McDonald v. Casey
| Decision Date | 06 February 1891 |
| Citation | 47 N.W. 1104,84 Mich. 505 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | MCDONALD v. CASEY. |
Error to circuit court, Jackson county; ERASTUS PECK, Judge.
Action by a wife against a saloon-keeper for injuries sustained by the sale of liquor to her husband. Pub. Acts Mich. 1887, No 313, � 13, make it unlawful for any person except a druggist to sell or give spirituous liquors to an intoxicated person or to one in the habit of getting intoxicated.
Thomas A. Wilson, for appellant.
Blair, Wilson & Blair, for appellee.
This is an action of trespass on the case brought in the Jackson circuit court by the plaintiff to recover damages occasioned by the sale of liquor to her husband by the defendant between the 1st day of October, 1887, and the 10th day of January 1888. She recovered judgment for $350. The declaration charges that the sales were illegal, in that her husband, John McDonald, was a person in the habit of getting intoxicated at the time the liquors were sold to him, which fact was well known to defendant, and that, on account of such sales, the said John McDonald became intoxicated, and while in a state of intoxication, induced by such liquors sold to him by defendant, shot himself with a revolver, wounding and disabling himself, and was thereby disabled and incapacitated from furnishing said plaintiff and her children the necessary support and maintenance which it was incumbent upon him to render, and, by reason of such intoxication, was discharged from his employment, whereby the plaintiff lost and was deprived of her means of support for herself and her children. The evidence of the plaintiff tended to show that McDonald came to Jackson in March, 1886. Some six months thereafter he moved into a house within a short distance of the defendant's place of business, who kept a grocery and saloon attached. McDonald acquired the habit of drinking soon after he came to Jackson, being a man of temperate habits before that time. The plaintiff testifies that she notified defendant not to sell her husband any liquor in the summer of 1887. She repeated the notice to him or his clerk twice during the fall. The defendant refused to quit furnishing liquors to McDonald, insisting that he had the lawful right to sell it to him. McDonald got most of his liquor at Casey's, and was frequently intoxicated, mostly evenings. He was working on the Fargo shoe contract at the prison, and his wife told Casey that he would be discharged from his work if he kept on drinking. He was discharged December 16, 1887. His wages were $15 per week. After his discharge he drank very hard, so much so that it affected his mind and nerves. On the afternoon of January 10, 1888, having been drinking in the forenoon, he got a quart bottle of brandy in the afternoon at Casey's, of Casey's wife, telling her that he wanted it for bowel complaint. He took the bottle home with him, and, after drinking about half of it, shot himself with a revolver. The ball entered his forehead on the left side, making an open scalp wound. It was some three months after the shooting before he was able to go to work, and some five months before he found employment. The defendant admitted that McDonald was in the habit of getting intoxicated, but claimed he never sold him liquor except when he was sober, and that he did this with the consent and at the request of the plaintiff, who said her husband would have liquor anyway, and she would rather he would get it at Casey's than anywhere else. The defendant furnished the family of McDonald with groceries, and beer and liquor were charged on the same pass-book as the groceries. Defendant showed that he frequently refused McDonald liquor. His wife admitted letting McDonald have the bottle of brandy, but claimed that he said he wanted it for his child that was sick, and that the doctor had ordered it.
Twenty-eight errors are assigned. We shall discuss those only that we deem of sufficient importance to be noticed in the reports. Those not discussed have been considered, however, and found not tenable as errors. We find no errors in the admission or rejection of testimony to the defendant's prejudice. The court instructed the jury that if McDonald was in the habit of getting intoxicated, and Mrs. Casey knew it, the sale of the bottle of brandy to him was unlawful, even though he said to her that the doctor ordered him to get it for sickness in his family. This is assigned as error, in connection with the refusal of the court to charge that if the jury found that plaintiff sent her husband for the brandy for the sick children, and he stated to Mrs....
To continue reading
Request your trial