Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/200

184 l84 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. within their walls liquor of any description — that is, of course, in a prohibition town ; and apparently no device which the ingenuity of their members can suggest, would be sufficient to exempt them from liabiHty under the statute. The words of the statute are " all buildings or places used by clubs for the purpose of selling, distributing, and dis- pensing," etc. In order to escape liability, the defendant would have to prove that the club was not used for the purpose mentioned. To do this, he would probably have to show that the club itself does not own any liquor ; that it does not sell, distribute, nor dispense it ; that each member keeps at the club — as he might with impunity at his private house — a private stock of liquor, which, if purchased for him by the steward of the club, must be shown to have been purchased by his special authority, and not by that of the club, the steward being his agent, and not the agent of the club ; and that payment for the liquor was made by him to the dealer, and not to the club. Even if he proved all this, the courts would probably find some means of bringing the club within the meaning of the statute. It may be of interest to print the following extract from the report of the committee, consisting of Lord Coleridge and other distinguished persons, which was appointed by the Lord Chancellor in 1881 to in- vestigate the desirability of changes in the procedure of the High Court of Justice. In his article on the Burden of Proof, in the May number of this Review,^ Professor Thayer refers to this report. It appeared in full in the " London Times," of Oct. 8, 188 1, but, so far as we know, has not been reprinted. " The committee had, in the first place, to consider how far it was desirable, in order to expedite the proceedings in an action, to com- bine with the writ of summons a statement of the plaintiff's demand, to which the defendant, when he appeared, might be required to put in his answer. The committee directed an examination to be made ot the judicial statistics for 1879, with the view to the solution of this and the other questions relating to procedure submitted for their considera- tion, and the following results have been arrived at: In the year 1879 there were issued in the divisions of the High Court in London — writs, 59,659. Of the actions thus commenced, there were settled, without appearance, 15,372, i.e., 25.68 per cent.; by judgment by default, 16,967, i.e., 28.34 per cent.; by judgment under Order XIV., 4,251, i.e., 7.10 per cent.; total of practically undefended cases, 36,590, i.e., 61.12 percent.; cases unaccounted for, and therefore presumably settled or abandoned after some litigation, 20,804, ^- ^-5 35- 10 per cent. The remaining cases were thus accounted for : Decided in court, — for plain- tiffs, 1,232 ; for defendants, 521 ; before masters and official referees, 512; total, 2,265; that is, 3.78 per cent, of the actions brought. From these figures it seemed clear that the writ in its present form was effective in bringing defendants to a settlement at a small cost, and that it was unad- visable to make any alteration by uniting it with a plaint or other statement of the plaintiff's cause of action, which would add to the expense of the first step in the litigation. " In the next place, the committee had to consider how far it was pos- sible, in those cases in which litigation was continued after the appear- 1 4 Harv. L. Rev. 57.