Brantigam v. While

• Decision Date: 30 September 1874
• Citation: 1874 WL 9040,73 Ill. 561
• Parties: PHILIP BRANTIGAMv.AMY WHILE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

73 Ill. 561

1874 WL 9040 (Ill.)

PHILIP BRANTIGAM

v.AMY WHILE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1874.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Lee county; the Hon. WILLIAM W. HEATON, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. EUSTACE, BARGE & DIXON, for the appellant.

Mr. M. H. WILLIAMS, for the appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Lee county, rendered in an action originally brought before a justice of the peace of that county by Amy While, wife of John While, under section 5 of the Liquor Law of 1872. The damages claimed were two hundred dollars, and for this amount the jury found a verdict, and the court rendered a judgment, having overruled a motion for a new trial.

The defendant had a license to sell spirituous liquors. The jury have found, by their verdict, that John While, to whom he sold, was the husband of the plaintiff, and that he was a man in the habit of getting intoxicated. There is much testimony in the record rendering it doubtful if defendant was guilty, as it was shown her husband drank frequently at one Martin's, on the day charged, and kept whiskey and beer at his own house. But, it may be conceded, there is testimony sufficient to sustain the finding on this point.

Objections are made to the instructions given on behalf of the plaintiff, and to the ruling of the court on instructions asked by defendant. If the jury were not properly instructed, and thereby injury has resulted to the defendant, it is well settled doctrine that the judgment must be reversed. In cases like this, it is all important the law should be clearly and accurately given to the jury, and no better authority for the law of the case is to be found than that declared in repeated decisions of this court, in cases arising under this statute.

The section of the statute under which this action was brought, gives the action, among others, to every wife who shall be injured in person or property or means of support by means of selling spirituous or intoxicating liquors to the persons described. This is all for which the wife can claim damages, and courts can not add other items or causes to those specified. In Freese v. Tripp, 70 Ill. 496, which was the first case coming before this court under this law, it was held that mental suffering of any kind, of the wife, was not an element in the assessment of damages, and reference was made to Mulford v. Clewell, 21 Ohio St. R. 191, as authority on the point. Ohio being the State from which we have taken the statute, the decisions of the courts of that State on the point are entitled to respect.

This decision of this court being before the circuit court, the following instruction asked by the defendant was refused: “6. In this case the measure of damages is, the injury, if any, shown by the proof, to the person or property of the plaintiff, or to her means of support, and the jury have no right in determining the damages, if any, in this case, to take into consideration any mortification to the plaintiff's feelings or mental sufferings by her.”

The same ruling was held in all the subsequent cases coming before this court in which the question was raised, and is to be taken as the law of the case on this point. It was error to refuse this instruction.

It is also complained that the court modified defendant's first instruction. As asked, it was as follows:

“1. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the defendant in good faith instructed his employees not to sell or furnish...