Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-04-12
LIQUOR DECISION.
Bath Liquor Injunetions Sustained by
the Law Court.

The following rescript by Judge Emery
in the cases of Austin I. Davis ct ais, ir
| equity. VS.. Zebulon G. Aud ct al, has
been handed down by the law court
| These cases are the famous Bath liouol
| injunction cases which have been before
the court for the past two years and wer-
| argued before the law court at Augusta
year ago 1t will be remembered that
| the injunctions were against owners OF
buildings where liquor was sold
THE RESCRIPT.
l. 1t is the duty of the State to guard
the peace, safety, health and morals OF
its people; and for this purpose it NAV
| make use of all the powers and processes
OF government. executive. legislative and
judicial. except when forbidden by some
provision of the State or of the United
States Constitution.
2. In this State it has long been set
tied by common consent expresse d in both
legislative and judicial action, that "all
buildings. shops or places where intoxi-
eating liquors are sold for tipping pur-
poses and all places of resort where IL
quors are kept, sold. given away or dis
pensed in any manner not provided by
law, are common nuisances;" that is, are
hurtfui to the peace. safety. health, or
morals Of the people. X. S. Chap. IL,
Sec. l.
g. That the State by statute. or com
mon law, can proceed, and has hitherto
proceeded. by criminal prosecution to
punish for the maintenance Of COM
mon nuisance, and also to abate the
nuisance, does not prevent the Legisla-
ture authorizing 1t to proceed in equity
to restrain, enjoin or abate such nuis-
ance, be the equity writ of Injunction.
4. The statute of 1901 chapter 9S con-
ferring upon the supreme judicial court
and any justices thereof, jurisdiction in
equity. upon the petition of not less than
20 legal voters of the town. where a liquor
nuisance, under Revised Statute Chapter
II, is alleged to exist. to restrain en-
force, or abate such nuisance and to issue
an injunction for such purpose ds within
the legislative power and Is not prohib-
tied by any provision in either constitu-
ton.
5. There is no provision I'm either con-
stdtution requiring an equity suit in be-
half Of the State or the people to be be-
gun and carried on by the official public
prosecutor, hence the Legislature may
authorize such suit in the case of a COM
mon nuisance to be maintained by 20 legal
voters in the town where-the nuisance is
g. The Statute Of 1891, Chapter IS. au-
thorizes proceeding in equity without first
obtaining a judgment at law.
Z. That the disobedience by the defend
ant or the injunction In such suit Is ipso
facto and necessarily criminal offence
subJecting him to punishment for the
CRIME, does not exempt from other pun
isnment by the court for disobedicnce of
Its Injunction as for contempt
8. The operation of the statute is NOT
to punish for past criminal act nor to en-
join from the commission OF criminal acts
IN the future. but Is to prevent the fur
ther continuance of a present, existing.
continuous nuisance or hurt
y. The procedure under the statute IA
according to the ordinary civil proceed |
ure in equity and the petition can be sus-
tanned upon a mere preponderance Of evi |
dence in favor, since none Of the results |
of conviction for crime follow
10. The respondents in these cases d,d
not claim nor ask for jury trial, bu. |
submitted, without such request, to a
equity Proceedings; hence they have not
been denied jury trial, even II they
were entitled to one under the constitu-
ton and laws
IL. The findings Of fact by the Justice
in the first instance, are not shown upon
the appeal to be clearly erroneous. Hence
ruled, decree below affirmc,i with costs.
Wiswell. c. j.. and Strout, J., did not
concur.