Daily Kennebec journal., 1901-12-12

tle meaning of the statute as we con-
strue it,
II is true that in the states where q
similar statute exists the courts have
reached different conclusions upon this
question. In Barrett VS.. Dolan. l30
Massachusetts 366, the Massachusetts
court held that such an action under
these circumstances. and under simi-
l7r statute. could not be maintained
lhe reason given being that the cause
If action was the death of the husband
ana in that commonwealth there is no
right Of action hy any person for dam
ages occaSioned by causing the death
Of another. Again. in Harrington VS..
NckillOp. 49, Massachusetts 567. the
court ieaiiirmed the same doctrine
merely following the preceding case
ana without giving any reasons.
II Davis vs.. Justice. 3t Ohio 359 the
court decided that in action under the
civil damage act for injury to wife'S
mems Of support in consequence of in
toHication OF the husband, which re
suited in his death. damages resulting
from the death could not be recovered
Eut III a dissenting opinion in that
case the conclusion Of the court was
criticized as follows: The argument
IF counsel for the plaintiff and the
judgment OF the court seem to he
founded on the mistaken notion that
the action is brought to recover dam
.ses for the death Of the husbn nd.
Such is not the case The wrongful
act which constitutes the ground of the
action is the Illegal sale of the liquor
causing the intoXicaticn from which
the injury results. The Death of the
hus0and only affects the measure of
the damages 1t destroys his ahil ty
to labor. ana thereby diminishes the
Wife's ma9nS of support. II the hus-
bard had lost both his arms or legs or
become PEI manently insane, in ccnse-
Cuence of intoXication. or had other
wise become permanently disabled 10
perform physical labor and had sur
vived. the result to the wife would have
been precisely the same. Her injury,
IN either case, would consist in the
dapriV Al ton Of the means of support
IL sulting from the loss of her nus
bands ability to labor" In a later
cas. in that state kirchner VS.. Myers,
81 Ohio. the court adheres TO It's Tor
uar decision. but says that the quas-
tion was not free from difficulty ard
cites a number of cases where the op-
pcsite result was reached.
Tpon th. other hand, in the follow
ING cases. urGer similar statutes, the
ro,,rts have held that whore il wife
has been deprived Of her means OF sup
mort by the death of her husband re-
sultiug from intoxication she had
Cni,
ford 81 Illlncis; Roose vs. Perkins. J
Nebraska where it ie said: "Ihc ac-
rlon belng for loss of the means OF sup
port. II will lie in any case where the
loss Is merely temporary as by dlsa-
| h,li1y. or permanent as BY death.
In the latter case 1t IS said: II the
| ni,lry which had resulted 10 the de-
ceased in consequence of his lntoNlca-
! tion had disabled him for life or TO
such an extent as to incapacitate him
! fro,n labor and from earning support
for his family, it would no doubt be
embraced within the meaning ard in
tent OF the statute. That death en-
su-l ~ consequence thereof furnishes
much stronger ground for a claim for
a los, Of means of support. and a df-
f.rnnt rule in tic latter ease would
make provision for the lesser and tenn
porarv injury, while that which w9s
greatest and most serious would be
without any remedy or means of re-
dress
The reasoning of these latter cases
seems 10 us to be more satisfactory,
and Il in entire accord with our own
conclusion. We therefore hold that
Where a wife has been injured in her
means of support by reason of the
death Of her husband caused by his
intoyication. she can maintain an ac-
tion under this statute against the per-
son who sold or gave him the liquor
that produced the intoxication. The
facts stated in the plaintiffs declara-
tion consequently constitutes a cause
Of action.