CHAPTER XII.

CIVIL DAMAGES.

CIVIL DAMAGES-LIABILITY FOR MONEY STOLEN.—

A saloonkeeper is not liable for money taken from one while intoxicated on liquor sold to him in his saloon, under Sand. & H. Dig. § 4870, requiring him to give a bond conditioned to pay "all damages that may be occasioned by reason of liquor sold" at the saloon; the liquor not being the proximate cause of such loss.

Gage vs. Harvey (Ark.), 48 S. W. Rep. 898.

CIVIL DAMAGES-MEASURE OF DAMAGES.

A wife may be injured in her means of support where her husband's ability to furnish her with the comforts of life is lessened or destroyed, although she may not be deprived of the bare necessaries of life.

Maloney vs. Dailey (Ill.), 67 Ill. App. 427.

CIVIL DAMAGES-WHO ARE LIABLE.—

When damages for injuries caused by the sale of intoxicating liquors are sought to be recovered under the dramshop act, all those who have furnished liquors which contributed to create, or to strengthen, or to keep up the habit of drunkenness are liable, both severally and jointly.

Keller vs. Lincoln (Ill.), 67 Ill. App. 404.

CIVIL DAMAGES-PROPER TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT REFUSED TO SELL TO HUSBAND WHEN DRUNK.

In an action for damages, for the sale of liquor to plaintiff's husband, where it is admitted that defendant, contrary to plaintiff's repeated request and warnings, sold to plaintiff's husband the liquor which made him drunk, and rendered him unable to work, it is proper to exclude evidence that defendant refused to sell him liquor when actually drunk.

Wolfe vs. Johnson (Ill.), 38 N. E. Rep. 886.

CIVIL DAMAGES-INSTRUCTION TO JURY.

It is proper to instruct the jury to the effect that in estimating plaintiff's damages they may consider not only the earnings of decedent for any given period, but also the probable length of his life till terminated by natural causes.

Betting vs. Hobbett, Illinois.

CIVIL DAMAGES-CHILDREN AND WIFE MAY SUE JOINTLY OR SEPARATELY.—

Where the effect of selling liquor to a man is to deprive of support his wife and infant children, who reside together and depend on him for support, they may jointly sue the liquor seller; though each has a separate right of action. Helmeth vs. Bell (Ill.), 37 N. E. Rep. 230.

CIVIL DAMAGES-MAY SHOW PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DEATH.—

A complaint alleging that defendant unlawfully sold intoxicating liquors to plaintiff's minor child, and suffered him to drink the same until he became intoxicated, crazed, and helpless, and that while in this intoxicated condition he wandered into the river and was drowned, shows that the sale was the proximate cause of the death.

Boos vs. State (Ind.), 39 N. E. Rep. 197.

CIVIL DAMAGES-SALOONKEEPER IN INDIANA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SELLING LIQUOR TO YOUTH.

A saloonkeeper in Indiana is held to be responsible for selling liquor to a youth, who is killed while under its influence, although liquor was sold by bartender. The Court held further that it is not necessary that the father in pleading loss of support by death of son should be reduced to pecuniary straits.

App. Ct., Indiana, decision, 1896.

CIVIL DAMAGES-FATHER MAY RECOVER FOR DEATH OF MINOR SON.

The Indiana Supreme Court has handed down a decision establishing a precedent in the state. Joseph Sliney, of Huntington, obtained a verdict against Louis Gauss, a

Huntington saloonkeeper, for $670 for selling liquor to Mr. Sliney's minor son, who went from the saloon and was drowned in the river. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court on the ground that the person who sets into action any force must be responsible for the ultimate consequences of that force.

CIVIL DAMAGES-LIABILITY FOR PROXIMATE CAUSE OF

DEATH.

In an action on a bond given by a liquor dealer under Rev. St. 1881, §5315, conditioned for the payment of all judgments for civil damages growing out of unlawful sales, a complaint which alleges that by reason of liquor sold by the dealer to a person while intoxicated he became extremely drunk, and unable to manage his horses, and while driving home, he, by reason of the intoxication so produced, ran his team at a reckless speed into a rut in a highway, thereby throwing himself to the ground, and was run over and killed, shows that the intoxication produced by the liquor sold him by the liquor dealer was the proximate cause of his death.

Wall vs. State (Ind.), 38 N. E. Rep. 190.

CIVIL DAMAGES-SALOONKEEPER RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY VALUES.

