
    Cecil Horrigths, Appellee, v. Peter Troesch et al., Appellants.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Frank W. Burton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed June 10, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Cecil Horrigths, plaintiff, against Peter Troesch, George Reisch, Joseph Reisch and Annie Reisch, defendants, under the Dramshop Act, sec. 9 (J. & A. ¶ 4609), for injury to her means of support. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. The defendants were saloon keepers, alleged to have sold liquor which caused intoxication of the plaintiff’s husband and of one Young who, while intoxicated, killed her husband. The owners of the premises on which such liquor was sold were also joined as defendants.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Intoxicating liquors, § 227
      
      —how knowledge of owner of building of traffic in liquor shoion. In an action by a wife under the Dramshop Act, sec. 9 (J. & A. ¶ 4609), against a saloon keeper and owners of premises where the intoxicants were sold, it may be shown by facts and circumstances that the owners knew that the occupant was engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquor.
    2. Intoxicating liquors, § 227
      
      —when evidence sufficient to show knowledge by owner of building of sale of. In an action by a wife under the Dramshop Act, sec. 9 (J. & A. ¶ 4609), against a saloon keeper and. owners of premises whereon the intoxicants were sold, held that the fact that the saloon keeper had conducted a dramshop on the premises for several years was a circumstance from which the jury could reasonably infer that the owner knew that intoxicating liquor was being sold there. 3. Intoxicating liquors, § 172*—when degree of intoxication immaterial. In an action by a wife under the Dramshop Act, sec. 9 (J. & A. ¶ 4609), for injury to her means of support,, held that if the intoxication caused by the defendant saloon keeper was such that in consequence thereof the plaintiff' suffered damage to her means of support, the degree of intoxication was immaterial.
    
      The evidence showed that Young and Horrigths were coal miners. They received their pay the morning of April 30th, and spent the afternoon of that .day in and about Troesch’s saloon, drinking, and both got very drunk. They lived in the same house and went home drunk. While in that condition Horrigths quarreled with his wife. Mrs. Young interfered and Young and Horrigths also got into a quarrel, after which Young, while still intoxicated, shot and- killed Horrigths.
    W. H. Nelms and F. P. Drennan, for appellants.
    S. H. Cummins, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Intoxicating liquors, § 247*—when death of person due to intoxication of another is question for jury. In an action by a wife under the Dramshop Act, sec. 9 (J. & A. ¶ 4609), for injury to her means of support, resulting from her husband having been killed by one to whom the defendant saloon keeper had sold intoxicating liquor, held that the question - whether the intoxication was the proximate cause of the killing was for the jury.  