Albrecht v. Walker

Citations

• 73 Ill. 69

Syllabus

<p>1. Intoxicating liquors—wife's right to damages for selling to her husband. There must be proof of injury to the wife in her person, property or means of support by the intoxication of her husband, to justify a finding of damages in a suit by her against the person furnishing the liquor to him, and without such damages, exemplary damages can not be awarded. Abuse of the wife by cursing her, when under the influence of liquor, is not an element of damages, but there must be actual personal violence.</p> <p>3. Same—ecsempla/ry damages. Exemplary damages can not be awarded against the seller of intoxicating liquor to a husband, in a suit by the wife, for selling without license, or upon the Sabbath day, by way of punishment, as the law has provided for that by indictment. If the seller seduces'a party from the path of sobriety, or knowingly induces one attempting to reform to violate his resolution, exemplary damages may be awarded in the nature of compensation to the injured party.</p> <p>3. Jurors—prejudice as a ground of challenge. The fact that a juror is prejudiced against the business of a party, but not against him, is not a sufficient ground of challenge.</p> <p>4. In a suit against a manufacturer of lager beer, by a wife, for selling beer to her husband, a juror stated, under oath, that bethought the business of manufacturing and selling beer was a perfect nuisance; that it was a very low business; that no man should be allowed to engage in it; that he had no sympathy at all for a man engaged in it; that it was a curse to the community, and that lie would do all in his power, except raising mobs, to break down places for the manufacture and sale of beer: Reid, that he was incompetent on account of his prejudices.</p> <p>5. Instruction. It is error in an instruction to hring matters to the consideration of the jury not cognizable by them, as an element of damages and calculated to influence their minds against a parly.</p>