ble for injuries resulting therefrom, different liquor sellers who on the same day sell to the same person intoxicants, which cause separate and distinct intoxications, resulting in injuries to others, are not joint tort-feasors, and hence a discharge of one does not release all.

Jewell vs. Welch (Mich.), 75 N. W. Rep. 283.

CIVIL

DAMAGES-SALOONKEEPER'S

OWN DRINKING NOT

TRAFFICKING SO AS TO MAKE SURETIES LIABLE.

S., a saloonkeeper, while intoxicated in his own saloon, shot and killed the plaintiff's husband. Held, that the drinking of the liquor by S. was not a traffic in intoxicating liquor, within the meaning of the law, or such as will render his sureties liable in an action upon his bond.

Curten vs. Atkinson (Neb.), 54 N. W. Rep. 131.

CIVIL DAMAGES-KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF PLAINTIFF TO THE FURNISHING OF LIQUOR TO HUSBAND, DOES NOT DEFEAT ACTION.

An action by a widow for damage suffered in consequence of the furnishing to her deceased husband of intoxicating liquors cannot be defeated by proof that such liquors were furnished by the defendant, a licensed saloonkeeper, with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff.

Kliment vs. Corcoran (Neb.), 70 N. W. Rep. 916.

CIVIL DAMAGES-ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE AS TO SUPPORT OF MINOR CHILDREN.

Under the "civil damage act," the fact that minor children are able to support themselves, and had done so prior to the death of the father, is a proper fact for the jury to consider in ascertaining the amount of damages to be allowed; but it is error to instruct the jury that to the extent that a child had in the past supported himself, the law precludes any recovery; the duty to support, and the probability of future support, as well as the fact of past support, being elements for consideration.

Huston vs. Gran (Neb.), 57 N. W. Rep. 403.

CIVIL DAMAGES-ESSENTIAL FACTS TO BE SHOWN.

In an action on the bond of a saloonkeeper, the fact essential to be shown is the disqualification to support those thereto entitled, caused or contributed to by sales of intoxicating liquors to one upon whom legally devolves the duty of furnishing such support; and this disqualification may be either partial in effect or limited in duration, by reason of physical disability, or it may become complete as by death. Chmelir vs. Sawyer (Neb.), 60 N. W. Rep. 547.

CIVIL DAMAGES SURETIES ON BOND LIABLE.—

A licensed dealer in intoxicating liquors and the sureties upon his bond are liable for the loss of support sustained by the widow and children of one whose death was contributed to by intoxicating liquors drunk by him, and which were furnished him by the dealer.

Schiek vs. Sanders (Neb.), 74 N. W. 39.

CIVIL DAMAGES-LOSS OF SUPPORT.—

In an action for damages by a married woman against a saloonkeeper for loss of means of support resulting from the sale of liquors to her husband, it is error to instruct the jury that habits of the husband, prior to the acts complained of, are immaterial. Although the fact that he drank to excess will not defeat a recovery, yet such fact may properly be considered by the jury as affecting the measure of damages.

Uldrich vs. Gilmore (Neb.), 53 N. W. Rep. 135.

CIVIL DAMAGES-LIABLE IF LIQUOR MERELY CONTRIBUTES TO DAMAGES.

Under the statutes relating to damages caused by furnishing intoxicating liquors it is not necessary that the liquor furnished, or any resultant intoxication, should be the sole, or even the principal cause of damage. It is sufficient if it contributes to produce the injuries.

McClellan vs. Hein (Neb), 77 N. W. Rep. 120.

CIVIL DAMAGES-NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGE TO ANOTHER BY DRUNKEN MAN WHO DID NOT BUY OF HIM.

Under Laws 1873, ch. 646, making a seller of liquor liable for injuries to others caused by the intoxication of the person to whom the liquor was sold, a liquor seller is not liable where a person was injured by the reckless driving of a drunken man, who did not himself purchase the liquor by which he was intoxicated, but which was purchased by a friend, it not being shown that the drunken person was a participant in such purchase.

Dudley vs. Parker New York.

CIVIL DAMAGES-NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF LESSOR TO SALE.

