Richards v. Moore
| Citation | 19 A. 390,62 Vt. 217 |
| Parties | SARAH ANN RICHARDS v. DAN P. MOORE |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1890 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
JANUARY TERM, 1890.
This was an action on the case under R. L. s. 3833 by the plaintiff against the defendant for having unlawfully furnished to her husband liquor occasioning his intoxication and consequent death. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the April Term, 1889, ROWELL, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Exceptions by the defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
H C. Adams and Geo. A. Ballard, for the defendant.
This was an action on the case under s. 3833, R. L giving a dependant wife an action for damages consequent upon the death of her husband occasioned by intoxication resulting from liquor unlawfully sold by the defendant.
On trial the plaintiff's evidence tended to show that the defendant sold intoxicating liquor to the plaintiff's husband; that he became intoxicated therefrom and in consequence was killed in a collision of his carriage with that of a traveler whom he met upon the highway.
To meet this evidence in part, the defendant offered to show that he had known the deceased for several years, knew his intemperate habits, and had often on previous occasions refused to let him have liquor, as evidence tending to show that he refused him liquor on the day of his death. It is somewhat difficult to appreciate the reasoning urged in behalf of the admissibility of this evidence. If the fact that a man refuses to sell liquor to A yesterday is any evidence of a refusal to-day, it follows that proof of a sale yesterday tends to prove a sale to-day. It is hardly probable that counsel would contend that a sale to-day could be established in such manner. There is no logical relation or dependance existing between an innocent or guilty act of this kind, done on a previous occasion, and a later one, and the fact that the defendant remained at the depot on the day in question after discovering that Richards was at his hotel, fearing that he would be led into the temptation to sell Richards liquor, or would lack the courage to refuse him as he had done on former occasions, does not help the matter. The evidence was properly excluded.
To show that Richards had liquor on the day in question of one Mobray and to reason therefrom that he did not have it of defendant the defendant put in evidence testimony showing that Richards on his return journey from Enosburgh Falls stopped at Mobray's and that Mobray came out to Richards' wagon that Richards handed him something; that Mobray went into the house and shortly returned and handed Richards something, and he thereupon drove away. These movements hardly come up to the standard of cold facts establishing a sale of...
To continue reading
Request your trial