The Supreme Court of Indiana in 1894 decided that if a saloon causes property to depreciate in value it is a nuisance within the law and can be abated, and the person who operates the saloon is liable in damages to the injured party. Haggart vs. Stehlin, Indiana.

CIVIL DAMAGES-WIFE MAY RECOVER THOUGH SALE WAS MADE TO STRANGER.

In an action by a wife for damages for the sale of intoxicating liquors to her husband, the fact that the liquor drank by the husband was bought by other persons does not preclude a recovery.

Carrier vs. Bernstein, 73 N. W. Rep. 1076.

CIVIL DAMAGES-ADMINISTRATOR CANNOT SUE FOR.

The District Court at Des Moines, Iowa, in October, 1898, decided that:

An administrator cannot bring action for damages against a saloonkeeper for the death of a man from the effects of liquor drinking.

CIVIL DAMAGES-NOTICE FORBIDDING SALE TO HUSBAND BY WIFE, SIGNED FOR HER BY ANOTHER PERSON AT HER REQUEST, IS SUFFICIENT.

In an action under Pub. St., ch. 100, § 25, forbidding the sale of liquor to a husband after "notice" by the wife “in writing, signed by her," where the notice given bore the wife's name, but signed by another person at her request and in her presence, she knowing the contents and objects of such notice, it was sufficient.

Finnegan vs. Lucy (Mass.), 32 N. E. Rep. 656.

CIVIL DAMAGES-EVIDENCE OF CONVICTION FOR DRUNKENNESS ADMISSIBLE TO SHOW DAMAGES.

In an action by a wife for damages for sale of liquor to her husband, evidence of his conviction for drunkenness caused by the liquor is admissible, not to prove the drunkenness, but to show damages.

Lucker vs. Liske (Mich.), 70 N. W. Rep. 421.

CIVIL DAMAGES-PRINCIPAL AND SURETIES ON DIFFERENT BONDS MAY BE JOINED IN A SINGLE ACTION.

Under 3 How. Ann. St., § 2283e3, making "any person or persons," and, if licensed liquor dealers, the sureties on their bonds, who have furnished liquors to a person, liable, "jointly and severally," for injuries suffered by others by such person's intoxication by said liquors, the principals and sureties on different bonds may be joined in a single action. Franklin vs. Frey (Mich.), 68 N. W. Rep. 970.

CIVIL DAMAGES-LIABLE FOR DAMAGE SUSTAINED BY WIFE, EVEN THOUGH HUSBAND WAS HABITUAL DRUNKARD BEFORE SUCH SALES BEGUN.

In an action against a saloonkeeper for selling liquor to plaintiff's husband, thereby injuring her means of sup

port, and her feelings, defendant will be liable for whatever damages plaintiff has sustained from his acts, though the husband was an habitual drunkard before such sales began. Ford vs. Cheveer (Mich.), 63 N. W. Rep. 970.

CIVIL DAMAGES-MOTHER ENTITLED TO RECOVER FOR DEATH OF ADULT SON, WHO CONTRIBUTED TO HER SUPPORT.—

Acts 1887, No. 313, § 20, provides that every "parent who shall be injured in person or property or means of sup port, by reason of the intoxication of any person, shall have a right of action" against the person who shall, by furnishing intoxicating liquor, have caused or contributed to such intoxication: Held, that plaintiff was entitled to recover for the death of her adult son caused by intoxication resulting from liquor furnished him by defendant, where the son actually contributed to plaintiff's support, though there was no legal obligation on him to do so.

Eddy vs. Courtright (Mich.), 51 N. W. Rep. 887.

CIVIL DAMAGES-WIFE MAY RECOVER FOR INJURY TO HER

FEELINGS.—

Where a wife is injured in person, or property, or means of support or "otherwise" by reason of the sale of intoxicating liquors to her husband (3 How. St., §2283e3), she may recover for injuries to her feelings.

Radley vs. Seider (Mich.), 58 N. W. Rep. 366.

CIVIL DAMAGES-ALL CONTRIBUTING TO INTOXICATION LIABLE.

Under act of 1887, making the saloonkeeper liable for all damages which result to the wife by reason of the hus band's intoxication, anyone causing or contributing to the intoxication is liable.

Wood vs. Lentz (Mich.), 74 N. W. Rep. 462.

CIVIL DAMAGES-JOINT LIABILITY OF ALL VENDORS.—

Under 3 How. St., § 2283e3, making all who contribute by sales of liquor to an intoxication jointly and severally lia