It is not essential to the right of the plaintiff, in an action under section 4364 of the Revised Statutes to subject the premises where intoxicating liquors were unlawfully sold to the payment of the damages caused by such sales, either that the premises should have been leased for the purpose of selling liquor thereon in violation of law, or that the owner or lessor had knowledge that such liquors were to be sold thereon, or knowingly permitted the sales which caused the damages. Such action may be maintained, if the premises were leased to be used for the sale of intoxicating liquor, or were permitted by the lessor to be so used.

Mullen vs. Peck (Ohio), 31 N. E. Rep. 1077.

CIVIL DAMAGES-IF SON HAS NO FAMILY RELATION WITH FATHER, LATTER CANNOT RECOVER FOR INJURIES TO SON.

A father, between whom and his adult son neither a subsisting family relation, nor that of master and servant was shown to exist, is not a person "aggrieved" by injuries to the son resulting from the sale of liquor to him while intoxicated, within the meaning of Act Pa., May 8, 1884, which renders the vendor of intoxicating liquors to one already drunk, civilly liable to “any one aggrieved" in jerson or property in consequence thereof; and the father cannot

recover money voluntarily expended by him for medical services, nursing, etc., in consequence of such injuries to the

son.

Veon vs. Creaton, Sup. Ct., Pennsylvania.

CIVIL DAMAGES-LIABILITY OF SALOONKEEPERS FOR EFFECTS OF LIQUOR SOLD.

Where a saloonkeeper sold whisky to a man who was already intoxicated, from the effects of which he fell in a gutter, contracted pneumonia, and died; Held, his widow entitled to recover under statute in Pennsylvania. Under such circumstances saloonkeeper does not escape liability imposed by alleging that the liquor was the proximate cause of death and that plaintiff drank it voluntarily. Pennsylvania Sup. Ct., 1892.

CIVIL DAMAGES-SELLING LIQUOR TO HABITUAL DRUNK

ARD.

A Tennessee saloonkeeper was fined $2,500 for supplying liquor after written notice from the wife, and from which liquor the husband died.

The Court held on appeal:

(1) Even though the notice to cease selling to the deceased omitted to state that he was an habitual drunkard, it was sufficient, as the fact of habitual drunkenness could be established otherwise.

(2) Even though the notice was not served by an officer, this provision is directive and not mandatory, and is for the purpose of preserving the evidence in order that an indictment may be found.

CIVIL DAMAGES-LIQUOR DEALER'S LIABILITY IN TEXASSTATUTORY NOTICE TO BE GIVEN.

The written statutory notice was given to the dealer by the wife prior to the execution of the bond, the breach of which, namely, sale to the husband, occurred during the life of the bond. Held, principal and sureties liable.

Hahn vs. Blair Bros., Ct. of App., Texas, 1899.

CIVIL DAMAGES-MINOR-ACTION SHOULD BE BROUGHT BY FATHER, NOT BY MOTHER.

An action on a liquor dealer's bond for the "liquidated damages" allowed by the statute for the sale of liquor to a minor cannot be maintained by a married woman, joined pro forma by her husband, as the cause of action should be brought by the husband.

Wartelsky vs. McGee (Tex.), 30 S. W. Rep. 69.

CIVIL DAMAGES-MOTHER MAY BRING ACTION.

Under sec. 20, ch. 32, Code of West Virginia, a married woman, injured by reason of unlawful sales of intoxicating liquors to a son, may maintain a suit for damages, notwithstanding her husband, father of such son, may be living.

CHAPTER XIII.

ILLEGAL SALE,

ILLEGAL SALE-CONVICTION IRRESPECTIVE OF BELIEF OR

MOTIVE.

Under Acts 1880-81, p. 170, § 1, which declares it unlawful to manufacture or sell "any intoxicating decoction, mixture, compound, or bitters whatever, in any quantity or for any use or purpose, within the limits of the counties of Clark and Limestone," a person who sold as medicines, in quantities less than a quart, a "strengthening cordial" and a "ginger tonic" which contained sufficient alcohol to and did intoxicate persons using them, was rightly convicted, irrespective of his belief, motive or intention.

Compton vs. State (Ala.), 11 South. Rep. 69.

ILLEGAL SALE-REFERS TO SALE OR GIFT.

Under a statute prohibiting "the selling, giving or otherwise disposing of" intoxicating liquors without a li