The  plaintiff,  whose  husband  was  in  the  habit  of  drinking  intoxicatiiig
liquors  to  excess,  gave  notice  to  the  defendant,  a  duly  licensed  inn-
keeper, forbidding  him  to  supply  liquor  to  her  husband  ;  in  consequence
of  which  the  defendant  forbad^  his  bar-keeper  (his  son)  fumishing  liquor
to  the  husband,  but  the  bar-keeper  notwithstanding  did  serve  the  pUio-
tiff  *s  husband  with  liquor  in  the  tavern  kept  by  defendant.
R.  S.  0.  ch.  181,  sec.  90,  enacts  that  if  the  person  so  notified  dehven  or
suffers  to  he  delivertd  any  such  liquors  to  the  person  named  in  the  notice,
the  person  giving  such  notice  may  recover  from  him  not  less  than  |20,
nor  tnore  than  $200,  to  be  assessed  by  the  Court  or  jury  as  damages.
Heidi  that  defendant  was  liable.
Huq\U  v.  Merrifield,  12  C.  P.  264,  overruled.
This  Court  on  appeal  directed  a  verdict  to  be  entered  for  the  plaintiff,  bnt
referred  it  bacK  to  the  Judge  of  the  County  Court  to  assess  the  danuge^,
declining  to  follow  the  course  adopted  in  Denny  v.  The  Montrtal
Telegraph  Co.,  3  A.  R.  628.
This  was  an  appeal  from  the  judgment  of  the  County
Court  of  the  County  of  Norfolk,  refusing  to  set  aside  the
judgment  entered  for  the  defendant  and  to  enter  a  verdict
for  the  plaintiff.
The  action  was  commenced  by  writ  dated  13th  Novem-
ber, 1880,  at  the  instance  of  Margaret  Austin  against
William  Davis.
