What Liquor License Amounts to.
IN the case of Dunlap vs. Wagner, reported in Volume 85 of the Indiana Supreme Court Reports, p. 529, it is decided that if one sell intoxicating liquor without a license, and the purchaser becomes drunk from drinking it, and in consequence of his drunkenness he inflicts injury on another, the person so injured may recover his damages from the seller of the intoxicating liquor. But if the seller of the liquor has a license to sell the liquor that makes the man drunk, and from whose drunkenness the injury results, then no damage can be recovered. Why so? Because when the State licenses one to sell liquor, it licenses every wrong that may result from a sale. Let us illustrate the point so that all can see it. A whisky-seller has no license from the State to sell intoxicating liquors. He sells liquor to B and makes him drunk, and in consequence of his drunkenness B falls from a buggy and is killed. The wife of B sues the liquor-seller for damages and recovers the sum of $5,000. D, another liquor-seller, who has a license, sells liquor to E and makes him drunk—he falls from a railroad car and is crushed to death. The wife of E sues the liquor-seller for her damages, but the court is compelled to tell her she can recover nothing. Why? Because the State, in the latter case, has authorized the damage to be inflicted on her. Will any man dare say the law that authorizes such a wrong as this is not an outrage on civilization? Yet we are told by timid political leaders that we must not mention these things; that to discuss them will injure the party.—Crawfordsville Journal.