft and Judges lRowcll TN-
Ter Munson and Watson on the bench.
Judge Thompson, who Is presiding at
Franklin County Court was the chanCcl-
lor who granted an injunction in the case
of State VS.. Ernest Massey of st. Johns
bury, and Is. G. Howe and the First Ma
tional bank of st. Johnsbury was dis
qualified from sitting and this was the on
ly case In which a decision was read, tho
opinion being read by Judge Tyler
| The especial interest I'm the case was the
test 1t gave of the act of 1895 which made
the owners of buildings liable to an in
junction restraining them from use Of
their building that has been adjudgcd "A
nuisance because a tenant has conducted
a liquor business in the building
Depedcnt on this decision were nine
eases in Caledonia county. There have
been dozen iniurctions granted against
property owners i'm Washington county,
and more in Chittondcn, Rutland and
Franklin counties. The decision is of
great interest throughout the State.
The decision yesterday makes 1t ncCes-
isary to make an allegation that an Illegal
business is conducted in q building with
the knowledge of the owner of such
building ana that it must be proven that
the owner did know an Illegal busino IS
was being conducted there before they
can be made party against whom an
injunction can be issued.
The decision was affirmed as to Massey
who had been convicted of being keeper,
and the bill was dismissed as to the own
el's of the property. b. q. Howe and the
First National bank.
In the similar case against +. a. ALI
son and Campbell Davis. and the owners
OF the building, the cause against Allison
and Campbell was ren.anded to County
Court for trial. as they had not been con-
victed of selling rum, and the bill against
Howe and Citizens bank and Trust COM
pany was dismissed.
In the two important cases that were
expected to follow the ST. Johnsbury cases
state vs.. FHyctte l.. Taft and State vs.. -.
I'll McCuen no decision was announced
and the cases are still with the court.
Judge Thompson has the first and Judge
Watson the latter.
The Bennington county case of Curtiss
vs.. Simpsons, Taft. j., decree reversed
and cause remandcd.
GROUNDS OF THE DECISION
The court bases it's decision on the COM
mon law. I he opinion covers 10 tpyewrit-
ten pages. making in all four points The
first point was in regard to the demur-
rer The court holding that it was en-
tlrely within the discretion of the chan
cc|lor to decide whether the defcndan
should have the benefit both of AN adj
before passing the case to the Supreme
Court and the considered the discretion
wisely exercised
The second point, which gives the court S
construction Of law, was as follows:
The act of 1895 provides that the own
or OF and all persons Interested in the
building. as well as the keeper, may be-
made parties to the proceedings. The
statute Is not mandatory; it is left to the
discretion OF the states attorney whether
10 Jolh me owner ana others as parties on
not. If the legislature had intended that
theY Shou'd De joined in every case it may
be assumed that il would have said so in
unmistakable terms Then the question is
"heh should the states attorney, in the
exercise 81 thls discretion, JON the OWL
er as Il party! 10 answer TINS question II
Is necessary 70 understand the status OF
the law relative to the respective hahill-
ties or the Keeper and owner prior to The
enactment OF 1873 NO IA, acts of 1885, de
nhed hquor nulSances substantially as de-
hned III V. ;. 'ol2. 1t provided for punish
ing the Keeper ana closing the place. II
gave the owner the right to retahe his
premises when used for such unawfu
purpose, ana provided penalty upon his
CONVICTION oil KNOWINGLY letting them fol
that purpose. V. ;. 4olH' 1918 The keeper
was mace HaDie 10 penalty by the fact
Nl"l ne was Keeper; me owner only
Whth ne knowingly let ms premises fol
tne un'aWiul purpose state VS.. Bates, q
l, I4,
l'y NO 40 acls oil 1871 II was provided
'i'al upon sucll convection any Chincelo
. 9houiu nave JuflSdlctloh IN equity, an'
tldt ne should issue an injunction againS
, the Keeper upon ms conviction OF keepini
nuisance "hlIe lhe liablliiy of the own
cr, down to 1874, remained IS provided il
the act OF 1881.
, by the act OF 1894, No. GS, V. S. 1926, i
was first provided that parties intereste'
IN the read estate where the nuisance wa
maitaincd, as well as the actual partic
to the nuisance itself, should be notite
10 appear in the court of Chancery or be
fore Il chancellor in proceedings for IA tom
porary injunction to abate liquor uui
, sanceS, which are dencd in V. S. 1912 t
be saloons, restaurants, groceries, cellars
, shops, billiard halls, bar-rOoms drinkin
. places or rooms used as places OF publ
= resort, and all buildings and erections O
. whatever kind. or the ground itself wheI
Intoxicating liquor is unlawfuly solt
, furnished, or given away, or kept for su,
unlawful purpose. The act OF 1895 NJ
80, is more specific and provides that 9TH
4 owner and all persons interested in tn
= building or premises in which such con
mon nuisance has been kept and main
I tanned, as well as the keeper, may be mad