The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-03-10
MUST PAY IT.
Brewery Owners Held RespOn-
sible for Drunken Murder.
AtchisOn Owners Must Pay
Widow Of Murdered Man.
OPINION BY CRETE.
Sellers of Intoxicating Liquors
Liable for Damages.
IntOxicatiOn Not Bar to COnvic-
ton for First Degree Murder.

It was decided by the supreme court
this morning that a brewery in the
state of Kansas is liable for all the
damage which may be done by those
who become intoxicated with LIQUOR
sold by the brewery. It is also held
that an intoxicated man is able to COM
NIT murder in the first degree, al
though such murder involves premedf-
tation
I This important decision is rendered
IN the case Of Ruth Reneer against two
women who run brewery at Atchfson
The amount Of judgment secured in
the lower court was $4,000.
The case of Zibold vs.. Reneer is IF
unusual Importance because it is the
nrst time that the issues there present
/ ed have been passed on by the supreme
court OF Kansas. It seems that on
! certain Sunday in June, 1900, w D.
Reneer, j. Burchart and c. T Oathou
/ went out to q little brewery on the out
skirts of AtchisOn which was run by
! Hoslha Dibold and Emma Hargelin. The
/ three men proceeded to get intoxicated
4 on beer furnished them from the brew
/ cry with the result that they got into
nght and Reneer shot and Instantly
/ killed both Burchart and Oathout he
] was convicted of murder in the first de-
gree and Is now in the penitentiary IN
/ DER a sentence of death. The action
/ was brought by his wife, Ruth Reneer.
4 eAANCA the special statute giving to
! Wife right of action in damages
I against any PRISON who shall by sell
/ ing bartering, or giving intoxica ting
/ liquors, have caused the intoxication'
/ which resulted in injury to her in per-
/ son or property or means of support
/ she based her action on the loss of
/ means OF support by reason of her hus-
/ bands being confined in the peniten-
J tiary for the commission of a crime
which resulted from his intoxication
In the lower court she recovered judy
ment against ZibOId and Haegelfn for
! $4,000 and the case was brought to the
t supreme court for review. The opinion
J was delivered by Mr. Justice Greene.
/ After drawing the distinction betwesa
4 an action under the common law and
one under the Kansas statute. holding
/ that IN passing this statute the Iegisla-
I rure extended the rule tc Include con
sequential and remote damages, he said.
The excessive use of Intoxicating IL
! quors as beverage is an unnixed evil.
/ The only purpose accomplished by It Is
I to breed and propagate vice. The legis-
4 lative shafts have been leyeled at this
practice in nearly # not every, state
and in almost every conceivable man.
ner which looked toward its regulation,
F control, or entire suppression. Tt IS
quite in accord with this policy that
/ Kansas passed the statute invoked by
! the defendant in error. It was known
+ to the legislature as it is to all other
/ persons, that the use of intoxicating
liquors is a beverage makes drunkards;
that an intoxicated person is incapable
( of caring for himself. is always in dan
4 ger of being injured, and is likely to
/ inhict injury upon others. a the cost of
his Hberty,-possibly his life; that he
habitually neglects his business and
family; that the harm resulting FROM
! the excessive use of intoxicating liquors
always falls most pitilessly upon the
dependents of the user, not infrequently
pauperising himself and family. The
! idea naturally suggested itself to the
+ legislature that if the sellers of intOXt-
cants were made liable to those who
should sustain injury to person or pro-
/ perty, or means Of support, by an intox-
+ icated person, or in consequence of in
+ tOxicatiOn, the hazard would be so great
that fewer persons would engage IN the
/ business. and those who would engage
in it would exercise more caution. The
( legislature. therefore, gave a cause of
action and created a liability for these
injuries whsre none existed al common
law
In the argument to the court the
claim was forceful1y presented that an
murder in the first decree. In passing
on that contention Mr.. Justice Greene
said:
"Intoxication is not Of itsel- defense
/ to a charge of murder in the first de-
gree. One who is intoxicated may be
I guilty Of murder in the first degree II
does not follow that because a man II
{ Intoxicated his mind is necessarily 50
Z
of celebrating or forming purpose
/ One may be Intoxicated and entertain
and act from malice; he may be tntox-
fcated and entertain a determination to
commit murder indeed. the intoxicatiO1
may suggest the murderous thought
Fer a person to be too drunk to enter
tain an intent to kill It would seem that
he would have to be too drunk to en-
/ terrain an intent to shoot.
Important Paving Decision.
In reversing the decision in Wyan-
/ dotte county paving case this morning
the supreme court takes the position
that when a paving petition calls for
| a special kind of material, which can
be furnished by only one concern, thus
| shutting off all competition, the petit
ton is invalid, and all the proceedings
are void.
This decision is of Importance in To-
/ peka, where good many such petit
lions have been acted upon favOrably
in the past.
The case was brought by the Kansas
/ City Hydraulic Pressed Brick company
/ to recover iudEm ent for material fur
/ nished to W. w Atlxin, a paving con-
tractor. Atkins bondsmen, the Ma
tional Surety company. was made party
to the suit. The lower court held that
the brick company was entitled to re-
cover. and allowed judgment for
The evidence showed. however. that
/ the petition for the paving specified
/ Diamond brick. a brand of brick man
ufactured by only one company. It
was also showed that the agents of the
! Diamond Brick company were the ones
/ who circulated the petition. The court
holds that this invaidated the whole
i proceedings. and barred the Hydraulic
I Pressed Brick company from collecting
for It's brick from Atkins or his bonds
men.
EmeIia New Case Again.
Robert H. CIogston. as trustee for
the estate Of EmeHa New, the woman